George Orwell is More Relevant Today Than Ever

George Orwell Is the Most Prescient Writer on Politics I ever Read

When it comes to political rhetoric, one of my biggest pet peeves with the left is their deliberate misuse of two words, “Democracy” and “Fascism.” I have always believed that these are hopelessly abstract and meaningless words, like “McCarthyism”, “Social Justice” or “Homophobia”, or Joe Biden’s, “Fifty years of experience”, they mean nothing and worse than that they are used to deceive the listener, and they therefore corrupt our political dialogue.

In an effort to get a refresher on political rhetoric I re-read George Orwell’s book “Why I write” over the weekend. I say re-read because I think I did read it years ago, when I was in school, but I only have a vague memory of it. Well, after my second read I can honestly say that it is a great book and even though it was published in 1946 it is still relevant today.

Orwell wrote about political rhetoric, and the main point I took from his writing is that for rhetoric to be good and honest it must be less abstract and more concrete. Examples of abstractions would be what we might today call generalities, and by concrete he’d mean specific program ideas. In effect empty words create room for misunderstandings and deception. An example from today that would fit Orwell’s view, “Donald Trump seeks to undermine democracy” is abstract. And “Donald Trump plans to cancel the 2026 midterm elections” is concrete. The left speaks in abstract terms. Speaking more concretely is likely to expose them as frauds.

Well, I picked up the book because I seemed to recall that Orwell discussed the meaning of the words Fascism and Democracy, and I needed his take, or should I say his back up to my view. Well towards the end of the book I found the quote that I was looking for:

“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of the word democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides.”

Democrats and the media talk about democracy being under threat, but they never explain. Sometimes they cite the burdensome demand that a voter must show a photo ID to vote that poses a threat to democracy. Sometimes it is the elimination of Saturday early voting that poses a threat to democracy, sometimes I will read a story about some Republican legislator in the sun belt who suggests that early voting be reduced from six weeks to four weeks and to the left that idea poses a threat to democracy. I have even heard that bans on food and drink at a polling place poses a threat to democracy.

Well, the left keeps us in suspense as to how democracy is under threat. Their examples are various and constantly changing. In addition, they never offer a definition of democracy. Before we decide that something is being threatened, it seems to me that we first need to have a common definition to what is being threatened.

So, I will go first. My definition of democracy is majority rule, and a direct vote by the people on all laws that govern the country. That is people vote on legislation, and the majority vote determines the law. Well, we citizens in America don’t vote on legislation, with the rare exception of referendums. In our country the laws that govern our country are written by the people we elect. Now true at the end of a term we can un-elect them, but they are our empowered representatives, and they vote for us whether we agree with them on all Bills or not.

And as far as majority rule, which is the basic requirement of a democracy, our Senate is not a majoritarian body. Seats are equally divided between states without regard to population. So, a minority can block the wishes of the majority. So, by neither standard, that is by citizens voting on legislation or by majority rule can America be called a democracy. I would say that we are a representative Democracy or a Republic.

So, when Democrats tell us that our democracy is under threat, it seems obvious by their actions that they don’t know what they mean. For example, currently the minority Democrats in the Senate are blocking the majority in the Senate from reopening our federal government. That is the opposite of majority rule. Senate Democrats have said in the past that they oppose the filibuster and have implied that it is undemocratic, so they want to get rid of it, yet now they use it. Are they a threat to democracy? No, I’d say that they are hypocrites. I support the filibuster, but I am consistent, I have never claimed to support turning our country into a democracy.

And there is more evidence that Democrats don’t mean majority rule when talking about democracy. It can be found in their support for DC statehood. Democrats are pushing to make the District of Columbia our 51st state. DC has just over 700 thousand people, and as a state they would get two senators. By comparison Texas has just over 30 million people and they have two senators. If Democrats have their way DC and Texas will have the same number of seats in the Senate. If Democrats respected the concept of majority rule, they couldn’t support such an imbalance.

The ruling Democrats in California and Maryland want to redraw their congressional districts to squeeze more Republicans out of Congress. I guess to them this doesn’t constitute a threat to democracy.

On Monday former President Joe Biden restated his belief that in his “50 years of experience”, this period, under Trump, is a “dark period”, and that today, the country is under the greatest “threat to our democracy.”

Well, Joe Biden has never, to my knowledge ever defined democracy, he has no idea of what makes a democracy, so how can he identify a threat to something that he can’t define.

Now my second problem is with the use of the word, “fascist.”

I have always believed that it is a phony word. When I was a kid, I remember the teacher telling a fellow student to be quiet. He later told me that the teacher was a ‘fascist.” I remember a guy who got a ticket and he described that officer, who pulled him over and wrote him the speeding ticket, as a “fascist.” I remember a kid, who was kicked out of a gym, I think it was after normal operating hours, referring to the custodian, who showed him the door, as a “fascist.” I remember candidates being called “fascists” but tellingly I never heard a Democrat describe a fellow Democrat as a “fascist”, and I have never heard a Republican describe another Republican as a “fascist.” I figured out early on that the word “fascist” was meaningless.

Unless a person is talking about Hitler or Mussolini, and what we call the fascist movement in Europe in the early 20th century the word “fascist” doesn’t fit. And if anyone uses that word out of that context then they are an idiot whose opinions and thoughts should be discounted.

Wouldn’t it be nice if one day in an interview with a Democrat like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Rep. Jasmine Crockett the interviewer would ask them to define democracy and fascism. They couldn’t answer such a question. But no worries, the low IQ Democrats who do media interviews only do “friendly” interviews.

David Shephard is the author of two books: Elections Have Consequences, A Cautionary Tale.

Norton’s Choice: An Inside Politics Exposé: Shephard, David: 9781892538802: Amazon.com: Books