Dustin Walker: Orwell's 'Animal Farm' meets '1984'


June 23, 2013 

Is America moving toward the Big Brother dystopia envisioned by George Orwell?

That question has been on many minds in the wake of revelations about the National Security Agency's sweeping surveillance of phone records and Internet data. The ACLU, for one, called these programs "beyond Orwellian" in a recent statement released. The ACLU's response is characteristically feverish, but in at least one respect, the organization is right: We are indeed approaching an Orwellian world.

Given the safeguards in place against abuse, the surveillance programs are not the problem. Although Americans are right to jealously guard their liberty and to display a healthy degree of suspicion about government programs of this scale, suspicion should not obscure the truth about these programs.

The phone monitoring component does not allow the government to listen in on anyone's calls without a court order. PRISM - the program that collects emails, videos and other data from major Internet companies - is limited to foreign targets and does not include U.S. citizens. These programs have been supervised by all three branches of government; Congress has approved them and is regularly briefed, and federal judges continue to scrutinize requests for targeting of specific terror suspects.

But the fact that these operations are operating under the rule of law is not the end of the story. For if we are not approaching the totalitarian nightmare of a novel like "1984," the revelations provide a stunning example of how President Obama has come to resemble a character in Orwell's other dystopian parable, "Animal Farm."

That 1945 novella tells of a farm revolution led by pigs, who drive out their oppressive human master, only to move into his house, don his clothes and wield his brutal whip to subjugate the other animals. At the story's conclusion, the pigs' victims gaze in on their new masters drinking and playing cards with half a dozen farmers. "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Presidential candidate Obama ran against the very ethos of Bush's national security program, saying it put forward "a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide." But just last week in California, President Obama told Americans they "have to make some choices as a society" because "you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience."

The real effect of the NSA stories is to cement a narrative about Obama that will likely become part of his legacy: the liberal senator and constitutional law professor who, like the pigs in "Animal Farm," metamorphosed into what he had so notoriously opposed. Guantanamo remains open. Drones still rain down on Pakistan, Yemen and anywhere else the president sees fit. Leaks are prosecuted vigorously and reporters are investigated to uncover their sources. And now, the president is affirming the surveillance practices he once mused could be unconstitutional. In light of these actions alone, it seems that Barack Obama has learned that George W. Bush got a lot of things right.

The point of noting the president's porcine transformation is not to criticize his current policies, but rather to serve as a warning to future White House aspirants: The responsibilities of power are difficult to reconcile with lazy criticism that is so easy to dispense from the sidelines. As long as he fails to recognize the debt that he, and the nation, owe to his predecessor, he will be practicing a vice that Orwell was a master of depicting: hypocrisy.

Dustin Walker, of Caldwell, is the editor of RealClearDefense. He is a former communication staffer for Gov. Mitt Romney and the House Armed Services Committee.

Idaho Statesman is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service