He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
That quote from the Declaration of Independence could be uttered by any American who has had an encounter with federal regulators. From the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Department of Education to the Department of Labor to many other federal agencies, departments, and bureaus, swarms of federal officers harass our people and eat out their substance.
In fact, today Americans cannot get a job, open a bank account, or transfer money between a savings and checking account, educate our children, or even take a shower without having to comply with some federal regulation.
This is why Campaign for Liberty is working to pass the REINS (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) Act in Congress. REINS already passed the House and is pending before the Senate. If you attend an event with your senator during the Independence Day festivities, make sure you ask them to support REINS — and make sure you tell them to oppose any efforts to water down the bill.
And if your representative voted for REINS, then make sure to thank him or her, and if your Representative opposed REINS make sure you let them — and other pro-liberty friends and neighbors — know how disappointed you are in them.
A special thank you to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and Georgia Representative Doug Collins — who is the sixth ranking member of the GOP House leadership — for taking the lead as main sponsors of REINS legislation in the Senate and House respectively.
Representative Collins was joined by all of his fellow Georgia Republicans — including Representative Tom Graves who Chairs the Financial Services Appropriation Subcommittee — in supporting REINS.
Campaign for Liberty members deserve credit for taking REINS from a fringe issue to one embraced by the GOP leadership. Now we need to ramp up our efforts and get REINS passed by the Senate and sent to the president where he can sign it into law!
Vía Campaign for Liberty » National Blog http://ift.tt/2t1ZTrQ
The big action this week is the Senate vote on their non-repeal, non-replace Obamacare bill. The bill remains a “work in progress,” and is likely to remain so until the final vote, as Senate leadership cuts deals to get the votes needed to pass it.
On Monday afternoon, the bill was amended to include a “continuous coverage” provision, allowing insurance companies to make individuals wait six months before getting insurance if their policy lapses. While Republican leadership claims to be against the individual insurance mandate, they have no problem using government force to punish individuals for not carrying health insurance.
The Senate could vote on the health care bill this Friday or Saturday, and there is a possibility that the House will vote immediately afterward.
The House is currently scheduled to be in session Monday through Friday. Among the legislation being considered is H.R. 1215.
H.R. 1215 sets a federal statute of limitations on medical malpractice lawsuits, limits the amount of “non-economic” damages (such as pain and suffering) that can be awarded, and allows introduction of evidence of other compensation to the plaintiff (such as insurance payments).
Whatever one thinks of the merits of these proposals, the fact is they violate the 10th Amendment. The bill’s proponents claim it is constitutional because it only applies to cases with a “federal nexus.”
However, it defines federal nexus so broadly that any medical procedure effected in any way by federal law — including one where the patient uses federal health care tax credits — would be covered. Unconstitutional infringement of state power should never be used to justify a new usurpation of state authority.
Here and below is a column written by C4L Chairman Ron Paul wrote about this issue in 2003:
The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
I’ve spent nearly four decades practicing medicine as an obstetrician, and I’ve seen firsthand how the cost of medical malpractice insurance has risen. Among doctors, malpractice costs truly represent a crisis that threatens the economic viability of the profession.
There is no question that medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control in this country. We’ve become a society that expects medical care to be guaranteed, that demands a perfect outcome to every medical procedure. Mother Nature provides no guarantees however, and things can go wrong without the slightest negligence by the doctor involved.
Of course some malpractice suits are legitimate, and truly negligent doctors should pay economic damages. But far too many suits are filed simply because a patient is unhappy despite the competent efforts of his doctor, and far too meritless suits are settled simply to avoid litigation costs.
The result is malpractice premiums that cost doctors tens of thousands of dollars per year, and increasingly threaten to put some out of business. Every American pays for this not only in the form of much higher medical costs, but also in countless other ways.
Trauma center doctors have walked off the job in protest. Many doctors feel stressed, unhappy, and unappreciated, which leads to a declining quality of care. Most are hesitant to explore new treatments that could benefit patients because they fear a lawyer will seize on any deviation from standard practices. Similarly, patients endure more and more unnecessary and costly tests ordered by doctors who feel they must explore even the most unlikely diagnoses. Worst of all, the best and brightest young people are abandoning the pursuit of medical careers.
Already faced with years in medical school and daunting tuition bills, they increasingly understand that malpractice and economic concerns have damaged the quality of life for doctors. Many Americans understandably want Congress to fix the medical malpractice problem.
Yet the solution offered by Congress, namely the federalization of malpractice law, threatens to do more harm than good. First and foremost, this approach damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules. Capping liability limits sounds appealing, but it fails to address the basic problem of too many lawsuits and too many shakedowns, most of which settle for less than the proposed caps anyway.
The federal approach also ignores the root cause of the malpractice crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contract to viewing it as one governed by federal regulations. The third-party payer system, largely the result of federal tax laws and the HMO Act of 1973, invites insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers into the equation.
This destroys the patient’s incentive to keep costs down, because he feels he is part of the system and someone else pays the bill. In other words, the costs of medical care have been socialized, even though HMOs are ostensibly private businesses. Yet the assessment of liability and compensation should be determined by private contractual agreements between physicians and patients — in other words, by the free market.
The free-market approach enables patients to protect themselves with negative outcome insurance purchased before medical treatment. Such insurance ensures that those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer.
This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. I have introduced legislation that allows individuals a tax credit for the purchase of negative outcomes insurance.
Needless to say, my bill prohibits the IRS from treating such insurance proceeds as taxable income. After all, while we don’t need trial lawyers getting any more insurance money, we certainly don’t need the IRS getting it either! Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Here is a good piece by my friend, Dean Clancy, on the constitutional flaws in the bill.
The House will also consider two bills dealing with immigration. H.R. 3004 provides new federal penalties for illegal immigrants who returned to the country after being deported and subsequently where convicted of a crime.
H.R. 3003 denies federal funds to “sanctuary cities.”
The House will also consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including:
1. H.R. 1726 — Reauthorizes and makes structural changes to the Coast Guard.
2. H.Res. 397 — Solemnly reaffirming the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
In other words, perpetual war for perpetual peace.
