Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something

posted at 1:45 pm on May 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Everywhere else but Washington, this would qualify as high irony.  In the Beltway, however, it only qualifies as another pathetic attack on free speech.  Bill Clinton attacked free speech on the Internet yesterday, telling CNBC that it would be “legitimate” for the government to create an agency to discredit political arguments and quash Internet rumors:

Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet. And he thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to do something about it.

“It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview airing Friday on CNBC.

The agency, Clinton said, would “have to be totally transparent about where the money came from” and would have to be “independent” because “if it’s a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the internet.”

Hey, we could use existing models for a Ministry of Truth, too — kind of like NPR, the BBC in the UK, or other already-existing forms of government-controlled media:

“That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors” he said. “And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.”

I could totally see this, too.  Why, let’s say a salacious rumor involving a high-ranking government official started swirling on the Intertubes.  The Ministry of Truth could then issue a televised statement, with an angry man scolding the American public by wagging his finger at us and telling us that the rumor was absolutely not true.  You know, kind of like this:

We have free speech primarily to hold government accountable, not the Internet.  The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not government agencies churning out propaganda to protect the entrenched power elite.  And even if this was a good idea, which it most certainly is not, Bill Clinton might just be the worst possible living spokesman for it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Hey, we could use existing models for a Ministry of Truth, too — kind of like NPR, the BBC in the UK, or other already-existing forms of government-controlled media:

Except deep down, I think the KGB is more like what they had in mind…

cynccook on May 14, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Go back to your womanizing and leave the rest of us alone, Billy.

KSgop on May 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

I came for the “impeachable source” joke and it was on the front page. I now leave happy.

amerpundit on May 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

What could go wrong…

the_nile on May 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Remember, he didn’t inhale, and when he lied, nobody died.

manwithblackhat on May 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

All your truth are belong to us

Keef Overbite on May 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM

You can’t spell “Ministy” without “is.”

Christien on May 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM

So here is how we tell if Bill Clinton or Barack Obama are telling a lie:

If lips are moving then lying=Yes!

The Rock on May 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM

“Ah did not have truth with that ministry!”

Hening on May 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM

LOL….Ministry.

Nice try, me.

Christien on May 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Boy it does indeed seem that they are going after the internet to stop anything they don’t like. We have got to not let our 1st go away from those in dc! They might even say HA needs to be shut down because we voice our views?
L

letget on May 14, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Hey. And we should put Clinton in charge!

On a more serious note, this is an attempt to gain flanking support for control and politicization of the internet. The Dems are pretty certain that once regulated, Washington bureaucrats will bend the medium to the left. And in fact it will be a certainty, given that all such bureaucrats are union members.and the internet czars will no doubt be respected members of the MSM or academia, with all the credentials that come with such “stature”.

pat on May 14, 2011 at 1:52 PM

It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

Christien on May 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM

And of course, “truth.” What a flexible, elastic, vague term that is….

cynccook on May 14, 2011 at 1:52 PM

So it would need to be a government agency, but not really a government agency, you know, independent, but still government-ish.

Kinda like the Fannie-Mae-Freddie-Mac-Post-Office of truth enforcement. It’ll be great. Trust me.

forest on May 14, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Let’s say a high-level government official was abusing his power and using his office to interfere with the civil rights of a small number of former employees and acquaintances. Then the rumors of this sort of thing take to the internet. As more “facts” develop, more “rumors” abound.

Then in full view of the public, at prime-time, this self-same high-level government official tells the world, “I did not have sex, with that woman, Monica Lewinsky…”

I think Clinton has an axe to grind here.

And, no, we do not need any sort of Ministry of Truth here in America, nor run by the United Nations, of all outfits, either.

For the moment such an entity is allowed to be formed here in the United States, there will no longer be a First Amendment. And the others will topple soon thereafter.

coldwarrior on May 14, 2011 at 1:52 PM

I say we give Media Matters the job. /

Jon Fezzik on May 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM

“We have always been at war with EastAsia”.

I would say “Shame on you, Bill Clinton”, but for the fact that I doubt your capacity for shame.

JohnGalt23 on May 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM

His wife used to take credit for creating Media Matters. Aren’t they the Ministry of Truth?

JammieWearingFool on May 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM

This sounds like something out of Harry Potter. Dolores Umbridge.

“I must not tell lies…”

MikeknaJ on May 14, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Here’s the video for the Harry Potter “I must not tell lies” scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL0MvE43Xrs

MikeknaJ on May 14, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Hey, we could have somebody independent and respected like Bill Press or Dan Rather run this ministry.

