THE CHATTERING CLASSES, AS SEEN BY ORWELL

Goldberg File 6-8 Jonah Goldberg

Updated 6/8/99 1:25PM

THE CHATTERING CLASSES, AS SEEN BY ORWELL Power-worship blurs political judgment because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue, George Orwell wrote in 1946. His context was World War Two. Western intellectuals and journalists, he believed, tended to think every Nazi victory was a sign that the Axis would win the war. Then if the West won a battle, it suddenly became clear that the Allies were going to emerge victorious. Orwell may have been talking about WWII, but the truth of his observation can be found everywhere.

One need only look at all of the trends which experts assumed were permanent. Just a few years, ago rampant promiscuity and violence were considered to be permanent fixtures of the American social landscape. Littleton and the president4s pants to the contrary, violence is down and so is promiscuity. Indeed many of the hand-wringing indicators are in the tank -- out of wedlock births, AIDS, teen drug use, even Melrose Place is off the air. Less than a decade ago, seasoned journalists and famous economists were predicting that eventually Japan would own the United States. Well, the Treasury Department announced yesterday that the Japanese recession has officially lasted longer than the wedding scene in The Deer Hunter.

This is not to say that everything4s getting better or some other variant of we can see clearly now because the rain is gone. Instead, it is to point out that elite and expert opinion is married to the status quo.

Political analysts said it was inconceivable that Republicans could take back the House in 1994. They said the deficit was permanent. They said no one would ever be able to talk about Social Security. These same pundits said impeaching the president was unimaginable -- until it happened. They said bell-bottoms would never come back and there would never be a Loveboat remake.

If the Japanese have conquered South Asia, they will keep South Asia for ever; if the Germans take Tobruk, they will infallibly capture Cairo was how the elite scored the war according to Orwell. Today4s chattering class reasons in much the same way. They seal the future4s fate according to the headlines in the New York Times. Watch Inside Politics on CNN sometime. It is a show entirely dedicated to extrapolating from the current status quo out to the distant horizons of the future -- until the following day4s broadcast when the same thing is true, even though the poll numbers say the opposite of yesterday4s. I don4t want to pick on IP, which is actually far superior to the sanctimonious political drivel you get on, say, the Today show or Good Morning America.

(KATIE COURIC: Real Americans who love their kids and want a better future for all Americans don4t like guns. Mr. Heston, you like guns. Why do you hate kids and want America to be a wasteland of hate and violence?

Charlton Heston: Er, Katie, that question wa.

Couric: I4m sorry, Mr. Heston, we will have to leave it there. Thanks very much for coming in this morning and don4t worry, Americans still remember you as Moses, so we don4t totally hate you. Okay, coming up, Matt holds a puppy while he asks Tom Delay why he doesn4t move to Iran if he thinks religious government is so good.)

The tendency to always predict a continuation of what is currently happening, wrote Orwell, is not simply a bad habit, like inaccuracy or exaggeration, which one can correct by taking thought. It is a major mental disease, and its roots lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice. Indeed, whoever is winning at the moment will seem to be invincible.

This is far more the case in domestic politics, which revolve around cushy jobs and exclusive interviews, rather than in international wars which involve hated and despised enemies bent on your total destruction. Perhaps because the stakes are so much smaller, the behavior is much more extreme. In today4s Washington if you predict something that is contraindicated by the polls, you are either a fool, a spinner, a hack, or a loon.

Why? Well, if you predict that today4s winner might be tomorrow4s loser you are separating yourself from the only winner around at the moment. That4s why George Stephanopoulos was called a traitor by his former colleagues when he said the president might be impeached. Predictions can be the most devastating criticism.

A month ago, according to the press, Hillary Clinton should simply have skipped the campaigning and been sworn in because her poll numbers were so high. When her numbers went down, all of a sudden the race would be tough and bruising. Did anyone think that poll numbers don4t change in a campaign? Of course not. But saying Hillary was in trouble in the face of the only barometer of winning -- polls -- feels awfully risky for some people.

This has nothing to do with conservative versus liberal. The current hysteria over George Bush is an even better example. The scores of Washington hands who have told me for six months that George Bush is unbeatable, base it on little more than the W4s poll numbers. If he continues to do well, they will continue to be confident in the brilliance and independence of their thinking. If Bush goes south, well, that was totally unforeseeable, they will argue. This doesn4t mean they4re wrong, but suggesting otherwise is profoundly frightening to many in Washington.