NATO was forced in the early days of the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union, yet almost 30 years since the Berlin Wall fell, NATO is not just still around, but is continuously expanding. Every new country added to the alliance is another country that the US is obligated to defend.
Instead of reaffirming our commitment to NATO, or working to strengthen NATO by increasing the amount spent,Congress should be working to withdraw from NATO.
3. H.Res. 351 — Condemns violence in Chechnya and calls on the US Government to demand release of prisoners unjustly detained. This may seem harmless, but this type of resolution sets the stage for future US interference.
The House may also consider legislation reauthorizing the Department of Homeland Security. More details on that will be posted if they become available.
Vía Campaign for Liberty » National Blog http://ift.tt/2sdA1ME
This week the Senate Republican leadership unveiled its Obamacare replacement plan. Like its House counterpart, the misnamed Senate plan retains most of Obamacare’s core features.
Both the House and Senate plans allow states to obtain waivers providing relief from some Obamacare mandates, although the waivers in both bills are too restrictive to be of much value. For example, the Senate’s bill does not allow states to have waived two of Obamacare’s most destructive mandates — guaranteed issue and community ratings.
The healthcare debate is dominated by emotional rhetoric about how government-run healthcare is necessary to protect the vulnerable. For example, in May, Jimmy Kimmel Live host Jimmy Kimmel delivered a touching monologue about his newborn son’s open-heart surgery. Mr. Kimmel ended his monologue with a plea to retain Obamacare so all children can obtain life-saving treatment. After the monologue became a national sensation, many suggested that any Obamacare replacement plan be judged by a “Jimmy Kimmel test.”
Every decent human being supports a healthcare system that ensures children have access to medical care. However, this does not mean every decent person should support government-run healthcare. In fact decent people should oppose all forms of nationalized medicine.
Government intervention in healthcare distorts the marketplace with mandates, subsidies, and price controls. As is the case with any goods or services, price controls in healthcare result in shortages and even price increases as providers look for ways to offset their losses caused by the controls. This is why many Americans have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket under Obamacare.
Government-run healthcare can be deadly. Anyone who doubts this should consider the case of Laura Hillier, an 18 year-old Canadian who passed away from leukemia while on a government medical treatment wait list. This is one of many horror stories from Canada, and other countries with nationalized healthcare, of individuals who died while waiting for their turn to receive medical treatment.
One need not look to Canada to find casualties of government intervention in healthcare. In 2013 Sarah Murnaghan, a ten-year-old cystic fibrosis patient, almost died because of federal rules forbidding children her age from receiving organ transplants. Public outcry eventually forced the government to allow Sarah to receive the transplant, but how many Sarahs have died because of government organ transplant rules?
The Jimmy Kimmel test is a valid way to evaluate healthcare proposals. However, there should also be a Laura Hillier or Sarah Murnaghan test forbidding adoption of a new healthcare system that increases healthcare costs, creates healthcare shortages, or allows government to deny anyone access to healthcare.
The free market meets all these tests. In a free market, doctors voluntarily donate their time to help those in need, while private charities and churches fund charity hospitals and clinics. Such a system flourished in the days before Medicaid and Medicare, and would quickly return if the welfare state is eliminated.
Congress should be working to repeal all federal interference in healthcare, including by shutting down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA raises the cost of medicine, denies Americans access to effective treatments, and prevents individuals from learning about cost-effective ways to improve their health.
Unfortunately, a Congress that so quickly abandons its promise to repeal and replace Obamacare will not restore free-market healthcare — or otherwise reduce the welfare-warfare state — unless forced to do so by an economic crisis or demands from a critical mass of pro-liberty Americans.
Ron Paul’s Weekly Column can be found at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity’s website.
Vía Campaign for Liberty » National Blog http://ift.tt/2tdcOKw
Get Out has been the surprise hit of the winter. A low-budget horror movie, it has grossed almost $200 million at the box office. The film is an excellent horror movie, which pays homage and makes good use of numerous horror-movie standards — from the soundtrack complete with chants to let you know this is the scary part, to a slow build up that gradually increases the creepiness, to the wise cracking best friend who is the first one to know that something is wrong, to the twist that seems shocking but then when you look in retrospect makes perfect sense. The film it is also a biting commentary on American race relations that has some libertarian themes.
Now if you have not heard or read any reviews of this movie, you might be thinking, “Great, another self-righteous lecture from Hollywood on how libertarians and conservatives, especially those from rural areas, are racists.” But no, in Get Out, the menace to African-Americans is … white liberals.
Get Out‘s lead character is Chris Washington, an African-American photographer who is visiting his white girlfriend Rose Armitage’s parents at their spacious country home — complete with a spooky basement that Chris is told not to not go into. The parents quickly overcome Chris’s nervousness by letting him now how “cool” they are with their daughter dating a black man.
However, they still make him feel awkward by overdoing it. Rose’s dad refers to him as “my man” and makes a point of talking about how he wishes he could have voted for Obama for a third time. Chris’s uneasiness is furthered by two African-American servants whose behavior can charitably be described as weird.
Chris’s discomfort is magnified when he meets the Armitage’s friends at an event. Like the Armitages, the friends seem eager to prove how non-racist they are in the most embarrassing and condescending way. For instance, one man who was a professional golfer makes a point in telling Chris how much he like Tiger Woods.
Eventually the truth is revealed. The people are there to bid on Chris. The winner undergoes a special medical procedure where most of their brain is put into Chris’s body, giving them control over Chris.
The reason African-Americans are chosen as the victims is never specified, but is hinted at. The Armitages and their friends constantly praise African-Americans, suggesting the reason they victimize African-Americans is not our of hatred but out of a twisted type of love. .
A number of commentators have noted how this film presents well-meaning white liberals as villains. These commentators have a point, but I think there is something else one can take from the movie that is as more political than sociological.
Get Out could be taken as an analogy to the relationship of African -Americans to progressives. Like the Armitages, progressives see themselves as the opposite of racists. When they interfere in the lives of African-Americans, or anyone else, they are doing it for their target’s own good — and the good of humanity, never mind that the progressives’ definition of “help” involves taking away their beneficiaries ability to control their own lives.
They do this not only through paternalistic welfare policies, but via economic policies that destroy their economic opportunities.
