Eugine_Nier comments on George Orwell's Prelude on Politics Is The Mind Killer - Less Wrong

10 [deleted] 29 March 2012 04:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (285)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 April 2012 02:06:08AM 7 points [-]

In a way, FDR managed to play the ultimate head-game with all future American right-wingers by wrapping his legacy into the image of a great war leader whom someone strongly patriotic can't despise without feeling disloyal.

Actually that's far from original. Obtaining great victories for the advancement of your power unit is a great way to take control at a very hearts-and-minds level and memetically and without further effort brand all opposition or even serious criticism as traitorous to the cause of the power unit. De Gaulle did it (with limited but still substantial success), Churchill did it, Lenin did it, Ben-Gurion did it, Patton tried to do it but got shot, same for MLK and Julius Caesar (but Augustus succeeded and lived to enjoy it), Gandhi did it, Hassan II of Morocco did it, and every tinpot strongman dictator tries to invoke it even though they never stepped on a battlefield!.

It does feel liberating to express this fact so bluntly, though, especially in the cases of Churchill, FDR, and De Gaulle.

That has been a permanent feature of American society ever since the New Deal,

You mean to say it wasn't even before that, or that it is in any way exclusive to American society, as opposed to every society in the planet save for very specific corners of the Internet?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 April 2012 02:31:35AM 10 points [-]

Churchill did it,

It didn't even let Churchill win reelection right after the war ended.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 April 2012 02:44:13AM 3 points [-]

No, but he became a freaking legend, and I don't remember coming across any serious criticism of his regime or his ideology, beyond the most timid whimpers that he might have been a little too enthusiastic about the whole ordeal, or that he might have been a little bit racist.

By the way, politics in Britain remain a huge mystery to me, what with the lack of actual changes in regime or in written constitution. Could anyone point me to any work that would give me a coherent narrative of the events, generally speaking?

Comment author: Multiheaded 02 April 2012 01:29:53PM 4 points [-]

I don't remember coming across any serious criticism of his regime or his ideology

Um... Orwell? :)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 April 2012 03:27:36AM *  5 points [-]

No, but he became a freaking legend

This, however, didn't translate into having his policies implemented.

By the way, politics in Britain remain a huge mystery to me, what with the lack of actual changes in regime or in written constitution.

Britain has regime changes they're just peaceful.

As for violent regime changes, Britain has had those, just not recently.

Comment author: asr 01 April 2012 08:37:58AM 1 point [-]

The word regime usually means "the overall structure of the government" or "a period of legal and administrative continuity" -- not just a particular cabinet or party in power. It's misleading to refer to a General Election as a change of regime.

Comment author: TimS 02 April 2012 11:21:58PM 4 points [-]

That might be what people mean, but I think Eugine is right in his implicit statement that the common understanding is not a natural kind in terms of political analysis.

Comment author: asr 03 April 2012 03:04:55AM *  -1 points [-]

Of course. Most terms in politics are socially constructed, not natural. They have meaning because we have collectively agreed to use them in some particular ways. It impedes communication to use them in a non-standard way without being clear about the nonstandard use. Hence, I commented to flag it.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 April 2012 04:59:40AM 2 points [-]

socially constructed, not natural

These are not mutually exclusive.