Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Weekend reading: George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

by Paul Wells on Friday, October 30, 2009 7:16pm - 137 Comments

This essay had a huge influence on my thinking when I first read it as an undergraduate. In it, Orwell uses, and admits to using, the word “nationalism” very loosely — it could apply to any movement or group to which people can apply blind loyalty or irrational contempt. He wishes people would notice their own “nationalisms” and attempt to correct for them:

The emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, should be able to exist side by side with an acceptance of reality. But this, I repeat, needs a moral effort, and contemporary English literature, so far as it is alive at all to the major issues of our time, shows how few of us are prepared to make it.

Of course in today’s political debates in Canada, Orwell’s warnings are as relevant as they ever were anywhere. I know a lot of people I wish would read Orwell’s essay — people who find themselves forever making excuses for one party or faction, while forever dismissing the excuses of another. But of course Orwell’s point is that it’s easy to point out the other guy’s biases without recognizing your own. So I try to find, or even better to avoid, instances in my own work where Orwell would recognize a “nationalism” and smile a sad smile of regret.

Bookmark and Share
  • Jesse

    Sigh.

    How on earth do you reconcile this with your recent kick about directing federal money towards science and expanding the federal role in education?

    Did you bother with a critical, in-depth analysis before jumping on the "jobs of tommorow" bandwagon Iggy is leading?

    Spain just slashed subsidies to green energy. With their unemployment through the roof they realized that the "jobs of tommorow" are meant to exist TOMMOROW and not today because with current technology they are ineffecient, costly, and an economic net negative.

    Instead of looking for the next RIM why not just accept that when its time comes, it will come ? Trying to guide or outsmart the market seems like your own little nationalism.

  • Jesse

    Another annoying "nationalism" is reporters demanding decorum in the house of commons.

    Of course, these entreaties to civility are always made when it is a Conservative who is the accused and the point isn't to achieve the desired goal of more civility, its to bash those uncouth Conservatives over the head with a rhetorical weapon.

    Take Bennet for instance. Not a word of her heckler past. Just a poor, innocent, very female victim.

    And look! What good timing, fresh on the release of the Liberal pink book.

    • wilson

      Reminds of of how poorly Rona Ambrose was treated in the House, something about her hair…oh, and Helena being a blonde…

      • Jesse

        Macleans did a bio on Harper's team a few years ago. Rona Ambrose was "the beauty".

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

          and the beast?

  • jarrid

    Dated in places though:" People of Left opinions are not immune to it, … But anti-semitism comes more naturally to people of Conservative tendency, who suspect Jews of weakening national morale and diluting the national culture."

    Most anti-semitism today is on the political left. It gets particularly creepy when it gets allied with Islamic extremism.

    That march in Montreal in 2006 when Coderre and Duceppe walked in that Hezbollah flag-littered parade was truly, truly nauseating.

    • Foreigner

      Most anti-semitism today is on the political left.

      And yet Lady Barbara Amiel-Black of Crossharbour laments, in this very publication, that Jews are still too liberal and lefty.

      • matt

        I strongly doubt Ms. Amiel / Lady Black is anti-semitic.

        • Craig O

          Probably not, but how can the left be anti-semitic if it, as a group, includes the majority of Jews in the country? I mean, I know the self-hating Jew stereotype, but I never thought it went so far as to be self-anti-semitism.

          • Jesse

            The statement was that "most of the anti-semitism is on the left".

            Which means that an anti-semite is probably a lefty, but not all lefties are anti-semities.

            Its kinda sorta basic logic…

          • Craig O

            Very true. However, the implication in Ms. Amiel's article and jarrid's comments is that it's a leftist mentality that leads to anti-semitism, which does not make sense as so many Jews prescribe to the same mentality. The accusations of anti-semitism are largely for views that many Jews hold themselves, meaning it's not actual anti-semitism.

            Yes, there can be (and frankly are) some anti-semite liberals and Jewish liberals, because no group is homogenous and they could be different people. My point is that they're not different people and the instances of expressions "anti-semitism" are ones which Jews have expressed the same views, which does lead to a contradiction.

            Though at this point, I'm sure Wells is banging his head against a wall, seeing as how strongly I'm showin my nationalism…

          • kcm

            N, i'd say you're at least attempting to think this through, wherese the two J and Wilson are exhibitbiting classic nationalism. [ i the Orwellian sense] I'm not however claiming any immunity from the tendency.

          • Foreigner

            No, it's flawed logic. In basic logic you have to prove that this proposition…

            "an anti-semite is probably a lefty."

            …is true before continuing.

          • Jesse

            Wow, epic fail.