I doubt Get Out writer and director Jordon Peele intended to make a statement about the harm inflicted on African-Americans and others by well-meaning “progressives.” But that is a meaning that can be taken from the film.
Pell does deserve credit for a move that avoids the typical liberal cliches about racist right-wingers and instead gives us a thought-provoking film that raises questions about well-meaning liberals who are in many ways just as, if not more, dangerous to African-Americans than racists. More importantly, he deserves credit for making a really good horror movie.
Vía Campaign for Liberty » National Blog http://ift.tt/2s55sUg
Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul and President Norm Singleton issued the following statement on the Republican Senate health care bill:
Ron Paul — Like their colleagues in the House, the Senate Republican leadership has squandered an opportunity to repeal Obamacare and replace it with true free-market health care. Instead, they have unveiled a bill that retains Obamacare’s core mandates. Even the plans state waivers do not provide relief from the most destructive mandates — “guaranteed issues” and “community rating” — which are nothing more than price controls.
The GOP plan even includes a version of Obamacare’s individual mandate, and “temporarily” extends federal payments to insurance companies (payments that House Republicans sued President Obama to stop) that participate in Obamacare exchanges. Of course, these payments are likely to be extended by a future Congress, from now until the eventual collapse of the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that makes it possible.
Like all price control schemes, Obamacare and the GOP’s Obamacare 2.0 will decrease both availability and quality of health care while increasing prices. Those most in need of affordable care will be hardest hit.
Hopefully the Senate will follow the lead of my son, Senator Rand Paul, and reject this bill and pass a free-market health care bill.
Norm Singleton — Republicans owe their majority to their promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. But instead of fighting to keep their promises, the GOP Senate is joining the House in passing legislation that retains and renews Obamacare.
Campaign for Liberty will do all we can to defeat this Obamacare retention bill and send Congress back to the drawing board to create a health care plan that empowers Americans to obtain health care that fits their unique needs, not the type of health care DC-based politicians and bureaucrats think they should have.
Vía Campaign for Liberty » National Blog http://ift.tt/2s0A6OA
Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul and President Norman Singleton issued the following statement regarding reports that Pennsylvania Representative Charlie Dent is attempting to attach the Restoration of America’s Wireless Act (RAWA) to an appropriations bill.
Ron Paul: Congress has no authority to outlaw online gaming and nullify the laws in the states that have legalized online gaming. Criminalizing online gaming gives the surveillance state one more excuse to spy on our online activities and ensures that online gaming will be controlled by criminals.
RAWA represents not only a textbook example of the “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalition but the worst type of crony capitalism. It is an open secret the main reason this bill is being pushed is to please casino owners who happens to be one of, if not the, GOP’s largest donors. This donor wishes to use the power of government to put his online competitors out of business.
It is outrageous that Congress would even think of sneaking this unconstitutional and anti-Liberty bill into law by adding to an it appropriations bill, or, even worse, a large end of year Omnibus spending bill.
Norm Singleton: Sneaking RAWA into an appropriations or Omnibus bill to please one large donor is the type of crony capitalist deal that the American people rejected when they voted to drain the swamp. It is ironic the alleged leader of this latest effort to attach RAWA to a spending bill, Pennsylvania Representative Charlie Dent, comes from a state whose legislature may soon vote to legalize online gaming.
Campaign for Liberty members helped beat back attempts to sneak RAWA into an appropriations and Omnibus bills since 2014, and they stand ready to do so again.
Vía Campaign for Liberty » National Blog http://ift.tt/2sFCKeG
Campaign for Liberty has joined a coalition of 45 free-market groups in a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orin Hatch, calling on him to make sure the Senate’s ObamaCare legislation cuts all ObamaCare taxes.
Here is the letter:
June 13, 2017
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Hatch:
As the Senate continues to make progress on legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare, we urge you and your colleagues to include repeal of the nearly 20 taxes imposed by the law.
During a February 1 speech at the Chamber of Commerce, you declared, “All of the ObamaCare taxes need to go as part of the repeal process.”
Recent media reports suggest that the Senate may be wavering on repeal of these taxes. This would be a mistake. The final Senate repeal package should retain the broad tax relief that was included in the House passed American Health Care Act.
The roughly one trillion dollars in new or higher taxes imposed by Obamacare directly hit middle class families and small businesses, raise the cost of healthcare, and reduce access to care.
Obamacare taxes directly suppress economic growth. The best example of this is the 3.8 percent so-called Net Investment Income Investment Tax (NIIT) on capital gains and dividends. Historically, capital gains taxes have a significant negative impact on capital formation, productivity, andeconomic growth while raising little or even negative revenue.
Repealing the 3.8 percent NIIT would return the capital gains tax rate to 20 percent, the rate agreed to by President Clinton and a Republican Congress in 1997. A related tax hike is the 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on wages and selfemployment income, the repeal of which was unfortunately delayed six years by an amendment in the House. It should be repealed as expeditiously as possible.
Other Obamacare taxes directly impact the ability of Americans to meet healthcare costs, such as the income tax hike on families with high medical bills. Around 10 million families pay $200 to $400 in higher income taxes each year because Obamacare increases the threshold at which families can deduct medical expenses paid out of pocket.
Obamacare also makes it harder for individuals to save for their own healthcare choices. Roughly 20 million Americans use tax-advantaged Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to save for healthcare costs. Another 30 million use Flexible Spending Accounts. There are multiple taxes that restrict the ability of families to use these savings accounts, which limits the choice of consumers.
Other taxes hit certain healthcare industries, such as insurance providers, medical device and prescription drug manufacturers. Inevitably, these taxes are passed onto American families in the form of increased costs.
Finally, the tax associated with the employer mandate has limited millions of Americans to part-time work and the tax penalty associated with the individual mandate hit eight million Americans in 2014, with a family of four facing an income tax hike exceeding $2,000.
True repeal of Obamacare means repealing the Obamacare taxes and the Senate should resist the urge to deprive taxpayers of relief in order to pay for higher spending.
We commend you on your stance to repeal these Obamacare taxes and urge any final package accelerate or at least maintain the House-passed tax reductions.