PatMac on May 14, 2011 at 1:55 PM

His wife used to take credit for creating Media Matters. Aren’t they the Ministry of Truth Propaganda?

JammieWearingFool on May 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM

FIFY

cynccook on May 14, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something

That’s like Michael Moore writing diet books.

Keef Overbite on May 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

darwin-t on May 14, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Bill Maher
for
Truth Czar!

Akzed on May 14, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Spreading lies infringes on Clinton’s intellectual property rights. He wants his royalties.

RBMN on May 14, 2011 at 1:59 PM

We already have an Internet fact checker…it’s called Snopes.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 2:01 PM

The man has not been well since the heart operation. This may be evidence of early onset of dementia. No snark.

Mason on May 14, 2011 at 2:02 PM

We have free speech primarily to hold government accountable, not the Internet.

ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding

Tim_CA on May 14, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Know ye the truth minister, and the truth minister shall set you free!

Christien on May 14, 2011 at 2:05 PM

2+2=5

JetBoy on May 14, 2011 at 2:06 PM

We already have an Internet fact checker…it’s called Snopes.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 2:01 PM

We already have an internet fact checker…each of us…it is called actually having an education, having and exercising the ability to read, using the willingness to actually seek out information and not have it spoon fed to you, and we can do it when we choose, where we choose and from whatever sources we choose.

Individual liberty and individual responsibility make one hell of a good combination.

No government organization, nor international outfit can ever do that for us. Not ever.

coldwarrior on May 14, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Listen, from a crowd that admires China’s system of government, i.e. efficient and governable, I wouldn’t be surprised in the next 10 years that this country has this

r keller on May 14, 2011 at 2:06 PM

The man has not been well since the heart operation. This may be evidence of early onset of dementia. No snark.

Mason on May 14, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Minor frontal cortex damage is not uncommon with this kind of heart surgery.

Tim_CA on May 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Somewhere, George Orwell is laughing his ass off!

GarandFan on May 14, 2011 at 2:09 PM

The Left is becoming increasingly totalitarian by the day. Frightening.

jawkneemusic on May 14, 2011 at 2:10 PM

I think he meant Ministry of Silly Walks.

Blake on May 14, 2011 at 2:15 PM

We already have an Internet fact checker…it’s called Snopes.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 2:01 PM

And they seemed to have done a good job covering the Birth Certificate thing as well as other Obama-isms running around the internet. Be assured, his Oneness is a home-bred and born apple pie-loving American who shares the same values as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM

they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake

You mean citations like the NYT? Or MediaMatters?

But, I really like the truth thing Bill. You go first.

BacaDog on May 14, 2011 at 2:19 PM

telling CNBC that it would be “legitimate” for the government to create an agency to discredit political arguments and quash Internet rumors:

That’s what the county and district attys did in St.Louis during the 2008 election, except they announced they were going to prosecute people [for criticizing obama]. I can’t believe they were allowed to get away with that crap.

Blake on May 14, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Everyday brings reminders of how the left is eroding our freedoms. It is a constant, never-ending onslaught.

GaltBlvnAtty on May 14, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Well he’s a narcissistic egomaniac even for a politician so of course he hasn’t a clue that he sounds like an idiot.

Seth Halpern on May 14, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Bubba thinks his Indonesian tsunami and Haitian relief efforts repaired his damaged legacy, so now he’s free to do whatever he wants.

To think Shrillary isn’t running in 2012 requires, in her words, “willing suspension of disbelief.”

Christien on May 14, 2011 at 2:20 PM

“I did not have sex with that woman, may God strike me dead” *looks around worriedly*

Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2011 at 2:20 PM

We already have an Internet fact checker…it’s called Snopes.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Which ironically is run by 2 Clinton Democrats out of their house!

Clintoon is in an interesting position…he was exposed by the internet (Drudge) when the Democrats in the “objective mainstream media” decided not to report that he was engaged in an adulterous relationship, in the workplace, with a female subordinate. Had a Republican President done the same thing, the press would have run with it immediately.

At the same time, Clinton’s false “legacy” has also been kept alive by the internet. But apparently he’s more concerned with what he sees as “lies” about his legacy that are really the truth, not the online “truth” about his legacy being lies.

One would be surprised at how many people don’t know that years before 9/11 and the Iraq War, Bill Clinton’s Justice Department formally charged bin Laden with being in cahoots with Iraq. And one would also be surprised at how many people have no idea that Bill Clinton’s Justice Department also successfully prosecuted a female Federal employee for lying under oath about sex.