            Basic logic doesn't feature probabilities. Regardless, this subject shouldn't even be expressed in deductive logic, its inductive. And if we're going to be technical it was more a failure of semantics because the guy infered information that didn't exist in the sentence.

            However, we're not being technical, I was using the phrase "basic logic" to mean DUH! instead of refering to any kind of formal system.

          • Foreigner

            Basic logic doesn't feature probabilities. Regardless, this subject shouldn't even be expressed in deductive logic, its inductive. And if we're going to be technical it was more a failure of semantics because the guy infered information that didn't exist in the sentence.

            However, we're not being technical, I was using the phrase "basic logic" to mean DUH! instead of refering to any kind of formal system.

            Damn. He's using the Chewbacca defence.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    George Orwell is great. What I like best about him is that one moment you find yourself in agreement with ORWELL!!! and think you are pretty clever but the next chapter he gores some ox that you quite liked and wish he hadn't.

  • Paul Wells

    “Of course, Orwell’s point…”

    QED.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

      Are you banging your head against your desk yet.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

        I was wondering if Wells is laughing or crying yet.

      • Foreigner

        If he is, he only has himself to blame.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/austinso austinso

      Indeed.

  • http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

    Jarrid,

    it's anti-Zionism, don't you know.

    You see, if you say your anti Zionist, you get moral cover for turning a blind eye to regimes that vow for the destruction of the Jewish homeland and the death of every man woman and child in it.

    You can also proudly support umpteen UN resolutions that attack Isreal as a monstrous state (the only nation in the history of mankind that actually made phone calls to targets to get innocents out of buildings, thereby putting their own troops at risk, among a myriad of other steps), all the while ignoring the intentional use of innocent citizens as shields, storing of bombs in mosques, using hospitals as armouries etc – all of which are basic war crimes but are perpetrated by the "correct" side.

    • peter

      Without wading too deep into the swamp,.. Zionism is a POLITICAL philosophy, based on a religious tribal concept. The fact that most Zionist are secular while most religious jews are not Zionists is perhaps irrelevant?

      The modern state of Israel is founded on land taken from its former inhabitants (sorta like Canada). The only sustainable legal arguments for Israel's existance are the actions in International law on which it was founded and Balfour's admonition in his 1917 declaration that the rights and property of the existing population be respected , rightly or wrongly. That would be the 1948 borders. If one claims to be on the side of truth and justice one of the litmus tests should be respect for the rule of law. The rule of law is clear on where israel's borders should be. The rule of the gun has expanded those lines. The end game expressed in the former Yugoslavia and the military actions taken by the "west" there regarding the rights of the original inhabitants to self determination seems somewhat in conflict when the same lens is applied to Israel/Palestine. Ditto for Saddam's claims on Kuwait.

  • Foreigner

    I guess "tribalism" (the term and/or the concept) wasn't well-known during Orwell's time, although I note he did use the word "tribe" in his essay.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    As Wells observed yesterday: "The comment boards here are such a constant tribute to Orwell's definition of nationalism that nothing surprises me any more."

    This is an interesting tangent. Orwell's essay is undeniably relevant, 64 years later.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      Google is very impressive these days. I just googled that line and found the comment. So google is picking up web page updates almost daily.

  • F.Verhoeven

    Very interesting essay Paul. Nationalism as attempted to set into definition by Orwell is still alive and well today. We all carry a bit of that sort of nationalism within but the challenge would be then to recognize it within, But if nationalism requires that blind spot, how then to see beyond?____I guess the phenomenon "lying to oneself" remains difficult to unravel.

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    I should have read the post and the essay and skipped the comments!

    I had to read all the way to jolyon's comment, 6 posts down, to get to a comment that didn't depressingly prove Mr. Wells' point.

    I wonder, do people have no sense of irony or are they trying to be deliberately ironic?

  • ahm

    As much as it pains me to admit, I think as a group, people are born and bred to be gossipy, partisan, and bigoted, and flock to flags. All I kept thinking while reading this was, "wow. it's like nerds talking about records and what band is more indie" and "riots when a sports team WINS".

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      It's strange that professional sports and democratic politics can coexist. You'd think that one or the other would prevail.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Great essay. It's remarkable how timeless it is, given how timely it was when it appeared.

