Is Peak Orwell Sustainable?
It's no coincidence that the left seems rather Orwellian at times; after all, Ingsoc in 1984 was Orwell's 1949 warning regarding what English Socialism could metastasize into a generation down the line. Why not American socialism?
One of the left's current (and frequently Orwellian) buzzwords is "sustainability." Lately, based on recent headlines, the left seems to reaching peak Orwell. Is such a condition sustainable? There seem to be an enormous amount of euphemisms, doublethink and moral evasions in the headlines these days. Here's a just a taste:
In order to play the losing hand the left have chosen to deal to themselves and the rest of the country via Obamacare, some Ministry of Truth-style euphemisms regarding work and employment have recently become necessary. As Michael Goodwin noted yesterday at the New York Post, "America now has a government that views work as a trap and celebrates those who escape it":
That is the upshot of last week’s remarkable exchange over ObamaCare. It began when the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the interplay of taxes and subsidies in the law “creates a disincentive for people to work.” The report predicted the mix would lead to fewer hours worked, costing the equivalent of nearly 2.5 million jobs.
In response, President Obama’s spokesman pleaded guilty — with pride and pleasure.
“Opportunity created by affordable, quality health insurance allows families in America to make a decision about how they will work, or if they will work,” Jay Carney said. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi applauded the law for freeing people from “job-lock.”
They never mentioned the implications of this distinctly Obama-ish New Deal. The subsidies that enable some Americans to decide “if they will work” mean higher taxes from those who must or want to work.
Republicans immediately jumped on the finding as proof that the law is a jobs killer and cited earlier discoveries about its destructive impact. These include Obama’s lie that “you can keep your plan” and the fact that many new insurance plans come with higher premiums and deductibles and fewer doctors.
Pay more, get less will be the experience for tens of millions by the time the law is fully implemented. And don’t forget its assault on religious freedom.
Economist Craig Newmark, the husband of popular blogger Betsy Newmark, boils the implications of the left's recent tack down to a couple of sentences:
I love that Liberals have now decided that what individuals voluntarily choose--regardless of the consequences for the rest of us--is fine. Question for them: shouldn't we therefore allow individuals to choose whether or not to have health insurance and if so, what kind?
Of course, to buy insurance of any kind, you'll need at some point to verify your identity. Indeed, to do just about anything these days, you need to verify your identity -- except vote, where in blue regions of the country, dead or alive, you're more than welcome to vote early and often.
In fact, you even need to prove your identity via a photo ID card to march in anti-voting ID protests:
#MoralMarch will protest NC's new "racist" #VoterID, but you're req'd to bring photo ID to the march. #ncpol pic.twitter.com/w14mzejdSn
— Stacey-SisterToldjah (@sistertoldjah) February 8, 2014
As Moe Lane notes in response, "I thought that it was impossible for North Carolinian minorities to get valid photo IDs! …Well, no, I didn’t: not being a racist, I don’t have as low an opinion of the intelligence and competence of North Carolinian minorities as does, apparently, the NC NAACP."