Big Brother doesn't need to watch us (1984) 5.14.02

In another attempt to get everyone thinking about the same thing and with the growing popularity of book clubs, recent efforts have been underfoot to get all of Iowans to read the same book in the All Iowa Reads program.
This is not new or particular to Iowa. Seattle, a highly literate and hip town, was the first U.S. city to do this back in 1998. It makes for nice conversation about something meaningful and will continue to do so until the debate about book choices becomes so ridiculously politicized that it collapses under its own weight.
My personal recommendation was for "Huckleberry Finn" by the greatest American author who ever walked the earth, piloted a riverboat or sank heavily into debt. I'm talking about the one and only Samuel L. Clemens or A to the K to the mother scratchin' A, Mark Twain (fanfare, lights go up, fireworks, music swells and ... scene!).
You can cast your own vote at DesMoinesRegister.com/extras/books/index.html.
Interestingly enough, one of the books nominated that I would also nominate is George Orwell's "1984." Mr. Orwell would be among the first to get a good laugh at the idea of nearly 3 million people reading his book so they could all be on the same page about something.
Then he would think about the boost in book sales and say loud and proud, "screw the proletariat, buy my book!"
"1984" is an important work of futurist fiction and if I were making a list of important books people should read, I would put it right alongside Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" as book most of us should read somewhere between 16 to 22 when we are old enough to understand things greater than ourselves and young enough to get worked up about it.
The anonymous gentlemen who recommended "1984" on the Des Moines Register site had apparently missed the point of the book completely when he said it would be good "for all those who think 'communism' is 'harmless' and for all those who do not recognize the dangers of political correctness or totalitarian governments."
Yeah, try again, pal, and keep the lights on next time. Anyone who uses quotation marks that liberally has obviously missed a point or two. While one would not argue against the arguments against "totalitarianism," "authoritarianism" or any other "ism" for that matter, to reduce "1984" as a mere condemnation of "communism" would be like dismissing Sinclair Lewis's "The Jungle" as a "vegetarian cookbook."
Orwell was smarter than the average bear and when he pointed the finger, he pointed it squarely at the heart of man for the dangers of the new world order following World War II were many and broader than a flawed ideology or two. They struck at the core of our race, at the cracks that will one day threaten to bring the walls down around our ears.
Even people who have not read "1984" feel they have a passing understanding of it because it is commonly referenced in "the media" every few years in stories about technology and privacy issues. "Is Big Brother watching you? Find out tonight at 10 when we look at Web cams."
Privacy was an issue in "1984," but technology never was. For my money, neither was the most important theme. In and of itself, having computer keep track of accounts, posting cameras in public places and getting searched at the airport are no more relevant to freedom than the fact that we mostly live on top of each other any way.
We are not alone most of the day and when we finally do get a moment to ourselves, chances are no one cares what we do and why should they? We can't even muster up two political parties with significant differences let alone a third political party to challenge the establishment.
In a country where practically no one votes, Big Brother has nothing to worry about. There is not much political thought in the United States let alone philosophies, religions or counter-cultures that might prove dangerous to our way of life.
No, we are watched all the time and most of us like it because it makes us feel secure and when something bad happens, terrorism, crime, credit card fraud, identity theft, we complain we were not being watched closely enough.
Orwell had more to warn against than being watched.
One concept that made my synapses light up like a Christmas tree was that those who govern know the best way to control the public is it to have a handy enemy.
The Cold War was nearly 50 years of 1984-style us vs. them that got pretty much everybody thinking the same way during the witch hunts of the '50s, the nuclear arms race and several police actions/wars.
Iraq has been nothing if not a convenient enemy to be called on in a pinch. Saddam Hussein is so perfect in the role of America's enemy, he looks cast for the part by Hollywood. At any given moment, the Iraqis are violating sanctions, not allowing inspectors access, violating human rights or crossing into no-fly zones so we could theoretically unleash on them any time the president needs a boost in his ratings or to switch the attention of the press off his sexual indiscretions.
We shamefully admitted how glad we were to have to something unify us all and get us all thinking along the same lines after 9/11. As if diverse opinion were a bad thing.
Orwell new thought was not possible without language when he envisioned the Newspeak Dictionary. I am routinely disturbed by how insufficient my Webster's has become. Half the vocabulary words I learned in junior high don't seem to exist any more. A dictionary has one purpose and when it fails at that job, we lose important concepts and the means to self-expression.
Orwell showed up that we like our demagogues no matter who they are. We like talk about freedom more than we like to have it. He showed us a world where progress is measured in the capacity of men to suffer more, have less and say nothing. He knew we might one day come to love having the boot heel of oppression on our throats ... forever.
- Greg Jerrett is a Nonpareil staff writer. His column runs on Wednesdays and Saturdays. He may be contacted at 328-1811, Ext. 279, or by e-mail at gjerrett@nonpareilonline.com.