    What I find interesting is that so many people are committed to having a political opinion. Ten years ago I presumed the whole population was sunk in consumeristic apathy and couldn't care less about the Issue of the Day. But the Internet has proved the opposite. In fact, it's proved that having an opinion is far more important to most people than knowing anything. What I would like to see would be a catalogue of the basic issues which set the terms for secondary and tertiary opinionating: e.g. abortion, taxation, poverty, suicide bombing, torture (that's one of mine, for sure), respect for the law. I just wish that the basic issue were whether or not somebody is consciously lying: that should prejudice us all against the liar. It's a tribute to Orwell that he didn't let even lying throw him off his earnest attempt to grasp reality; though he did retain his own minor "basic" issues, like dinner jackets and limousines — he hated them with a truly "nationalistic" passion.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      Yes, to some, lying is just one more technique used to advance your his own interests, and it can be effective for those who are good at it.

    • Wascally Wabbit

      Jack – good thoughts all.
      Thing that gets my goat is the lack of basic ethics – the free market promoters who say – the almighty dollar is all – catch us if you can Ponzi mentality – government bad – along with regulation – and then when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar – they say – it's your fault – you should have practiced caveat emptor!
      Used to be a handshake had some value – and the legal contract just dotted the "i"s and crossed the "t"s.
      Now – you need a legal guru to read the fine print to determine how the other party is trying to screw you.
      And this government – this CPC party – is a perfect example of all this.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        Borrowing from Wells… "Of course, Orwell's point…"

        QED.

    • Foreigner

      "In fact, it's proved that having an opinion is far more important to most people than knowing anything."

      Actually, it's created the situation in which having an opinion and knowing are essentially the same thing.

      In the past, ignorant blowhards had to resign themselves to the fact that they were pretty much isolated in their World of uninformed opinion. Now they can easily find large communities of people sharing similarly uninformed opinion and are aided and abetted by fraudulent information "news agencies" like WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, FoxNews and The National Post which feature a never-ending roster of credentialed intellectual frauds.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        That's interesting. So in the past an ignorant blowhard with a conspiratorial chip on his shoulder would just wander around for a few years looking for disciples and getting nowhere, nowadays he finds there are a dozen other paranoiacs out there of exactly the same type whom he can befriend, and it becomes self-sustaining?

        • Foreigner

          It may not be as much of a threat to civil society as it was in the past (although the mass hysteria that led to the Iraq invasion and what has been happening to a mainstream party like the GOP since the mid-90's certainly puts that in in a certain perspective), but that comment was really only a response to your very good point about opinion and knowing. and how that plays out in public discourse and politics, especially.

          The confusion between those two things, particularly at high levels of the elite, seems novel to me.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            Interesting point about the elite. I wonder if the Internet is making everybody more self-willed in their opinions, elite included. Perhaps the fact that, before the Internet, there were far fewer occasions for discussing politics served to prop up the value of opinion; but now we're into a period of hyperinflation. If the MSM goes down, it will be interesting to see if the post of "opinion-maker" endures and, if it disappears, whether that's a good or bad thing. As a small-c conservative, I tend to dread a free-for-all universe — a flat battlefield, as it were, in which there are no strong points to be stormed or held, only trenches on the muddy plain.

          • Foreigner

            I don't think anything has changed much with the elite. I think they're not able to hide the fact that their membership in the elite is rarely based on merit (which is a belief we're all supposed to buy into, at least nominally, when in fact it really is based on luck, opportunism, nepotism and lot of fraud) and have given up even trying. On the plus side, It's refreshingly candid, potentially democratizing and probably liberating for them. On the minus side it's exacerbating our crisis of leadership, further undermines the confidence we should have in traditional institutions and seems to be absolving the elite of any obligations under noblesse oblige.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        you forgot CBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, G&M, TO Star,…

        • Foreigner

          Oh did I insult your honour by impugning the reputations of FoxNews, The National Post and two crappy web sites? All of which can be condemned, not for partisan or tribal reasons, but simply on the basis of bad journalism? Are you going to challenge me to a duel?

          QED indeed.

          • Orson Bean

            There's bad journalism all over the place these days, not just in overtly right-leaning outlets. Just a couple of days ago, I read one of David Baines' columns in the Vancouver Sun, and I was able to identify 4 or 5 glaring factual errors. Just atrocious. And this guy is considered one of their "star" reporters.

            Michael Moore is also atrocious in that regard, an extremely intellectually dishonest person. But I also agree that Fox News is an abomination — I'm not left-wing by any stretch, but just watching a couple of minutes of Fox News (esp. Glenn Beck or O'Reilly) sends me into near-clinical depression. Orwell would probably throw up watching it.

          • Foreigner

            Who's Michael Moore? Does he have teevee show that's on every day? A daily column in a major print publication somewhere? His own radio show?

            Comparisons should be between apples and apples.

