Orwellian Logic
How to Learn to Love U.S. Bombs
by Norman Solomon
from Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR),
October 1998
During the week after U.S. missiles hit sites in Sudan and
Afghanistan, some Americans seemed uncomfortable. A vocal minority
even voiced opposition. But approval was routine among those who
had learned a few easy Orwellian lessons:
* When terrorists attack, they're terrorizing. When we attack,
we're retaliating. When they respond to our retaliation with further
attacks, they're terrorizing again. When we respond with further
attacks, we're retaliating again.
* When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S. government,
they're aiding propaganda efforts. In sharp contrast, when civilian
deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators
are evil and those deaths are tragedies.
* When they put bombs in cars and kill people, they're uncivilized
killers. When we put bombs on missiles and kill people, we're
upholding civilized values.
* When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're
striking against terror.
* At all times, Americans must be kept fully informed about
who to hate and fear. When the United States found Osama bin Laden
useful during the 1980s because of his tenacious violence against
the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan, he was good, or at least
not bad-but now he's really bad.
* No matter how many times they've lied in the past, U.S.
officials are credible in the present. When they vaguely cite
evidence that the bombed pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was
making ingredients for nerve gas, that should be good enough for
us.
* Might doesn't make right-except in the real world, when
it's American might. Only someone of dubious political orientation
would split hairs about international law.
* When the mass media in some foreign countries serve as megaphones
for the rhetoric of their government, the result is ludicrous
propaganda. When the mass media in our country serve as megaphones
for the rhetoric of the U.S. government, the result is responsible
journalism.
Unlike the TV anchors spouting the government line in places
like Sudan and Afghanistan, ours don't have to be told what to
say. They have the freedom to report as they choose.
"Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip,"
George Orwell observed, "but the really well-trained dog
is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip."
Orwell noted that language "becomes ugly and inaccurate
because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our
language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
And his novel 1984 explained that "the special function of
certain Newspeak words . . . was not so much to express meanings
as to destroy them."
National security. Western values. The world community. War
against terrorism. Collateral damage. American interests.
What's so wondrous about Orwellian processes is that they
tend to be very well camouflaged-part of the normal scenery. Day
in and day out, we take them for granted. And we're apt to stay
away from uncharted mental paths.
In 1904, Orwell wrote about the conditioned reflex of "stopping
short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous
thought . . . and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought
which is capable of leading in a heretical direction."
Orwell described "doublethink" as the willingness
"to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then,
when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion
for just so long as it is needed."
In his afterword to 1984, Erich Fromm emphasized "the
point which is essential for the understanding of Orwell's book,
namely that 'doublethink' is already with us, and not merely something
which will happen in the future, and in dictatorships."
Fifty-two years ago, Orwell wrote an essay titled "Politics
and the English Language." Today, his words remain as relevant
as ever: "In our time, political speech and writing are largely
the defense of the indefensible."
Repression and atrocities "can indeed be defended,"
Orwell added, "but only by arguments which are too brutal
for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed
aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist
largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
National security. Western values. The world community. War
against terrorism. Collateral damage. American interests.
Public
Relations watch