In 1949, the author George Orwell introduced the word ‘doublethink’ into the English language. As they say, ‘you’ve come a long way baby’ since then. After almost sixty years of refinement and further development, doublethink has become a fascinating phenomenon in social, psychological and political thought and action.
George Orwell introduced the word and concept of doublethink into the English vocabulary in his seminal 1949 classic entitled 1984. Doublethink, as described by one of the characters in the book is: “To know and not to know… to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.”
Pre-schoolers and young children
seem to have a natural affinity for doublethink that fades with time as their intellectual abilities and moral sense of right and wrong reach an early adolescent stage of development. Sociopaths, schizophrenics, people suffering from severe psychosis, pathological liars and the extremely senile appear to have a physiological deviation in the brain that lends itself to accommodating and encouraging the difficult nuances of doublethink.
But as one can imagine, in an otherwise mentally stable, intellectually developed and emotionally healthy adult it takes an extremely adept and agile mind to engage in doublethink for any length of time without blowing a gasket. The most refined examples of this somewhat dubious skill can be found in politicians. And amongst that class of persons, Hillary Clinton and some of her senior staff have recently shown themselves to be doublethink practitioners of the first order.
No where has that been demonstrated better than in the various discussions surrounding pledged delegates in the Democratic primary contests. Last week the Clinton campaign raised the possibility of a legal challenge to Texas’ primary and caucus rules. Given the fact that many of Clinton’s senior campaign advisers in Texas were involved in drafting the caucus rules one can infer the presence of doublethink at work.
In addition, it was noted by a Texas Democratic Party official that Bill Clinton had no problem with these rules when he won the Texas primaries in both 1992 and 1996. This fact provides an interesting insight into the working of doublethink. It appears that severe doublethink can often be triggered by traumatic external events. Although in the realm of theory and supposition, most experts agree that if Hillary was still way ahead in the polls as the Texas primary approached, the phenomenon of doublethink in this case may not have been triggered.
For a second and perhaps more fascinating and sophisticated example of doublethink in the Clinton camp we can look at the events surrounding the disqualified delegates from Michigan and Florida. In this case we can turn our attention to Harold Ickes, a top advisor to Ms. Clinton and a member of the Democratic National Committee.
Apparently hidden from public attention Harold Ickes has been long studying the more advanced theory and practice of doublethink. As a member of the Democratic National Committee, Ickes voted to bar the delegates from Michigan and Florida. As a top Clinton advisor he is pushing strongly to seat these delegates and allow them to be allocated based on the results of the two primaries he earlier voted to disqualify. What makes Ickes’ position such a profoundly beautiful, and perhaps now for the ages classic example of doublethink is the fact that all candidates, including Clinton, agreed not to campaign in these two disqualified primaries. In addition, almost all of the Democratic candidates, including Obama but excepting Clinton even had their names removed from the Michigan ballot.
In an explanation that challenges the thinking ability of those of us less adept at doublethink, Harold Ickes explained his position:
In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions.
Ickes explained that his different position essentially is due to the different hats he wears as both a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting… "There's been no change," Ickes said. "I wasn't acting as an agent for Mrs. Clinton. We stripped them of all their delegates in order to prevent campaigns to campaign in those states.”
Here we observe another layer of complexity that we rarely see. Doublethink can be triggered not only by the interaction with external events as in Clinton losing her lead in the Texas contest, but also by the baffling and as yet inexplicable influence of haberdashery: as Ickes so eloquently explained – it depends on what hat you’re wearing!
Little did Orwell know back in 1949 when he wrote 1984 that 2008 would provide such beautifully subtle and refined examples of doublethink. Thank you Hillary. Thank you Harold.
Comments