          • Orson Bean

            I agree, of course, that Moore is not a professional working journalist in the classic sense. On the other hand, he was editor of Mother Jones magazine, he writes a column and op-ed pieces, and he runs michaelmoore.com, which purports to be a website dedicated to reporting on public affairs and politics. But I figured that when I included his name in this context, someone like you would pipe up. Sometimes I can see the future . . .

          • Foreigner

            But I figured that when I included his name in this context, someone like you would pipe up.

            For what purpose would you do that?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

    I'm sort of partial to the theory that some of our higher cognitive abilities are in the four large lobes of the brain, but they are held hostage by the strong emotional and instinctive behaviours in the more primitive areas of the brain that are found in most animals. I'd say that blind partisanship, competition, envy, anger, obsession, and ultimately nationalism are caused by our more primitive instincts, while the ability to construct jet planes and semiconductors are part of the more advanced brain abilities.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

      Once partisans had found a way to reason to false conclusions, not only did neural circuits involved in negative emotions turn off, but circuits involved in positive emotions turned on. The partisan brain didn’t seem satisfied in just feeling better. It worked overtime to feel good, activating reward circuits that give partisans a jolt of positive reinforcement for their biased “reasoning.” These reward circuits overlap substantially with those activated when drug addicts get their “fix,” giving new meaning to the term political junkie.

      http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbo…

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        The article starts out as a partisan puff piece:

        "When political candidates assume voters dispassionately make decisions based on "the issues," they lose. That's why only one Democrat has been re-elected to the presidency since Franklin Roosevelt—and only one Republican has failed in that quest"

        Anyway, the experiment you mention is interesting and certainly highly relevant. It's too bad we know so little about the brain.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

      "our higher cognitive abilities are in the four large lobes of the brain, but they are held hostage by the strong emotional and instinctive behaviours in the more primitive areas of the brain that are found in most animals"

      I have been reading a lot of evolutionary biology/psychology/economics recently and to incredibly simplify their arguments the gist I have taken from the books so far – human beings were hunter/gatherers for 150 thousand years and about 3,000 years ago that started to change. If you believe in natural selection/survival of the fittest that should tell you about how out of place humans are occasionally in modern world.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        On the one hand I can see your argument that humans can be out of place, which makes sense, and then, on the other hand, one can look at it differently. One can say that everything humans do is also part of the natural world, and that evolutionary biology has never stopped, and in that sense humans are not out of place at all, but they are certainly subject to the laws of nature and evolution just like they always have been.

        I really like those fields of study too.

        • bioman

          SCF and Jolyon,

          I am but a humble graduate student in the field of biology; still, if you are interested, there is a rising field known as "evolutionary psychology," which tends to borrow from a more adaptationist and panglossian view of evolutionary human history.

          To quickly summarize, evolutionary psychology takes the approach that we have "modern skulls that house stone age minds" and the field is focused on "evolutionary psychological mechanisms," which are particular psychological units which use narrow information from the environment and alter that input so that the physiological output would solve the recurring problem in the environment. These units are based on gene complexes, which would have taken a very long time to be selected for. Thus, these recurring problems were most likely from our hunter-gatherer days and are now still exist as part of our psychology.

          What is largely not transmitted to the public is the ongoing debate within the community about the role of selection versus other mechanisms or precisely what selection maximizes, since researchers are using the adapatationist perspective for a lot their work like this field. However, it is worth checking out.

          David Buss is a major contributor. If you google his name, he will come up.

  • http://coyne kc

    It can be plausibly argued, for instance — it is even possibly true — that patriotism is an inoculation against nationalism, that monarchy is a guard against dictatorship, and that organised religion is a guard against superstition.

    Orwell was a genius. There’s something in this essay to both please and offend almost everyone.
    How for instance can a reformed communist and a latterday socialist utter those words? His pragmatic, wise, common sense moralism shines through to this day in almost everything he wrote. His prescription to dilute the worst effects of “nationalism” in all of us is both simple and wise: First know thyself [ admittedly not simple ] then, rather than deny your bias try to resist it. Reason over passion…where have i heard that before?

    • http://coyne kc

      . ‘As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a moral effort.”

      Orwell of course does a much better job than i did in makng my last point,

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

      "How for instance can a reformed communist and a latterday socialist utter those words?"

