Except when they aren’t. Look at Trotsky - a leader of the regime, until he wasn’t. Even authoritarian leaders have rivals, who then must be written out of the official reality, or recast as enemies.
I wouldn’t go so far as to characterize it as thinking the masses are too stupid and too gullible, but, yes, one aspect of leadership should be to sometimes go against popular polling and do what one believes is the best for the country or their constituency (which I think politicians of both sides don’t do enough of, and this is one thing Clinton was, in fact, heavily criticized for.) Society should be basing its decisions, in my opinion, on the recommendations of people who are knowledgeable about the issues under consideration, with the interests of the people in mind, of course. I sure are shit don’t know enough about macroeconomics to set fiscal policy for the US, so why should you trust my opinion (or anyone else with only an intro to macroeconomics class under their belt) about it? I mean, yes, as an individual, I keep a healthy skepticism, but I also realize many of the issues being faced by our country I simply do not have informed opinions about and it would take me years of learning, if not more, to understand. At some point, I have to give up a little of this control to trusted legislators and experts, because all of this is way beyond my paygrade. This is a representative democracy, not a direct one, for good reason.
Is that not the entire theme of politics lately? “Normalization of Trump is bad” (Because you can’t be trusted to think for yourself)
“Russian hacking” (Because you can’t be trusted to tell the difference between propaganda and reality)
I agree with this. Trump did try to sow mistrust in establishment leaders, for example with his continued insistence that the system is rigged. But that doesn’t match up to much in 1984, where blind obedience to the establishment is the norm. (Full disclosure: I haven’t read 1984 since high school. I’m sure my memory of it is pretty faulty by now). Like Little Nemo, I’m pretty sure Clinton sees the glaring differences between O’Brien and Trump, but she hasn’t expressed that very clearly at all. Maybe by “leaders” she means community leaders like clergy and educators, but even so, I don’t see her analogy holding up much better.
I think the OP is off base and over-reacting, but that particular paragraph was either not well thought-out or not well written. For example, I’m happy to listen the experts (i.e., scientists) on the issue of Climate Change. But I consider them to be the ones who give us the facts, and then we set the policies in reaction to those facts. I don’t think of them as “experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence”. I also think that having a certain amount of distrust for our “leaders” is a good and healthy thing. Surely most of the folks here would agree that we should not blindly trust Trump.
Most of the people who voted for Trump are too stupid and gullible to think for themselves. I know they hated to hear themselves being called deplorable. But proving they really are deplorable isn’t the answer.
Suppose your doctor tells you that you have cancer.
You go to an oncologist and he tells you that you need chemotherapy and radiation. It’s going to be really unpleasant. It’s going to cost thousands of dollars. And there’s only a thirty percent chance you’ll be cured.
Then you go to a homeopath and he tells you he can cure you with herbal tea. It tastes like peppermint. It’s only going to cost a tenth of what the oncologist’s treatment costs. And the homeopath gives you a ninety-nine percent guarantee that you’ll be cured.
Trump voters are the people who chose the homeopath. Because what the homeopath is promising is obviously much better than what the oncologist is promising. So they figure they made the smarter decision.
The deplorable part comes when it’s their child who has cancer and they send their child to the homeopath rather than the oncologist. Because you can make a bad decision when the consequences are just on you. But it’s deplorable when you make a bad decision, like treating your child’s cancer with herbal tea or elected Donald Trump president, and other people have to live with the consequences of your bad decision.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” ― George Carlin
The problem is, in the US about 3/4 of the people are stupider than average.
It may well be it is just poorly worded.
She mentions trusting, “…our leaders, the press, experts…”. Those groups are each far too large and diverse to blindly trust the lot of them. Some leaders/press/experts are better than other leaders/press/experts.
Additionally, they tend to act as a check and balance on each other. The press keeps the politicians more honest than they might otherwise be (at least they used to). Experts have peer review (usually) to get a consensus view (usually). What’s more is you, the listener, can do your own checking to establish trustworthiness.
I am finding it hard to trust leaders of any stripe these days however.
Of course in the likes of Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany where those in power have control over all experts and press you cannot trust anything they say.
This is way too thoughtful and nuanced for the Pit. Can’t you just call me a goat-fucker?
Regards,
Shodan
She’s saying that this list:
- “…our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy* based on evidence, ourselves…”
comprises people we should be able to rely on. Sorry you don’t get it, English. Life in America as a book reader must be a real struggle like that.
We were hoping you’d stopped.
Yeah, Clinton really did drop the ball on this one. Although her conclusions are probably correct she is horribly mixing her metaphors when it comes to describing the idea behind 1984.
Her logic is basically:
- Trump and the right wind information machine is trying to destroy Americas faith in our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence. TRUE
- Trumps use of lies and revisionist history even to the point of saying that he never said things for which there is clear evidence he did is similar to what 1984 was arguing against. TRUE
Therefore
- 1984 was arguing in favor of having faith in experts, media and leaders. FALSE
What Trump is actually doing is trying to replace the traditional leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence. With his own set of “experts” and leaders who base their policy on political expedience. The climate change and media skeptics who believe that Trump inaguration crowd was bigger that Obama’s, who believe that AnitFa was behind the violence in Chancellorsville, and that a Pizza place in DC is actually the headquarters for child prostitution, aren’t actually free thinkers that Orwell would be in favor of. They are being led by the nose by big brother in the guise of Hannity, Limbaugh and Alex Jones.
Orwell didn’t advocate in favor of believing and accurate press, good leaders and experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence because in his world they didn’t exist, and if Trump had his druthers they wouldn’t exist in our world either.
What I find funny is that in all of the conversations about 1984 and Orwell, no one has used his rampant homophobia and arguable anti-Semitism to discount the validity of his conclusions.
And I say this a fervent admirer of George Orwell (to the point that I even read, all the way through no less, A Clergyman’s Daughter)
Sorry. Sometimes I forget what forum I’m in, ya old goat fucker! 
Be careful. Sudden exertion after years of atrophy could strain something.
The problem with Hillary’s 1984 quote is that, to many voters in this country, it is *her *political side/party that is the one holding up four fingers and demanding that people say “five.”
Many Americans consider certain things to be self-evident - i.e., there are only two genders, that men shouldn’t be in women’s restrooms, etc. - and consider the party that says that there are more than two genders, and that transgender women (but biologically men) can go into lady’s restrooms, *is *the side that is gaslighting and saying that four is five.
Trump is saying that 0 is 3,000,000 so I think he’s got everyone beat on that matter.
And lots of things that your average American thinks is “self-evident” is, in fact, utter bullshit.
Not really noticed at the time. He was just that nice Mr. Blair who fought in the Spanish Civil War and, like most socialists, loathed the commies. About whose use of truth he had amusing things to relate.
Homophobia wasn’t discussed that much.
[ However, still more amusingly he has an admirer in Miss Amber Heard, who bravely announced her bisexuality. Her synthesising of Orwell and Ayn Rand together earned her the admiration of the libertarian Elon Musk, as an intellectual. ]
Plus she’s pretty fit.
Whoa, hey! He didn’t ask to be called “old,” OK? Jeezus.