President, Americans for Tax Reform
James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association
President, American Commitment
President, American Consumer Institute
Lisa B. Nelson
CEO, American Legislative Exchange Council
Ashley N. Varner
Executive Director, ALEC Action
President, Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC)
Policy Director, Beacon Center of Tennessee
President, Campaign for Liberty
Andrew F. Quinlan
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
President, Citizen Outreach (Nevada)
Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President and Co-founder, Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom
Executive Director, Citizens for Limited Taxation (Massachusetts)
President, Club for Growth
Michael J. Bowen
CEO, Coalition for a Strong America
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Executive Director, Digital Liberty
Chairman, Florida Center-Right Coalition
CEO, Freedom Foundation of Minnesota
President, Frontiers of Freedom
President, Galen Institute*
Mario H. Lopez
President, Hispanic Leadership Fund
President & CEO, The Heartland Institute
Heather R. Higgins
President & CEO, Independent Women’s Voice
Donald P. Racheter, Ph.D.
Chair, Iowa Center-Right Coalition
Colin A. Hanna
President, Let Freedom Ring
President and CEO, Louisiana Association of Business and Industry
President, The MacIver Institute
Chairman, Florida Center-Right Coalition
Chair, Maine Center-Right Coalition
Maine Conservative Activist
Former Speaker, Missouri House of Representatives
Chair, Minnesota Center-Right Coalition
Devon Herrick Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis
Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union
Executive Director, Oregon Capitol Watch Foundation
Jordan Harris & Josh Crwofrod
Co-Executive Directors, the Pegasus Institute (Kentucky)
Founder & CEO, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity
President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Michael W. Thompson
President, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
Executive Director, Virginians for Quality Healthcare
Founder/CEO, Women for Democracy in America, Inc.
Cc: United States Senators
*Organization listed for identification purposes only
Vía Campaign for Liberty » National Blog http://ift.tt/2rRdEw3
The House is in session Tuesday through Friday this week.
Before getting into this week’s agenda, I have some good news. Late last week, the House pulled HR 1215 from the Congressional schedule. As I wrote last week, this legislation:
“…sets a federal statute of limitation on medical malpractice lawsuits, limits the amount of “non-economic” damages (such as pain and suffering) that can be awarded, and allows introduction of evidence of other compensation to the plaintiff (such as insurance payments).
Whatever one thinks of the merits of these proposals, the fact is they violate the 10th Amendment. The bill’s proponents claim it is constitutional because it only applies to cases with a “federal nexus.”
The bill was pulled because members of the House freedom caucus expressed opposition to the legislation on federalism grounds. This is a step forward, as ten years ago, only Ron Paul and a handful of others would have opposed giving the federal government authority over the nation’s malpractice laws.
The Senate will spend most of the week on Coast Guard Reauthorization.
Among the legislation the House will consider are bills reauthorizing federal job training programs. Read Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul’s explanation of the constitutional and other flaws with these programs here.
The House will also consider HR 2842, which provides grants to states “…for demonstration projects that provide wage subsidies to enable low-income individuals to enter and retain employment.”
The argument for this is it will aid the transition from welfare-to-work, and thus save money in the long run. The argument against it is that it is a step toward creating a new entitlement for cash payments for the “working poor” which will extend to the middle-class.
The House will also consider a number of bills under suspension, including:
1. HR 2834 — Creates a new grant program for states to help children whose families have been impacted by drug abuse. Helping children is a worthy goal, but this type of grant program exceeds the federal government’s constitutional limitations. Also, this type of aid is better provided by voluntary institutions than a centralized government bureaucracy.
2. HR 2484 — Commits the United States Government to promote the involvement of women in “conflict prevention” around the globe. So this is more interference in the affairs of other nations with the justification of promoting equality and peace.
If Congress wants to promote peace, maybe they should use their constitutional authority to stop the president from launching military action without seeking a declaration of war from Congress?
3. HR 2132 — Instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create a redress process to adjudicate inquiries for individuals who:
(A) are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
(B) have filed an inquiry with DHS TRIP after receiving enhanced screening at an airport passenger security checkpoint more than three times in any 60-day period; and
(C) believe they have been wrongly identified as being a threat to aviation security.
Also requires a review of the “intelligence based screening process.”
This may cut down on TSA abuses, but it is no substitute to eliminating the TSA and returning responsibility for airport security to the airlines and airports.
3. HR 1393 — Exempts employees whose job requires them to work in multiple states from being subject to income tax in states other than the state where the employee resides or a state where the employee works for more than 30 days.
Vía Campaign for Liberty » National Blog http://ift.tt/2rADssr
Nostalgia seems to be very popular in Washington. While the neocons and Democratic Party hard-liners have succeeded in bringing back the Cold War with Russia, it looks like President Trump is determined to take us back to a replay of the Bay of Pigs!
In Miami on Friday, the president announced that he was slamming the door on one of President Obama’s few foreign policy successes: easing 50 years of US sanctions on Cuba. The nostalgia was so strong at Trump’s Friday speech that he even announced participants in the CIA’s disastrous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in the audience!
President Trump said Friday that his new policy would be nothing short of “regime change” for Cuba. No easing of US sanctions on Cuba, he said, “until all political prisoners are freed, freedoms of assembly and expression are respected, all political parties are legalized, and free and internationally supervised elections are scheduled.”
Yes, this is the same Donald Trump who declared as president-elect in December that his incoming Administration would “pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments.” Now, in another flip-flop toward the neocons, President Trump is pursuing regime change in Cuba on the pretext of human rights violations.
While the Cuban government may not have a spotless record when it comes to human rights, this is the same President Trump who just weeks ago heaped praise on perhaps the world’s worst human rights abuser, Saudi Arabia. There, he even participated in a bizarre ceremony to open a global anti-extremism center in the home of state-sponsored extremism!
While President Trump is not overturning all of President Obama’s Cuba policy reforms – the US Embassy will remain open – he will roll back the liberalization of travel restrictions and make it very difficult for American firms to do business in Cuba. Certainly foreign competitors of US construction and travel companies are thrilled by this new policy, as it keeps American businesses out of the market. How many Americans will be put out of work by this foolish political stunt?