      I'd say it's precisely _because_ he was a reformed communist that he could utter those words. It's where you end up when you come out on the other side, wherever you end up afterwards…

      • kcm

        "…it is a distorted reflection of the frightful battles actually happening in the external world, and that its worst follies have been made possible by the breakdown of patriotism and religious belief. If one follows up this train of thought, one is in danger of being led into a species of Conservatism, or into political quietism'

        " — and that one must have preferences: that is, one must recognise that some causes are objectively better than others, even if they are advanced by equally bad means"

        I don't know if you're implying that Orwell somehow found sanity and returned to the fold of mainstream thinking. But i think you'll find these two quotes dispell that notion. He was simply capable of very fine and yet practical political judgement.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        He was also a reformed Imperialist of sorts. Though he was a sort of dissident at Eton, he had a very strong Empire tradition in his family, on both sides, and seems to have gone to Burma with a genuine belief that British rule was a positive thing. So he'd seen both establishment Conservatism and establishment Socialism from the inside; his trenchant critique of both was always a self-critique.

        Minor quibble: he was never actually a Communist, though he wasn't as hostile to them before Spain as he was afterwards.

        • kcm

          I believe your correct on the communist bit. Didn't he suit up for the anachists in that war? Odd that i naturally assumed he was a communist.
          I agree, i've always suspected that Orwell's essays were also a kind of interior monologue – hardly an original supposition though.

  • http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

    Quite interesting that my chide against support for the destruction of the Jewish peoples, and against those who turn a blind eye to terrorist states and state proxies that exist to carry out that destruction,

    prompts NEGATIVE comments.

    Proving my point nicely.

    When it comes to Isreal (and all other causes that are not a "progressivism" du jour) support for it is labled "tribalism", from those who feign to hover above it all, dispassionate, superior of course, but supportive of the correct "tribe".

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      Well, I did find it interesting that some of the groups Orwell talks about are alive and well 60 years later. In particular, the "pacifists" are the group you are referring to, in my opinion, if you read his description carefully. They are people who claim to support peace, but in reality they condemn "only violence used in defence of western countries". Israel is their primary target, because Israel is most at risk of attack and must defend itself most vigorously. The country has been attacked by numerous adversaries in 1948, 1967, 1990s, and numerous other times, and is in a constant state of defense, and it is also a western country.

      • Foreigner

        "They are people who claim to support peace, but in reality they condemn "only violence used in defence of western countries"

        And who are these people?

        Borrowing from Wells… "Of course, Orwell's point…"

        QED.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

          I quoted from the article. Anyway, nice try, you'll get it right some day.

          • Foreigner

            No, I meant…who are these people 60 years later? Many people who are condemning Western violence are not pacifists and contrary to what you've read over at…I don't know, The NRO?…they don't just condemn Western violence. Although they do put more effort into it because it's violence done in their name, by democratic regimes they support and to which they have given their consent and which they are paying for. If you're of the West, chances are, your condemnation of Western violence is likely to be heard, or at least communicated in a way that can be understood by everyone else.

            I'm afraid it's you who needs to try again. And I have confidence you will. Hopefully, more cogently the next time.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            No, there are many pacifists today, and they are exactly the same as described by Orwell. Countries like China, Russia, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, all of Africa, and numerous others are completely ignored by pacifists, completely and totally ignored. And this is where almost all of the atrocities and violence is taking place in the world today. Millions upon millions of people were killed in Russia, China, Cambodia, Africa and elsewhere, in previous decades, and all you ever heard from pacifists is "Israel bla bla bla" and "Vietnam bla bla bla" and "Woodstack bla bla bla". The same can be said today.

            Go off on one of your partisan diatribes all you like. I am not interested. It makes no difference to what I am saying.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            It's not the same situation with regard to pacifists in Orwell's day as in ours because our country has nothing to fear from China, Russia, Syria, Iran, et al. In Orwell's day there were pacifists claiming that the "moral" option was to not resist the Wehrmacht. There is no Wehrmacht on our doorstep and thus there is nothing incompatible between criticising American atrocities and criticising Chinese ones. Nobody has to choose. We are not at war.

          • Foreigner

            "Countries like China, Russia, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, all of Africa, and numerous others are completely ignored by pacifists, completely and totally ignored."

            You must be truly special to be able to simply assert things that aren't true.

            and all you ever heard from pacifists is "Israel bla bla bla" and "Vietnam bla bla bla" and "Woodstack bla bla bla".

            It would probably help you if you remained continuously informed, rather than simply notice what's going every 20 years or so. You missed the "pacificist" shrieking about the Kurds in the 80's. Oh right, that was when the Americans were propping up Saddam.

            You're right though; i"m very biased…towards accuracy.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Wow, you got me there. I'm wrong and you're right. What a rebuttal.