That’s because the power of the Democrat Press, unlike the power of the internet, has two sides. It’s not what they do report, it’s what they chose not to report.

Del Dolemonte on May 14, 2011 at 2:21 PM

And this is the President who Hitchens wrote a book about he called “No One Left To Lie To”.

Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2011 at 2:24 PM

If you give Media Matters control over NPR and increase the funds it should suit their purposes delectably.

Of course, they won’t be so blatant about it and will make it sound perfectly reasonable. They’ll say that they’re merely correcting the lies and rumors that are floating around, occupying peoples thoughts and conversations for no useful purpose. Those people don’t have the time or inclination to fact check everything they hear, and doing so leads to a lot of duplicative efforts and inefficiency. Having a small group of people, experts in their fields, fact checking the lies that are told will improve peoples efficiency and harmony and thus improve productivity. Therefor the Ministry of Truth will be good for the economy and thus create millions of jobs over the next two years. When parents have jobs their children will be better cared for, so the Ministry of Truth is good for children, too.

If you are against the Ministry of Truth then you are against harmony, friendship, jobs and children, everything that is good.

FloatingRock on May 14, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Roger Clinton, DEA

Christien on May 14, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Unbelievable.

The government already has plent of bureaus and agency who provide objective truth, i.e. data and statistics: Census Bureau, CBO, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Tranportation Statistics, etc, etc.

Mr Clinton is proposing an agency that would interpret the truth for us, which is an incredibly dangerous idea.

This time, the Orwellian headline is very appropriate.

Dreadnought on May 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Send him some cigars….that will keep him busy.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say Hillary was getting those pantsuits out of mothballs and running for president.

HornetSting on May 14, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Who don’t we just sell ourselves and become wards of the state.

Government people are like really really special. They never lie, cheat or steal. Little angels follow them around everywhere they go.

We have replaced the tyranny of kings with the tyranny of government agencies and government experts. Yeah, the ministry of truth. And there will only be one truth, that of the Democrat in charge at the moment and the agency he funds.

JellyToast on May 14, 2011 at 2:34 PM

We could call it “Snopes”.

Steven Den Beste on May 14, 2011 at 2:39 PM

If there were a Ministry of Truth I’m not sure anything would be much different than it is now with the MSM. In fact the government is so bad at everything it does, if they make the public/private propaganda connection official the quality of their propaganda will probably go down, thus making it more obvious to people than it already is.

FloatingRock on May 14, 2011 at 2:39 PM

This already exists, it is called: The Associated Press

CrazyGene on May 14, 2011 at 2:44 PM

It just gets better and better every day.

The Ruling Class feeling the heat a little?

rrpjr on May 14, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Well, if gov’t is making our health care decisions for us, why not let it just tell us what is true and what isn’t – even criminalize disagreeing with the gov’t truth.

I’m sure teh commerce clause allows it.

Monkeytoe on May 14, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Great idea. Government agencies, bureaus, quasi-agencies, and departments all have high credibility, just like the Congress that created them. Who would believe a word they say? Sounds like another idea to put 6,000 employees on the government payroll, doing something useless.

FalseProfit on May 14, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something

WTF!!??? Pravda has a Western subsidiary???

landlines on May 14, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Bill Clinton attacked free speech on the Internet yesterday, telling CNBC that it would be “legitimate” for the government to create an agency to discredit political arguments and quash Internet rumors:

And they said he is smart. He’s as “smart” as Obama, on topic.

Schadenfreude on May 14, 2011 at 2:57 PM

The American people are going to be held responsible by their rulers for anything said that is inconvenient or embarrassing to the rulers. Before the press became the crawling, boot licking mouthpieces for the ruling class that they’ve become, this was their job.

MTF on May 14, 2011 at 3:07 PM

We all know politicians -check that- Democratic politicians would receive waivers.

CWforFreedom on May 14, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Something about it just sounds fishy. I’m sending this link to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Ted Torgerson on May 14, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Ted Torgerson on May 14, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Perhaps, more fitting, it should be sent to randallflagg@whitehouse.gov?

coldwarrior on May 14, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Kathleen Willey
Juanita Broaddrick
Monika Lewinsky
Paula Jones

Bill Clinton told us all about his life. In a memoir that spanned over 950 pages, the former president discussed his five and a half decades in exhaustive detail. But while he made a point to mention the names of his minister’s three children and to recount conversations his mother had with coffee shop patrons, curiously little is said about the many women whose lives he upended and changed forever.
…. from:
Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine

RealMc on May 14, 2011 at 3:25 PM

I hear the AP has a poll out that says Americans approve of this idea by 60%…

… Oh, wait!