It4s risky and frightening for all sorts of human reasons. First, people don4t like being wrong -- betting that tomorrow will be like today feels safe and will never sound stupid. Perhaps even worse than sounding stupid is sounding ignorant. Producers don4t book people who say, I don4t know. Also, journalists don4t want to lose access to the front-runner so they don4t ask tough questions. Who wants to be locked out for the next 18 months of the campaign, let alone be ostracized for a four-year presidential term? It4s also frightening because you have to rely on your own brain rather than what the crowd is thinking. Saying me too is always easier than saying you4re all wrong. If you think intellectuals are immune to this phenomenon, you need only look at the coincidence of revolutionary predictions by eggheads with everyday reporting in the morning papers.

So much for the cowardice part of the Orwell formulation.

The power-worship part is very similar. Intellectuals, we all know, have always secretly loved powerful people. Without powerful people, intellectuals4 ideas stay on the drawing boards or in some obscure journal. With powerful people, intellectuals get to fix things. Or just count up all of the historians and legal scholars who were convinced they knew the answer to why Clinton could not be impeached. Don4t even get me started on Hollywood.

Journalists claim they are immune to power worship. Few assertions of professional probity are more ridiculous. There are a few exceptions and a few more keep it in check, but generally journalists as a group are not merely worshippers of power, they are voluptuaries of power. One need not point to an obvious and craven lapdog to power like Sidney Blumenthal to illustrate this. You don4t even need to single out a particular member of the pundit class. One need only listen to their predictions.

-- ct vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), June 09, 1999

Answers

like i said GOD sits in heaven & laughs at all the smart-asses.

-- al-d. (catt@zianet.com), June 09, 1999.

ct did you type all that? Quite alot to ponder but, my overall impression is "BINGO"! Now take a nap...all that thinkin could kill ya!

-- MidwestMike_ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

al-d

You seem to really like that picture of God sitting up there making fun and criticizing everything we do.....just for laughs right...the real fun starts when he gets to torture most people right?????

Give it up turkey.......if you must post your religious ramblings like an insecure puppy, perhaps quote something uplifting like the love chapter.....1st Corinthians.......

Quit screwing the whole thing totally out of context.....seems your whole image of God is one of a controlling, angry, permanently pissed off menace who is never happy......

Take it elsewhere.....perhaps to your therapist.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), June 09, 1999.

I don't think it is so much that tomorrow will be exactly like today as that tomorrow should not be more than minisculy different from today. So over a period of time, things can change, but imperceptibly along the way. (Kinda like Clinton getting away with continually redrawing the line of decency over several years, and the American public getting used to it.) Y2K is unpopular because it is potentially such a radical change, and that makes folks spouting Y2K preparation cultural heretics.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

ct----excellent. Are you a professional writer. A++ for that assighnment.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), June 09, 1999.

no no no folks, that's by Jonah Goldberg.

-- ct vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), June 09, 1999.

Creator of "The Goldberg File" for The National Review

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), June 09, 1999.

Mr. Goldberg's not always so serious, by the bye:

Over the course of the G-File, I have hinted at something called the Belgian Hegemony. And perhaps now is a good time to expose it. As we all know, it is good to hate the French. But has it occurred to anyone that maybe theres someone behind the bidet calling the shots?

Yes, its as frightening as it sounds. Ronald Reagan or Harry Truman or somebody else said that if you dont care who gets the credit you can accomplish anything. Belgium is the headquarters for NATO, the European Community, and zillions of other international organizations. And yet nobody wonders why. We watch as the U.N. and the WTO and the EC and the Nielson families expand into every nook and cranny of our lives -- and yet no one blames the Belgians. Why?

The Belgians are as famously inept at business as they are brilliant at bureaucratic in-fighting. (How do you teach a Belgian to run a small company? Give him a big company and wait six months). But give them a few sheaves of paper, a Xerox machine, and some rubber stamps and theyll slap a tariff on anything that moves. I take a back seat to no man in my disdain for the French, but what if it turns out the Belgians were pulling the strings all along?

In "The X-Files", FEMA (the Federal Emergency anagement Agency, also known as CHADDG, Clintons hack and donor dumping ground) is a hotbed of conspiratorial activity. Does any doubt that the Belgians would have ample opportunities to mess with things from within the bowels of the EC and NATO? Now whos being naove?

I dont pretend to have proof of this, but I think they are a strange and elusive people. Not quite French, not quite Dutch, and not exactly German. But they speak all three languages. Coincidence? I dont think so. I understand that they eat waffles covered in syrup and fruit because they like the sweet, sweet taste. Does that sound normal?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), June 09, 1999.

Craig,

In al-d's defense and with respect to this one issue only, I'd have to say that he's taking much of the Old and New Testament quite literally. At least in the version that I read, the Deity makes LOTS of judgements. Wipes out cities. Kills of nations. And (my personal favorite) tells a father to kill his son...