          • YSP

            I don't know . . . I've been violently attacked by pacificts, metaphorically speaking, by pacifists, (Orwell's point et al) for having worked for the Chinese Communist Party. Did some translating work for the Physical Culture Preservation unit. They didn't like the fact that such a sub-organization existed within the CPP.

            I can get hot & bothered by atrocities all over the world, but I can only do something about those done in my name by my government, even if they're relatively tiny on the global atrocity scale. I'll take a bad Canadian government over most world governments any day, but I'll still focus my activism where it will have some effect. People in darkly tinted glass houses still live in glass houses.

            Sometimes I wonder I wonder if for Orwell, truth was whatever produced the desired response from the desired people.

          • Foreigner

            Where did my response to this go?

            Oh, well I'm not typing it again.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

    About Orwell, though — yes, he manages to offend everyone.

    And if he didn't in this essay, pick another — conservatives will not like his essay on boys' novels from 1939…

  • TedTylerEzro

    I found this essay rather interesting, because George Orwell practices exactly what he preaches against in this essay, in this essay.

    • kcm

      Prove it? Evidence now. Not just your unsupported opinion.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      I'd find your comment interesting if you actually elaborated. Anyway, Orwell never claimed to be immune to nationalistic loves and hatreds, and said that everyone must struggle against them.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        I believe TedTylerEzro is referring to Orwell's rather nuance-free dislike of Catholicism and presumption that professional Catholics (clergy or pundits) were all pro-Fascist. Might not be so off-base, actually, in the context of the 1930's and 1940's, with some very noble exceptions, because they were so anti-Communist and Fascism was long looked on by the right as the antidote to Communism; but, whether TedTylerEzro knows it or not, I'd say that anti-Catholicism definitely was a "nationalistic" blind-spot of Orwell's.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

          OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm not well-versed on the religious/fascist conflicts going on in Spain and elsewhere at the time. Orwell was not afraid to go out on a limb, that's for sure, in this essay and elsewhere, explicitly providing numerous examples, some of which I think are accurate and others possibly less so. And it's true that Orwell's own opinions changed widely over time, he made plenty of his own misjudgements over time. He was a great writer and thinker nonetheless.

        • Orson Bean

          Good point, Jack — I don't think you can underestimate the effect on Orwell of his involvement in the Spanish Civil War scene (thus "Homage to Catalonia" etc.). The role of the Catholic church in that conflict was of course huge, and there's no question that the traditionalist Francoites were generally fascist, pro-Monarchy and pro-Catholic.

  • Rob P.

    Don't despair too much for the state of mankind. Commenters to online journalism are a fringe group of nutbars who think their opinions matter. Drawing conclusions about the population at large from such loons is bad science. And no, I'm not irony deficient!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

      "fringe group of nutbars who think their opinions matter. Drawing conclusions about the population at large from such loons is bad science."

      I agree that commentators are kooks but pop-at-large is no different. I think Churchill's quote is appropriate: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

      • kcm

        " He [ the nationalist /intellectual ] would therefore start by deciding in favour of Russia, Britain or America as the case might be, and only after this would begin searching for arguments that seemed to support his case. And there are whole strings of kindred questions to which you can only get an honest answer from someone [ ordinary citizen ] who is indifferent to the whole subject involved, and whose opinion on it is probably worthless in any case"

        Orwell seems to back Churchill's opinon up.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        I agree, the population at large is no different, apart from the fact some are completely ignorant to some of the issues discussed in journalism. But they have their own issues that they worry about. The opinions held by people are no different than those held by commenters, though.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      Yeah, anybody who engages in political activity is a nutbar by definition.

      In a way I find this sort of cynicism worse than the actual nutbars.

      • TedTylerEzro

        Just as the unexamined life is not worth living, so is the unexamined society not worth living in.

      • Rob P.

        Surely you realize that my tongue was partly in cheek with the nutbar/loon stuff, since the comments were made while engaging in the very activity I was dissing. It is, however, hard to deny that many commenters are so ideologically driven that their minds are made up before they read the story. Paul's piece speaks directly to the folly of that mindset and the negative effect it has on real dialog. I'm just saying that the non-commenting public may be a little less "nationalist" than some of the knee-jerk posters we see on-line.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          Quite right, and sorry for being humourless.

          Interesting question about the mostly-nutbar-online public / general public split, though. As I mentioned somewhere above, I used to think nobody cared about politics and ideas; now it turns out that a lot of people care, but only 45% of them are sane; so how many people are out there, in this Internet age, who are both sane and interested but not so keen that they get themselves online? Do these people sit around at cafés talking politics and ideas in real life? Where are there such cafés? Or does the average sane & interested person go his/her merry way inside their own head, or at least only within the family setting? Or are they merely interested, but not so interested as to discuss such things in writing online?