There is a very big irony here. President Trump says that Cuba’s bad human rights record justifies a return to Cuba sanctions and travel prohibitions. But the US government preventing Americans from traveling and spending their own money wherever they wish is itself a violation of basic human rights. Historically it has been only the most totalitarian of regimes that prevent their citizens from traveling abroad. Think of East Germany, the Soviet Union, and North Korea. The US is not at war with Cuba. There is no reason to keep Americans from going where they please.
President Trump’s shift back to the bad old days on Cuba will not have the desired effect of liberalizing that country’s political environment. If it did not work for fifty years why does Trump think it will suddenly work today? If anything, a hardening of US policy on Cuba will prevent reforms and empower those who warned that the US could not be trusted as an honest partner. The neocons increasingly have President Trump’s ear, even though he was elected on promises to ignore their constant calls for war and conflict. How many more flip-flops before his supporters no longer recognize him?
Vía Campaign for Liberty » National Blog http://ift.tt/2tjXs3H
Last week marked the anniversary of the publication of one of the most significant novels of the 20th century: George Orwell’s 1984. Orwell’s work still provides one of the best examinations of the techniques used by totalitarian governments to not just keep people in line, but make them actually believe they benefit from giving up their liberty.
Among the techniques Orwell examined are the use of war as a means of controlling and the way government controls debate by controlling the language. Orwell’s work had such a great effect on popular culture that many phrases from his book — such as “Big Brother is Watching You” or “Newspeak” — are part of our everyday political vocabulary.
Here is a review of the the book penned by libertarian giant Murray Rothbard in 1949 (hat/tip The Mises Institute):
In recent years, many writers have given us their vision of the coming collectivist future. At the turn of the century, neither Edward Bellamy nor H. G. Wells suspected that the collectivist societies of their dreams were so close at hand. As collectivism sprouted following World War I, many keen observers felt that there was a big difference between the idyllic Edens pictured by Bellamy and Wells and the actual conditions of the various “waves of the future.”
Notable among these revised forecasts of the world of the future were Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Ayn Rand’s Anthem. Both of their future worlds, evil as they were, had saving graces. Huxley’s future was spiritually dead, but at least the masses were happy; Ayn Rand’s dictators were timid, stupid men who permitted a renascent individualist to escape from the strangling collectivist world and begin life anew.
George Orwell’s collectivist Utopia has plugged all the loopholes. There is no hope at all for the individual or for humanity, and so the effect on the reader is devastating. Orwell’s future is run by a Party whose job is the total exercise of Power, and it goes about its job with diabolic efficiency and ingenuity. The Party represents itself as the embodiment of the principles of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. These principles turn out to be: blind, unquestioning obedience to the Party, and equally blind hatred of any person or group the Party proclaims as its enemy. These emotions are the only ones permitted to anybody; all others, such as personal and family love, are systematically stamped out.
All ideas are of course treasonable and subversive—the only persons permitted to live are those who unthinkingly parrot the Party Line. Any man with a bent for independent thought is subtly encouraged in his heresy by the Thought Police. Then, when he has come to realize the nature of the regime and hates it thoroughly, the Ministry of Love takes over and, via the most horrible forms of torture, burns out of him any spark of human dignity. Finally, the heretic goes to his slaughter convinced of the goodness of his persecutors. He dies loving the Party and its mythical leader, Big Brother. Not even martyrdom is permitted in the inferno of the future.
To accomplish its purpose of destroying the human mind and heart, the Party uses: constant propaganda, inducing all to love Big Brother and hate his enemies; the destruction of truth by continually altering historical records to conform to the ever-changing Party Line— thus history is destroyed and all truth flows from the Party; the destruction of language to make it impossible to think independent thoughts— by confusing the meaning of words and by introducing a new gibberish-language; and the destruction of logic by a process known as doublethink defined as the capacity to hold in one’s mind two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
One significant method that the Party uses to remain in power is to contrive to keep its country always at war with some other country. The other countries are also run by similar parties, though each have different names. By the process of doublethink every loyal Party member believes that his part will ultimately conquer the world, yet also recognizes that all the countries tacitly engage in a war that never becomes too “hot.” Thus, each Party has an excuse to starve and terrorize its subjects in the name of military necessity, while its ruler remains secure from any wartime disaster.
“I understand how,” said Winston Smith, the pathetic heretic of Nineteen Eight-Four,“but I don’t understand why.” Why does the Party do all this? One of its leaders explains:
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others were cowards and hypocrites. They never had the courage to recognize their motives. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. How does one man assert his power over another? By making him suffer. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement—a world of fear and treachery and torment. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.” Orwell’s collectivist world of the future is doubtless a nightmare—but is it merely a dream?
