I am astounded by just how prescient George Orwell was in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and how few appear to realize its applicability to the radical secular progressive movement that controls the Democrat Party.
The parallels between the world of the novel and the reality of the radical secular progressive movement are frightening to the point that it appears the progressives studied the book and adopted its themes. Their Big Brother is Barack Obama who is surrounded by an intense cult of personality and revered as quasi-divine by his followers. However, neither Obama’s birth certificate nor his celebrated life achievements have ever been proven to exist. Like the novel, Obama and the progressives justify the tyranny of their rule as being for the greater good. They just want to control us so they can save us.
Progressive elites, educated in liberal Ivy League universities and laboring under the illusion that they bear the burden of an imagined “public service” as penance for enjoying their privileged status, persecute all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes in the form of political correctness. Progressives are aided and abetted in their control by a loyal media whose job is to bias news of current events so as to portray the party in the most favorable light and their detractors the conservatives as the scapegoats for all that is wrong. Leftists infiltrating the universities assist the party by rewriting historical events to parrot the progressive line.
Political correctness is an insidious form of mind control that employs newspeak to banish unfavorable words into an unspeakable oblivion. It is wielded by proponents as a nuclear option to shut down debate on any topic by casting the accused as an intolerant miscreant deserving of shame for daring to violate the tenets of political correctness despite the merits of their arguments. The fear of offending some loosely defined group trumps the free exchange of ideas. Bureaucracies employ it as a way to avoid dealing effectively with the public, and ironically, the staunchest supporters of political correctness are universities whose mission is supposedly the free exchange of ideas expressly prevented by political correctness.
Progressives employ doublethink to rationalize contradictions between their idealism and reality. Thus, serial womanizers who regard women as personal playthings such as Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy can be held up as feminist icons because they support the progressive agenda. Similar behavior by Republicans is instantly condemned as evidence of their war on women. In this way, all negativity is projected onto conservatives as progressives adopt the faux mantle of moral superiority. The progressive label was selected to represent forward thinking despite being the most repressive movement in modern politics.
The media constantly portray the radical secular progressive agenda as being normal and supported by a majority of Americans despite vehement opposition to its more radical concepts such as the Affordable Care Act, which it turns out is the most unaffordable care act in yet another example of doublespeak. Doublespeak is what allowed Hillary Clinton to simultaneously be unaware of State Department operations in Benghazi while being the most involved and effective Secretary of State in American history. Only doublethink could allow Hillary to both know and not know at the same time, and any attempts by conservatives to point this out are instantly labeled as thoughtcrimes. This cognitive dissonance also allows Hillary to pose the absurd “What difference does it make?” question in rebuttal to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi terrorist attack. As an attorney, she knows better, but it allowed her to smear the congressional investigation into her possible real crime of a cover up for administration negligence as a thoughtcrime against the progressive orthodoxy.
Progressives employ projection to tar their opponents with internal sins they are powerless to eliminate. In this way, they can lambaste the evils of these sins while mercilessly attacking conservatives as being the perpetrators of their sins. The narrative is carefully constructed so that opposition attempts at defense appear to prove the efficacy of the progressive orthodoxy. Republicans were reduced to denying the existence of the phony war on women instead of effectively engaging Obama’s progressives on substantive issues during the campaign.
Republicans have been bludgeoned by the media’s propaganda machine into believing that moderation is the key to electoral success by progressives whose goal is to prevent their ascendancy to power in the first place. In the spirit of Winston Smith, Republican leaders are shown their worst fears of electoral defeat and instantly betray their principles in progressive reeducation torture sessions. Fully rehabilitated and reintegrated into the progressive orthodoxy, these Republican moderates support the progressive agenda while pretending to be in opposition.
I suppose much of the reason for not recognizing the parallels between the novel and the present political situation is that the novel’s themes have become the new normal for us as we’ve transitioned from the shock of their initial personification into the numbness of their ubiquity. We can no longer see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Reading the novel leaves one with the mixed emotions of elation at recognition of present day political reality all neatly explained in one volume along with profound sadness at the realization that our political situation has succumbed to such absurdity.