          • kcm

            Orwell seems to point to an odd paradox. Those who are least involved are most likely to give honest answers to "nationalistic" questions. Presumably on the grounds that they have little or nothing invested intellectually – this of course often makes their opinions almost worthless. Yet the person with the most invested is often the one who can't get beyond his or her own bias. But he does not make an arguement for cynicism
            Foreigner raised an ealier point about basic logic. I'm inclined to think that this would be a good starting point in our hyper-media age. Teach basic logic in our schools. It may not be a panacea but it never hurts to teach citizens to think critcally or independantly.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Most people are not interested (my wild guess is 2/3 of people). They become as interested as they need to be.

            Of the remaining people, most fit your last description, "merely interested, but not so interested as to discuss such things in writing online". I'd make a wild guess 3/4.

            This could make a good poll, but I suspect most would lie when answering these types of questions anyway :-)

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

          I'm just saying that the non-commenting public may be a little less "nationalist" than some of the knee-jerk posters we see on-line

          I don't think so. One anecdote I remember from seeing on the news, a Maritime fisherman being interviewed about his voting preference: "I know what a Liberal looks like, and I know what a Conservative looks like, and while I don't know much about the man, I do know that he don't look like a Conservative".

          The general public is just as knee-jerk as anybody else. You are confusing ignorance with nuance. Once the gen public becomes aware of an issue, they are knee-jerk too.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        People may be stupid in ways, but they always look out for their own well-being and usually look out for the well-being of their families and friends, and this is why democracy works. Collectively, everyone is looked after (although it helps to have a constitution as well), and collectively the direction that is taken is beneficial to most. There is no concept of "greater good" that is required.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          But when there are no major issues to be debated, only very petty points of self-interest, the stakes are so small that the politics gets vicious, to paraphrase Kissinger. As there is a naturally combative instinct in human beings, this leads to a culture of misrepresentation and, well, groundless opinionating that amounts, all told, to lying. I don't think that does much for us either as individuals or as a society. As Montaigne says, "lying is a hateful vice"; one damages one's fellow man as much by lying as by snatching purses.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Well, I don't intend to argue against everything you are saying, because I do find that conscious dishonesty is a serious vice that some people possess in extremes and it does not serve any benefit in the larger scheme of things.

            However, I do think that:

            -I don't think that politics are vicious because the stakes are small, to me that seems like a non-sequitur

            -that while lying may be widespread, does it really contaminate the whole process? People have always lied and always will. It is a simple part of being human. Part of the whole idea of politics is figuring out the lies from the truths, and that's where facts come into play. For instance, once people have the opportunity to travel, they can see for themselves whether the inhabitants of another country is truly the cesspool of scum that a politician may claim it to be. And when a poltician claims that the government is needed to control the airwaves and the media, one can look to western countries to see that indeed free speech is beneficial and not harmful. Just because lying is widespread does not mean the truth does not come out, eventually.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            I don't disagree with this at all, and you say it very well. But, without congratulating ourselves too much, I'd say that you and I and most everybody debating Orwell on a weekend are quite exceptional. We are happy to wade through the gunk in search of the diamonds, but that's a bit much to expect of non-junkies. They depend on far fewer news sources; without at least one reasonably honest neutral planet, with partisan moons in orbit around it, we all (to bring this baby home) spin off into space.

  • John W.

    I think Bob Dylans memorable line, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." somehow applies to this discussion but I'm not smart enough to know how, although I have read Orwell.
    But the serious question is,who amoung us has risen high enough beyond or above nationalism to to reliably tell us "This Emperor (say Harper) has no clothes"? When do I have enough evidence to trust my own judgement on this even though I am far from Orwellian or Wellsian in my thinking or education?

    • kcm

      Idoubt if it's a question of not trusting your own judgement but rather being as sure as you can that your judgement is not just based on "feelings", media opinion or even bandwagon opposition to Harper's policies. In other words examine your bias. If you can reasonably conclude it isn't just blind predjudice, go with it. I'd guess the key is self knowledge. Sorry if this sounds smarmy. It's aimed at myself as much as answering your question.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

      Certainty is an elusive companion and tends to be chaperoned by context and justification.
      We seldom find certainty without hindsight – and that's the problem!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    This is truly interesting……..do you think it would make an interesting "conversation" for another Coyne/Wells event?

    • Foreigner

      It don't think Wells is making a very complicated point when he suggests that people have to examine their own biases.