Also from Mises is a 1986 essay from Dr. Rothbard exploring Orwell and explaining how the Cold War has helped to turn the U.S. into the type of society envisioned by Orwell. The essay is an response to the attempt by prominent neoconservatives to claim Orwell as one of their own:
In a recent and well-known article, Norman Podhoretz has attempted to conscript George Orwell into the ranks of neoconservative enthusiasts for the newly revitalized cold war with the Soviet Union.1 If Orwell were alive today, this truly “Orwellian” distortion would afford him considerable wry amusement. It is my contention that the cold war, as pursued by the three superpowers of Nineteen Eighty-Four, was the key to their successful imposition of a totalitarian regime upon their subjects. We all know that Nineteen Eighty-Four was a brilliant and mordant attack on totalitarian trends in modern society, and it is also clear that Orwell was strongly opposed to communism and to the regime of the Soviet Union. But the crucial role of a perpetual cold war in the entrenchment of totalitarianism in Orwell’s “nightmare vision” of the world has been relatively neglected by writers and scholars.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four there are three giant superstates or blocs of nations: Oceania (run by the United States, and including the British Empire and Latin America), Eurasia (the Eurasian continent), and Eastasia (China, southeast Asia, much of the Pacific). The superpowers are always at war, in shifting coalitions and alignments against each other. The war is kept, by agreement between the superpowers, safely on the periphery of the blocs, since war in their heartlands might actually blow up the world and their own rule along with it. The perpetual but basically phony war is kept alive by unremitting campaigns of hatred and fear against the shadowy foreign Enemy. The perpetual war system is then used by the ruling elite in each country to fasten totalitarian collectivist rule upon their subjects. As Harry Elmer Barnes wrote, this system “could only work if the masses are always kept at a fever heat of fear and excitement and are effectively prevented from learning that the wars are actually phony. To bring about this indispensable deception of the people requires a tremendous development of propaganda, thought-policing, regimentation, and mental terrorism.” And finally, “when it becomes impossible to keep the people any longer at a white heat in their hatred of one enemy group of nations, the war is shifted against another bloc and new, violent hate campaigns are planned and set in motion.”2
From Orwell’s time to the present day, the United States has fulfilled his analysis or prophecy by engaging in campaigns of unremitting hatred and fear of the Soviets, including such widely trumpeted themes (later quietly admitted to be incorrect) as “missile gap” and “windows of vulnerability.” What Garet Garrett perceptively called “a complex of vaunting and fear” has been the hallmark of the American as well as of previous empires:3 the curious combination of vaunting and braggadocio that insists that a nation-state’s military might is second to none in any area, combined with repeated panic about the intentions and imminent actions of the “empire of evil” that is marked as the Enemy. It is the sort of fear and vaunting that makes Americans proud of their capacity to “overkill” the Russians many times and yet agree enthusiastically to virtually any and all increases in the military budget for mightier weapons of mass destruction. Senator Ralph Flanders (Republican, Vermont) pinpointed this process of rule through fear when he stated during the Korean War:
Fear is felt and spread by the Department of Defense in the Pentagon. In part, the spreading of it is purposeful. Faced with what seem to be enormous armed forces aimed against us, we can scarcely expect the Department of Defense to do other than keep the people in a state of fear so that they will be prepared without limit to furnish men and munitions.4
This applies not only to the Pentagon but to its civilian theoreticians, the men whom Marcus Raskin, once one of their number, has dubbed “the mega-death intellectuals.” Thus Raskin pointed out that
their most important function is to justify and extend the existence of their employers. … In order to justify the continued large-scale production of these bombs and missiles, military and industrial leaders needed some kind of theory to rationalize their use. … This became particularly urgent during the late 1950s, when economy-minded members of the Eisenhower Administration began to wonder why so much money, thought, and resources, were being spent on weapons if their use could not be justified. And so began a series of rationalizations by the “defense intellectuals” in and out of the Universities. … Military procurement will continue to flourish, and they will continue to demonstrate why it must. In this respect they are no different from the great majority of modern specialists who accept the assumptions of the organizations which employ them because of the rewards in money and power and prestige. … They know enough not to question their employers’ right to exist.5
In addition to the manufacture of fear and hatred against the primary Enemy, there have been numerous Orwellian shifts between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys. Our deadly enemies in World War II, Germany and Japan, are now considered prime Good Guys, the only problem being their unfortunate reluctance to take up arms against the former Good Guys, the Soviet Union. China, having been a much lauded Good Guy under Chiang Kai-shek when fighting Bad Guy Japan, became the worst of the Bad Guys under communism, and indeed the United States fought the Korean and Vietnamese wars largely for the sake of containing the expansionism of Communist China, which was supposed to be an even worse guy than the Soviet Union. But now all that is changed, and Communist China is now the virtual ally of the United States against the principal Enemy in the Kremlin.
Along with other institutions of the permanent cold war, Orwellian New-speak has developed richly. Every government, no matter how despotic, that is willing to join the anti-Soviet crusade is called a champion of the “free world.” Torture committed by “totalitarian” regimes is evil; torture undertaken by regimes that are merely “authoritarian” is almost benign. While the Department of War has not yet been transformed into the Department of Peace, it was changed early in the cold war to the Department of Defense, and President Reagan has almost completed the transformation by the neat Orwellian touch of calling the MX missile “the Peacemaker.”
As early as the 1950s, an English publicist observed that “Orwell’s main contention that ‘cold war’ is now an essential feature of normal life is being verified more and more from day to day. No one really believes in a ‘peace settlement’ with the Soviets, and many people in positions of power regard such a prospect with positive horror.” He added that “a war footing is the only basis of full employment.”6
And Harry Barnes noted that “the advantages of the cold war in bolstering the economy, avoiding a depression, and maintaining political tenure after 1945 were quickly recognized by both politicians and economists.”
The most recent analysis of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four in terms of permanent cold war was in U.S. News and World Report, in its issue marking the beginning of the year 1984:
No nuclear holocaust has occurred but Orwell’s concept of perpetual local conflict is borne out. Wars have erupted every year since 1945, claiming more than 30 million lives. The Defense Department reports that there currently are 40 wars raging that involve one-fourth of all nations in the world — from El Salvador to Kampuchea to Lebanon and Afghanistan.
Like the constant war of 1984, these post-war conflicts occurred not within superpower borders but in far-off places such as Korea and Vietnam. Unlike Orwell’s fictitious superpowers, Washington and Moscow are not always able to control events and find themselves sucked into local wars such as the current conflict in the Middle East heightening the risk of a superpower confrontation and use of nuclear armaments.7
But most Orwell scholars have ignored the critical permanent-cold-war underpinning to the totalitarianism in the book. Thus, in a recently published collection of scholarly essays on Orwell, there is barely a mention of militarism or war. 8
In contrast, one of the few scholars who have recognized the importance of war in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was the Marxist critic Raymond Williams. While deploring the obvious anti-Soviet nature of Orwell’s thought, Williams noted that Orwell discovered the basic feature of the existing two- or three-superpower world, “oligarchical collectivism,” as depicted by James Burnham, in his Managerial Revolution (1940), a book that had a profound if ambivalent impact upon Orwell. As Williams put it:
Orwell’s vision of power politics is also close to convincing. The transformation of official “allies” to “enemies” has happened, almost openly, in the generation since he wrote. His idea of a world divided into three blocs — Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, of which two are always at war with the other though the alliances change — is again too close for comfort. And there are times when one can believe that what “had been called England or Britain” has become simply Airship One.9
A generation earlier, John Atkins had written that Orwell had “discovered this conception of the political future in James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution.” Specifically, “there is a state of permanent war but it is a contest of limited aims between combatants who cannot destroy each other. The war cannot be decisive. … As none of the states comes near conquering the others, however the war deteriorates into a series of skirmishes . … The protagonists store atomic bombs.”10
To establish what we might call this “revisionist” interpretation of Nineteen Eighty-Four we must first point out that the book was not, as in the popular interpretation, a prophecy of the future so much as a realistic portrayal of existing political trends. Thus, Jeffrey Meyers points out that Nineteen Eighty-Four was less a “nightmare vision” (Irving Howe’s famous phrase) of the future than “a very concrete and naturalistic portrayal of the present and the past,” a “realistic synthesis and rearrangement of familiar materials.” And again, Orwell’s “statements about 1984 reveal that the novel, though set in a future time, is realistic rather than fantastic, and deliberately intensifies the actuality of the present.” Specifically, according to Meyers, Nineteen Eighty-Four was not “totalitarianism after its world triumph” as in the interpretation of Howe, but rather “the very real though unfamiliar political terrorism of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia transposed into the landscape of London in 1941–44.”11 And not only Burnham’s work but the reality of the 1943 Teheran Conference gave Orwell the idea of a world ruled by three totalitarian superstates.
