Trump - Frustration - Power Worship - Hate
To Eric Byrd / Facebook / November 13, 2015
Hi Eric - you posted that question about why support Trump recently.
While he continually goes further down on my list of possible choices, I might be able to offer a little insight as to why.
As is already being said, his support is based on frustration. The same though, is true of Democrats. Both sides want a better world and are stymied that it isn't happening.
Orwell wrote of this condition of "Power Worship," where we humans either desire power, or worship those who've obtained it. Because of this, instead of working together to solve common problems, people tend to instead choose sides, and struggle against each other.
"Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing." - George Orwell
Hi Eric - you posted that question about why support Trump recently.
While he continually goes further down on my list of possible choices, I might be able to offer a little insight as to why.
As is already being said, his support is based on frustration. The same though, is true of Democrats. Both sides want a better world and are stymied that it isn't happening.
Orwell wrote of this condition of "Power Worship," where we humans either desire power, or worship those who've obtained it. Because of this, instead of working together to solve common problems, people tend to instead choose sides, and struggle against each other.
"Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing." - George Orwell
That's why it's so important to see the world objectively, and without bias (or clearly, as Orwell would say). My feeling is that if we can somehow instill that attitude into kids while growing up, they’d be better off as adults in recognizing things like hate, propaganda, half-truths, and falsified information.
The problem is of course, that their teachers and mentors need to already be free as much as possible from bias.
Humans are not born hateful: It is something that is learned and passed down through generations.
If you compare our times to that of 1900, we can see that there has been progress. However, my feelings are that until we can shed destructive outlooks, hate, both overt and repressed, will continue pretty much as is.
As you know, that shedding is terribly difficult. We have all kinds of psychological defense mechanisms in place to prevent us from seeing ourselves as we truly are. If it were easy, there’d be no need for psychologists.
Hate is so much a part of the human experience, that we often don’t recognize it for what it is, even when we engage in it.
A great example is the political hatred that goes on in Facebook. There are all these pages, representing different “sides,” whose sole purpose is the denigration of the “enemy.” (The Two-Minutes-Hate section of 1984 is about this). And if you dare to suggest being more objective, you soon find that you too are on the enemy’s side.
One of the best pieces that addresses the situation, is Orwell’s essay, “Notes On Nationalism” -
“By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.”
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
The problem is of course, that their teachers and mentors need to already be free as much as possible from bias.
Humans are not born hateful: It is something that is learned and passed down through generations.
If you compare our times to that of 1900, we can see that there has been progress. However, my feelings are that until we can shed destructive outlooks, hate, both overt and repressed, will continue pretty much as is.
As you know, that shedding is terribly difficult. We have all kinds of psychological defense mechanisms in place to prevent us from seeing ourselves as we truly are. If it were easy, there’d be no need for psychologists.
Hate is so much a part of the human experience, that we often don’t recognize it for what it is, even when we engage in it.
A great example is the political hatred that goes on in Facebook. There are all these pages, representing different “sides,” whose sole purpose is the denigration of the “enemy.” (The Two-Minutes-Hate section of 1984 is about this). And if you dare to suggest being more objective, you soon find that you too are on the enemy’s side.
One of the best pieces that addresses the situation, is Orwell’s essay, “Notes On Nationalism” -
“By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.”
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
From Steve Bloom - "Good stuff. If your point is that folks fall behind a powerful leader whose message is outrage that things are not as they could - "ought," to be, wouldn't Sanders be even more appealing since he seems to pose solutions? Hillary just isn't playing to the outrage and I haven't been able to take the others seriously. What about Rand Paul?"
To Steve Bloom:
Orwell's point is that not only do people fall behind a powerful leader, but that they also tend to denigrate those who don't think the same way. That’s where the problem lies.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s Sanders, Hillary, Trump, or Carson. Their supporters vilify opponents to the extreme. The resulting animosity makes it difficult to carry on a rational dialogue that explores the real cause of problems that face us all. Instead what we have is this continual bashing and blaming, “moron, stupid, liar, etc.”
For real, sustained progress to occur, this has to stop.
Orwell was a democratic socialist. As such he certainly criticized conservatives, but he was equally critical of leftist politics, saying that it had drifted so far away from the concepts of democratic equality, that Marx, and even Lenin would not recognize it as being Socialism.
He addresses the attitude of pseudo-socialism in number of essays.
In the essay I previously cited, Notes On Nationalism, Orwell details the psychological pathology, and points out that these extremist attitudes are universal, and know no boundaries.
In Politics vs. Literature: An Examination Of Gulliver’s Travels, Orwell uses the Houyhnhnms to illustrate how socialism has drifted away from the ideals of democracy –
“Part IV of GULLIVER'S TRAVELS is a picture of an anarchistic Society, not governed by law in the ordinary sense, but by the dictates of "Reason", which are voluntarily accepted by everyone … “
“This illustrates very well the totalitarian tendency which is explicit in the anarchist or pacifist vision of Society. In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else.”
“…there was no room for disagreement among them, because the truth is always either self-evident, or else it is undiscoverable and unimportant.”
"’Reason,’ among the Houyhnhnms, he says, "is not a Point Problematical, as with us, where men can argue with Plausibility on both Sides of a Question; but strikes you with immediate Conviction; as it must needs do, where it is not mingled, obscured, or discoloured by Passion and Interest." In other words, we know everything already, so why should dissident opinions be tolerated?”
http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/swift/english/e_swift
Orwell's point is that not only do people fall behind a powerful leader, but that they also tend to denigrate those who don't think the same way. That’s where the problem lies.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s Sanders, Hillary, Trump, or Carson. Their supporters vilify opponents to the extreme. The resulting animosity makes it difficult to carry on a rational dialogue that explores the real cause of problems that face us all. Instead what we have is this continual bashing and blaming, “moron, stupid, liar, etc.”
For real, sustained progress to occur, this has to stop.
Orwell was a democratic socialist. As such he certainly criticized conservatives, but he was equally critical of leftist politics, saying that it had drifted so far away from the concepts of democratic equality, that Marx, and even Lenin would not recognize it as being Socialism.
He addresses the attitude of pseudo-socialism in number of essays.
In the essay I previously cited, Notes On Nationalism, Orwell details the psychological pathology, and points out that these extremist attitudes are universal, and know no boundaries.
In Politics vs. Literature: An Examination Of Gulliver’s Travels, Orwell uses the Houyhnhnms to illustrate how socialism has drifted away from the ideals of democracy –
“Part IV of GULLIVER'S TRAVELS is a picture of an anarchistic Society, not governed by law in the ordinary sense, but by the dictates of "Reason", which are voluntarily accepted by everyone … “
“This illustrates very well the totalitarian tendency which is explicit in the anarchist or pacifist vision of Society. In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else.”
“…there was no room for disagreement among them, because the truth is always either self-evident, or else it is undiscoverable and unimportant.”
"’Reason,’ among the Houyhnhnms, he says, "is not a Point Problematical, as with us, where men can argue with Plausibility on both Sides of a Question; but strikes you with immediate Conviction; as it must needs do, where it is not mingled, obscured, or discoloured by Passion and Interest." In other words, we know everything already, so why should dissident opinions be tolerated?”
http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/swift/english/e_swift