      However, it does raise the issue of what type of bias motivates someone to present a complex essay from George Orwell (that most people here likely won't even read or understand very well) in order to support a fairly straightforward assertion. I doubt very seriously that Coyne or Wells would be keen on having that discussion. Well, Coyne maybe…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

    I think it is worth mentioning that neither the political left nor political right in North America are currently afflicted with antisemitism. Both share a shameful past of antisemitism, but currently it simply isn't the case.

    The truncheon of antisemitism bashed over the head of their political dissenters by the right-wing in recent years however dissolves the true meaning and history behind antisemitism in our culture and every time the label is applied without cause or evidence it's meaning is diminished.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      In what way is the history of the political left in North America, as opposed to Russia, tarnished with antisemitism?

  • Orson Bean

    Paul, thanks for the post/link — I'd often heard that essay quoted or referred to, and always meant to read it. It';s interesting to me how much certain things have changed — e.g., lefties obviously no longer regard the USSR as their beacon of hope, and I think the British now have a much more realistic view of their place in the world than they did in 1945, when there was still quite a bit of denial there about the ascendancy of the USA etc. Orwell's very loose, expansive use of the word "nationalism" is an interesting conceit on which to hang his essay. I would say that today, using that definition, one of the most popular (and often rabid and virulent) forms of "nationalism" would be anti-Americanism.

  • http://wordpress.pufftentacle.com Mathew Koukounakis

    I’ve been reading Wells for a few years now. In fact I started reading him when the CPC was pitted against Martin’s liberals. Anyone remember that? When the Libs went around insinuating that any vote for the CPC was simply un-Canadian? Anyone remember what Wells was blogging about then?

    Right, he was blogging about three nobodies in Quebec calling for M. Harpers resignation all the while wringing his hands and lamenting that “parliment isn’t working”. I’m paraphrasing of course but that was the general tone of Wells’ writing at the time.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      What's your point? Wells does not claim to be perfect, and even then he would have given his reasons for his opinion at the time.

      • http://wordpress.pufftentacle.com/ Mathew Koukounakis

        "I know a lot of people I wish would read Orwell’s essay — people who find themselves forever making excuses for one party or faction, while forever dismissing the excuses of another. But of course Orwell’s point is that it’s easy to point out the other guy’s biases without recognizing your own. So I try to find, or even better to avoid, instances in my own work where Orwell would recognize a “nationalism” and smile a sad smile of regret.."

        He lowered the drawbridge.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

          Nice excuse.

  • http://wordpress.pufftentacle.com/ Mathew Koukounakis

    Besides, it seems too quaint by half to go around quoting Orwell’s notion of nationalism. The man wasn’t alive to witness the most grotesque displays of nationalism. I would think that after Nazism and Communism even Orwell would have to rethink his position. After all it was American nationalism,British nationalism etc… that brought an end those regimes.

    Even if you agree with Wells or Orwell, one would have to concede that there is a form of nationalism that is non-malignant (and I would even go so far as to say that malignant nationalism is the exception to the rule and not the other way around) and can be directed in a manner that strengthens a nation for the better.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      "one would have to concede that there is a form of nationalism that is non-malignant"

      that's what Orwell called patriotism.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/canucklehead canucklehead

      I think you're defining the patriotism Orwell mentions as positive and a protection against nationalism in his essay. Come to think of it he also talks about Nazi and Communist nationalism. Oh, you didn't read it did you.

      • http://wordpress.pufftentacle.com/ Mathew Koukounakis

        Orwell is splitting hairs. Do you think "bad" nationalists call themselves thus? Or there is such an enitity that would call himself a malignant patriot?

        Orwell can call it what he wants, but his terminology is interchangeable depending on what faction you belong to. Which is fine with me, I just don't like it when it's dressed up as non-factional.

  • http://wordpress.pufftentacle.com/ Mathew Koukounakis

    What really bothers me is that Wells is even using some loosely defined form of nationalism to make a broader point about partisanship or factions. Is it any accident that nationalism conjures up those very regime known for their monstrous devotion to the motherland?

    Once again, Wells thinks he has staked out a cozy little cloud from which he can judge us partisans, but he belongs to a faction, too. His faction, like my faction, thinks the ideas that they believe in are correct and he rightly concludes that people should subscribe to his views to the detriment of his opponents. This is what factions do.

    • kcm

      " But of course Orwell’s point is that it’s easy to point out the other guy’s biases without recognizing your own. So I try to find, or even better to avoid, instances in my own work where Orwell would recognize a “nationalism” and smile a sad smile of regret"

      While i'm sure PW can defend himself. I see no evidence that he or Orwell claimed any sort of immunity from the taint of bias.

From Macleans