Bernard Crick, Orwell’s major biographer, points out that the English reviewers of Nineteen Eighty-Four caught on immediately that the novel was supposed to be an intensification of present trends rather than a prophecy of the future. Crick notes that these reviewers realized that Orwell had “not written utopian or anti-utopian fantasy … but had simply extended certain discernible tendencies of 1948 forward into 1984.”12 Indeed, the very year 1984 was simply the transposition of the existing year, 1948. Orwell’s friend Julian Symons wrote that 1984 society was meant to be the “near future,” and that all the grim inventions of the rulers “were just extensions of ‘ordinary’ war and post-war things.” We might also point out that the terrifying Room 101 in Nineteen Eighty-Four was the same numbered room in which Orwell had worked in London during World War II as a British war propagandist.
But let Orwell speak for himself. Orwell was distressed at many American reviews of the book, especially in Time and Life, which, in contrast to the British, saw Nineteen Eighty-Four as the author’s renunciation of his long-held devotion to democratic socialism. Even his own publisher, Frederic Warburg, interpreted the book in the same way. This response moved Orwell, terminally ill in a hospital, to issue a repudiation. He outlined a statement to Warburg, who, from detailed notes, issued a press release in Orwell’s name. First, Orwell noted that, contrary to many reviews, Nineteen Eighty-Four was not prophecy but an analysis of what could happen, based on present political trends. Orwell then added: “Specifically, the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on liberal capitalist communities by the necessity to prepare for total war with the USSR and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and the most publicized. But danger also lies in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours.” After outlining his forecast of several world superstates, specifically the Anglo-American world (Oceania) and a Soviet-dominated Eurasia, Orwell went on:
If these two great blocs line up as mortal enemies it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents. … The name suggested in 1984 is of course Ingsoc, but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the USA the phrase “American” or “hundred per cent American” is suitable and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as any could wish.13
We are about as far from the world of Norman Podhoretz as we can get. While Orwell is assuredly anti-Communist and anticollectivist his envisioned totalitarianism can and does come in many guises and forms, and the foundation for his nightmare totalitarian world is a perpetual cold war that keeps brandishing the horror of modern atomic weaponry.
Shortly after the atom bomb was dropped on Japan, George Orwell pre-figured his world of Nineteen Eighty-Four in an incisive and important analysis of the new phenomenon. In an essay entitled “You and the Atom Bomb,” he noted that when weapons are expensive (as the A-bomb is) politics tends to become despotic, with power concentrated into the hands of a few rulers. In contrast, in the day when weapons were simple and cheap (as was the musket or rifle, for instance) power tends to be decentralized. After noting that Russia was thought to be capable of producing the A-bomb within five years (that is, by 1950), Orwell writes of the “prospect,” at that time, “of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them.” It is generally supposed, he noted, that the result will be another great war, a war which this time will put an end to civilization. But isn’t it more likely, he added, “that surviving great nations make a tacit agreement never to use the bomb against one another? Suppose they only use it, or the threat of it, against people who are unable to retaliate?”
Returning to his favorite theme, in this period, of Burnham’s view of the world in The Managerial Revolution, Orwell declares that Burnham’s geographical picture of the new world has turned out to be correct. More and more obviously the surface of the earth is being parceled off into three great empires, each self-contained and cut off from contact with the outer world, and each ruled, under one disguise or another by a self-elected oligarchy. The haggling as to where the frontiers are to be drawn is still going on, and will continue for some years.
Orwell then proceeds gloomily:
The atomic bomb may complete the process by robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt, and at the same time putting the possessors of the bomb on a basis of equality. Unable to conquer one another they are likely to continue ruling the world between them, and it is difficult to see how the balance can be upset except by slow and unpredictable demographic changes.
In short, the atomic bomb is likely “to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging ‘a peace that is no peace.’” The drift of the world will not be toward anarchy, as envisioned by H.G. Wells, but toward “horribly stable … slave empires.14
Over a year later, Orwell returned to his pessimistic perpetual-cold-war analysis of the postwar world. Scoffing at optimistic press reports that the Americans “will agree to inspection of armaments,” Orwell notes that “on another page of the same paper are reports of events in Greece which amount to a state of war between two groups of powers who are being so chummy in New York.” There are two axioms, he added, governing international affairs. One is that “there can be no peace without a general surrender of sovereignty,” and another is that “no country capable of defending its sovereignty ever surrenders it.” The result will be no peace, a continuing arms race, but no all-out war.15
Orwell completes his repeated wrestling with the works of James Burnham in his review of The Struggle for the World (1947). Orwell notes that the advent of atomic weapons has led Burnham to abandon his three-identical-superpowers view of the world, and also to shuck off his tough pose of value-freedom. Instead, Burnham is virtually demanding an immediate preventive war against Russia,” which has become the collectivist enemy, a preemptive strike to be launched before Russia acquires the atomic bomb.