Seven Percent Solution on May 14, 2011 at 3:29 PM

My all time favorite Slick Willie quote is the time he said “I don’t think you will be able to find proof that I ever changed my position on a subject solely due to a poltical contribution.” There are more trap doors in that one sentence than in a fun house. It’s the mark of a true master to have so many outs when even one would be more than enough.

Fred 2 on May 14, 2011 at 3:40 PM

It’s called the Drudge-grudge!

Don L on May 14, 2011 at 3:47 PM

What a freakin idiot!
Yes Bill, let’s put together “transparent” “indepenent” organization that would function to put out the “truth”.
And while you’re at it, maybe you could start by actually TELLING THE TRUTH yourself.

“What is “is” anyway?”
Fricking lying idiot!

KMC1 on May 14, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Why yes Bill, that is worthy expenditure of taxpayer money. Not!!

vcferlita on May 14, 2011 at 4:01 PM

How about selective reporting? After all, some UK papers report news that American press just won’t do.

Of course, the standards of truth will only apply to whom?

Kini on May 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM

If it was really about truth. Lefty blogs would be hardest hit.

Greed on May 14, 2011 at 4:08 PM

telling CNBC that it would be “legitimate” for the government to create an agency to discredit political arguments and quash Internet rumors:

Why do we need an agency to do this? If I go to http://www.whitehouse.gov, don’t I get all the discredited political arguments and quashed Internet rumors I might ever want?

unclesmrgol on May 14, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Wow! Nice going Slick – betcher wish this was around when you were trying to define ‘sex’. . . .

karra on May 14, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Too bad they had that blue dress. Otherwise it was his ministry or truth vs some dumb bimbo.

Greed on May 14, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I still can occasionally get libs to argue as to whether Billy Bob lied, or just used a fancy legal twist of words…
-
Even when you ask them if their spouse would call a misplaced BJ sex or not… they trip over the answer as they soooo want Billy’s lies under oath to not be real lies.
-
What is Mr. Bill’s presidency remembered for first, last, and forever? As it should be.
-
No end to the hypocrisy from the left. And Bill is one of their shining stars.
-

RalphyBoy on May 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM

when he lied, nobody died.

manwithblackhat on May 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

I wonder how many abortions were performed because of Clinton’s actions (re. Mexico City policy, appointments, etc).

itsnotaboutme on May 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM

I think this is Billy’s attempt to introduce a need for Gyorgi Schwartz NEWS Int’l.

ROCnPhilly on May 14, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Hey Bubba, that will put propaganda ministers like Soros, the Sandlers, and John Podesta out of business.

Jayrae on May 14, 2011 at 4:59 PM

This from the Perjurer in Chief…

Gohawgs on May 14, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Billyjeff, no matter what you do or say or write or who you bribe and fool, the stains you made will follow you to hell.

You rapist garbage.

Western_Civ on May 14, 2011 at 5:11 PM

When will this vile reprobate finally shut the eff up?

csdeven on May 14, 2011 at 5:27 PM

It all depends on what the definition of “pwned” is, Billie Jeff.

“Here-e-e-e-e-s your sign…”

Yoop on May 14, 2011 at 5:41 PM

This guy took lying to new heights. He was the Amadeus Mozart of lying.

He just can’t stand that the truth can now be disseminated by us common unwashed plebes over the internet. For BJ this can’t be allowed. How dare the serfs actually exercise their first amendment right to free speech. Quick regulate them before they discover the emperor has no clothes.

And the left calls us fascists…

DeathB4Tyranny on May 14, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Anyone want to bet daniels, huck and mitt would all agree and support this idea?

unseen on May 14, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Would this Ministry of Truth have censored the rumors in Clinton’s own ads that if a Republican was elected, the black churches would be burned down? Or was that mere speculation that could not be disproved until a later date after the election?

KW64 on May 14, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Somewhere, George Orwell is laughing his ass off!

GarandFan on May 14, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Orwell was a Socialist. Nineteen Eighty-Four mocked Totalitarian Socialism, but Orwell was perfectly happy with the idea of Democratic Socialism (and Fabian Socialism). Somehow I doubt he would disagree with a MiniTruth the way Billy Jeffs describes it.

stvnscott on May 14, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Bill….people (like you) who live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones….dontchathink? *SIGH*

capejasmine on May 14, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Unbelievable!!! UNbelievable!