Now, I guess my question is: what part of that document should we read and accept as a guiding "truth"? Just the warm and fuzzy happy parts? Or should we recognize that the document is chock full of inconsistencies?

Just curious...

-- JXD (jxd29@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

I'm beginning to see a disturbing pattern here. I've noticed a vocal group of g&d folks that read National Review, and also are quite vocally Christian.

I wonder if they are projecting their religous mantras to the secular world of Y2k (that Wonderful Event That Will Cleanse the World of Faithless Hedonists). If you aren't a "Believer" then you are below contempt, because God will not save you and damn you to an Eternity of Suffering in Hell.

But ya know, I think those that disagree with Y2k D&G ramblings suffer the same contempt from those that do not go to church....they are nonbelievers who work to dismantle the fabric of Our Father and His Works.

Interesting....I'll bet Mr Vronsky has the same disdain for those who are not preparing for Y2k like the second coming of christ as he does those that do not share his religious beliefs...below contempt. AND God's contempt (and he knows, because he speaks to God, while the rest of us wallow in sinfullnes). How presumptuous.

OOOOOOOO! Should we REALLY shake things up by seeing how many of the D&G'ers are God Fearing Republicans who think Clinton is the Hapless Tool of Satan?

C'mon, people! Where's your sense of adventure!? Woo Hoo!

Let's just turn this whole thing into a religio-policitcal free-for- all!

National Review sucks! Newt Gingrich sucks! Prayer in school sucks! Y2k D&G sucks!

YEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! It's Gonzo debate, people, and I'm on a roll!

-- gonzoj (gonzo@muppet.com), June 09, 1999.

gonzoj: "I'm beginning to see a disturbing pattern here. I've noticed a vocal group of g&d folks that read National Review, and also are quite vocally Christian."

You're just now noticing that Y2K preparers include Republicans as well as Christians? Either you haven't been paying attention, you haven't been around very long, or you're not terribly bright.

gonzaoj: "But ya know, I think those that disagree with Y2k D&G ramblings suffer the same contempt from those that do not go to church....they are nonbelievers who work to dismantle the fabric of Our Father and His Works."

Wake up and smell the coffee. If you bother to read the archives of this forum you will notice that Y2k preparers who post here range from atheists to Buddhists to Christian fundamentalists. Usually faith is not an issue unless disrupters make it one...hmmm, I don't recognize your name...

gonzoj: "Interesting....I'll bet Mr Vronsky has the same disdain for those who are not preparing for Y2k like the second coming of christ as he does those that do not share his religious beliefs...below contempt. AND God's contempt (and he knows, because he speaks to God, while the rest of us wallow in sinfullnes). How presumptuous."

Please point out where Ct Vronsky referred to his religious beliefs or lack thereof. I musta missed the part where he said he speaks to God. I think you're being confused and mislead by those little voices in your head.

gonzoj: "OOOOOOOO! Should we REALLY shake things up by seeing how many of the D&G'ers are God Fearing Republicans who think Clinton is the Hapless Tool of Satan?"

Copying what your betters have already tried so many times to do hardly demonstrates creativity.

gonzoj: "It's Gonzo debate, people, and I'm on a roll!" You call this a roll? I've met Hunter Thompson, and you, sir, are no Hunter Thompson.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), June 09, 1999.

Close the bold tags RUOK.

-- renton (boo@yahoo.com), June 10, 1999.

Hey guys, this thread has moved decidedly OT. ct's origonal post didn't even have the word GOD in it. It seems to me he was talking about current socialogical conditions. Gotta admit though...you guys make my day.

-- MidwestMike_ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 10, 1999.

I've met Hunter Thompson, the vile bastard, and I sure wish he was coherent enough (or even alive) to hammer Y2K out with us.

He's entirely responsible for shaping me into the raving lunatic that I am. Whatta guy.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 10, 1999.

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa,

HT is indeed smiling at you from his Caddy ranch in the sticks. He sends me FAXes in my head (It's Better Than Sex).

Raving lunatic? HHHHOOOOO WEEEEE!

The Evil Forces of Insanity WILL prevail!

Apologies to CT. He didn't mention God in his original posting.

But I still think you bastards are silly little people looking for an excuse to play soldier. Maybe you guys are looking to take over the world and you SQUASH those who might stand in your way!

-- gonzo (gonzoj@muppet.com), June 10, 1999.

I am a libertarian who believes a person should be FREE to believe or disbelieve anything, as his/her own conscience dictates.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), June 10, 1999.