While Orwell is fleetingly tempted by Burnham’s apocalyptic approach, and asserts that domination of Britain by the United States is to be preferred to domination by Russia, he emerges from the discussion highly critical. After all, Orwell writes, the
Russian regime may become more liberal and less dangerous a generation hence. … Of course, this would not happen with the consent of the ruling clique, but it is thinkable that the mechanics of the situation may bring it about. The other possibility is that the great powers will be simply too frightened of the effects of atomic weapons ever to make use of them. But that would be much too dull for Burnham. Everything must happen suddenly and completely.16
George Orwell’s last important essay on world affairs was published in Partisan Review in the summer of 1947. He there reaffirmed his attachment to socialism but conceded that the chances were against its coming to pass. He added that there were three possibilities ahead for the world. One (which, as he had noted a few months before was the new Burnham solution) was that the United States would launch an atomic attack on Russia before Russia developed the bomb. Here Orwell was more firmly opposed to such a program than he had been before. For even if Russia were annihilated, a preemptive attack would only lead to the rise of new empires, rivalries, wars, and use of atomic weapons. At any rate, the first possibility was not likely. The second possibility, declared Orwell, was that the cold war would continue until Russia got the bomb, at which point world war and the destruction of civilization would take place. Again, Orwell did not consider this possibility very likely. The third, and most likely, possibility is the old vision of perpetual cold war between blocs of superpowers. In this world,
the fear inspired by the atomic bomb and other weapons yet to come will be so great that everyone will refrain from using them. … It would mean the division of the world among two or three vast super-states, unable to conquer one another and unable to be overthrown by any internal rebellion. In all probability their structure would be hierarchic, with a semi-divine caste at the top and outright slavery at the bottom, and the crushing out of liberty would exceed anything the world has yet seen. Within each state the necessary psychological atmosphere would be kept up by complete severance from the outer world, and by a continuous phony war against rival states. Civilization of this type might remain static for thousands of years.17
Orwell (perhaps, like Burnham, now fond of sudden and complete solutions) considers this last possibility the worst.
It should be clear that George Orwell was horrified at what he considered to be the dominant trend of the postwar world: totalitarianism based on perpetual but peripheral cold war between shifting alliances of several blocs of super states. His positive solutions to this problem were fitful and inconsistent; in Partisan Review he called wistfully for a Socialist United States of Western Europe as the only way out, but he clearly placed little hope in such a development. His major problem was one that affected all democratic socialists of that era: a tension between their anticommunism and their opposition to imperialist, or at least interstate, wars. And so at times Orwell was tempted by the apocalyptic preventive-atomic-war solution, as was even Bertrand Russell during the same period. In another, unpublished article, “In Defense of Comrade Zilliacus,” written at some time near the end of 1947, Orwell, bitterly opposed to what he considered the increasingly procommunist attitude of his own Labour magazine, the Tribune, came the closest to enlisting in the cold war by denouncing neutralism and asserting that his hoped-for Socialist United States of Europe should ground itself on the backing of the United States of America. But despite these aberrations, the dominant thrust of Orwell’s thinking during the postwar period, and certainly as reflected in Nineteen Eighty-Four, was horror at a trend toward perpetual cold war as the groundwork for a totalitarianism throughout the world. And his hope for eventual loosening of the Russian regime, if also fitful, still rested cheek by jowl with his more apocalyptic leanings.
1.Norman Podhoretz, “If Orwell Were Alive Today,” Harper’s, January 1983, pp. 30-37.
2.Harry Elmer Barnes, “How ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ Trends Threaten American Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity,” in Revisionism: A Key to Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute, 1980), pp. 142-43. Also see Barnes, An Intellectual and Cultural History of the Western World, 3d rev. ed., 3 vols. (New York: Dover, 1965), 3: 1324-1332; and Murray N. Rothbard, “Harry Elmer Barnes as Revisionist of the Cold War,” in Harry Elmer Barnes, Learned Crusader, ed. A. Goddard (Colorado Springs: Ralph Myles, 1968). pp. 314-38. For a similar analysis, see F.J.P. Veal Advance to Barbarism(Appleton, Wis.: C.C. Nelson, 1953), pp. 266-84.
3.Garet Garrett, The People’s Pottage (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1953), pp. 154-57.
4.Quoted in Garrett, The People’s Pottage, p. 154.
5.Marcus Raskin, “The Megadeath Intellectuals,” New York Review of Books, November 14, 1963, pp. 6-7. Also see Martin Nicolaus, “The Professor, the Policeman and the Peasant,” Viet-Report, June-July 1966, pp. 15-19; and Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983). Barnes, “‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ Trends,” p. 176.
6.Barnes, “‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ Trends,” p. 176.
7.U.S. News and World Report, December 26, 1983, pp. 86-87.
8.Irving Howe, ed., 1984 Revisited: Totalitarianism in Our Century (New York: Harper and Row, Perennial Library, 1983). There is a passing reference in Robert Nisbet’s essay and a few references in Luther Carpenter’s article on the reception given to Nineteen Eighty-Four by his students at a community college on Staten Island (pp. 180, 82).
9.Raymond Williams. George Orwell (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 76.
10.John Atkins, George Orwell (London: Caldor and Boyars, 1954), pp. 237-38.
11.Jeffrey Meyers, A Reader’s Guide to George Orwell (London: Thames and Hudson, 1975), pp. 144-45. Also, “Far from being a picture of the totalitarianism or the future 1984 is, in countless details, a realistic picture of the totalitarianism of the present” (Richard J. Voorhees, The Paradox of George Orwell, Purdue University Studies, 1961, pp. 85-87).
12.Bernard Crick, George Orwell: A Life (London: Seeker and Warburg, 1981), p. 393. Also see p. 397.
13.George Orwell, The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus, 4 vols. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968), 4:504 (hereafter cited as CEJL). Also see Crick, George Orwell, pp. 393-95.
14.George Orwell, “You and the Atom Bomb,” Tribune, October 19, 1945, reprinted in CEJL, 4:8-10.
15.George Orwell, “As I Please,” Tribune, December 13, 1946, reprinted in CEJL, 4:255.
16.George Orwell, “Burnham’s View of the Contemporary World Struggle,” New Leader (New York), March 29, 1947, reprinted in CEJL, 4:325.
17.George Orwell. “Toward European Unity,” Partisan Review July-August 1947, reprinted in CEJL, 4:370-75.
Vía Campaign for Liberty » National Blog http://ift.tt/2tai26A