Minorcan Maven on May 14, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Looks like truth is taking a bite out of liberals.

tarpon on May 14, 2011 at 8:01 PM

All your truth are belong to us

Keef Overbite on May 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Excellent! There is just so much material out there.

Imagine if you will, Jon Lovitz doing a PSA for the new Department, and finishing with, “YEAH, THAT’S THE TICKET!”

Or, better yet, Fox Mulder . . . “The truth is out there.”

Trochilus on May 14, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Anyone want to bet daniels, huck and mitt would all agree and support this idea?

unseen on May 14, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Why? Have any of them broached the idea?

Dreadnought on May 14, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Except Bill Clinton wouldn’t know the truth if it stepped up to him, slapped him in the face, and introduced itself

ToddonCapeCod on May 14, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Willie is completely impervious to shame. I know we could use a guy like that somewhere, I’m just not sure where.

misterpeasea on May 14, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Orwell was a Socialist. Nineteen Eighty-Four mocked Totalitarian Socialism, but Orwell was perfectly happy with the idea of Democratic Socialism (and Fabian Socialism). Somehow I doubt he would disagree with a MiniTruth the way Billy Jeffs describes it.

stvnscott on May 14, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Yes, Orwell was a socialist, a utopian socialist, but not a Fabian Socialist (at least not by the time he wrote 1984), and not a “progressive”. I bet would have been repelled by the idea of an elitist government bureau dictating what is “Truth” and what is not “Truth” to “the rest of us”.

Dreadnought on May 14, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Somehow I doubt he would disagree with a MiniTruth the way Billy Jeffs describes it.

stvnscott on May 14, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Orwell would have been disgusted with any form of controlling authority over speech. It was a constant, blazing anathema of his life. As for being “perfectly happy” with Democratic Socialism, Orwell wasn’t “perfectly happy” with anything with respect to an “ism.” And he certainly wasn’t a “Utopianist.” Orwell’s work with the BBC late in his life was souring him on the entire Socialist project.

rrpjr on May 14, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Orwell would have been disgusted with any form of controlling authority over speech. It was a constant, blazing anathema of his life. As for being “perfectly happy” with Democratic Socialism, Orwell wasn’t “perfectly happy” with anything with respect to an “ism.” And he certainly wasn’t a “Utopianist.” Orwell’s work with the BBC late in his life was souring him on the entire Socialist project.

rrpjr on May 14, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Orwell was basically a socialist and remained a socialist to the end of his life. He also felt that capitalism in the USA would eventually collapse.

He was a Utopian Socialist in the sense that he felt that there were enough resources in the world to provide a good, modern life for everyone if a hierarchical society was abandoned, through democratic socialism. If that is not a Utopian view, I don’t know what is.

From 1947:
http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/European_Unity/english/e_teu

After the publication of 1984:
My recent novel is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable and which have already been partly realized in communism and Fascism

Dreadnought on May 15, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Wow, we have attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th amendments in one day and two posts.

Pattosensei on May 15, 2011 at 1:10 AM

Utopianism has a specific and extreme meaning of an ideal of social organization, and Orwell was far too hardened to the truths of political power and human turpitude to believe in this; the essay you link is shot through with skepticism and grounded realism from its opening sentence. I agree that he saw the Socialism of his time as the best chance for widespread decency of life within a political system, but that is not Utopianism. This conception of “Socialism” is all but nugatory today and Orwell would not recognize its present corrupted form. He was hugely wrong about Capitalism, but who is to say how he would have evolved about this. I’d like to think he would have caught on to the paradox of how social justice was more possible under Capitalism.

In any case, his work was a long and running humanist crusade against the poisons of orthodoxy. He brutally ridiculed aspects of Leftism. And, I maintain, any “ministry of truth” in whatever form would have horrified him.

rrpjr on May 15, 2011 at 1:30 AM

In any case, his work was a long and running humanist crusade against the poisons of orthodoxy. He brutally ridiculed aspects of Leftism. And, I maintain, any “ministry of truth” in whatever form would have horrified him.

rrpjr on May 15, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Yes, and I said the same thing earlier re: “ministry of truth”. However to maintain that Orwell ever soured on socialism is simply not true, and he was anti-capitalist until the end of his life. And to say that Orwell would have soured on socialism later because the whole idea lost currency, well, Orwell would have been 90 almost 20 years ago, and I don’t think you can say that socialism was completely out of fashion then, or now, for that matter, if you’ve spent any time on a college campus lately.

Certainly anything is possible, but there’s no evidence in Orwell’s life that it would have ever occurred.

Dreadnought on May 15, 2011 at 2:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2