Oceania: Big Brother vs United States Presidents Part 1

In "1984" Big Brother is the supposed dictator of Oceania, he's the face on the posters hanging all over the nation, his face is on all the screens. Most of all, he's watching you, all the time. Everyday after the Two Minutes Hate, people see his face on a large screen and chant "B-B" many times almost like a praise to God. Accurate as this is, as dictators have cults of personality, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin are quintessential examples of this, dictators can have a god complex. Stalin considered himself the Father of Russia, he saw the people as his children. George Orwell based a lot of aspects in "1984" from the Communist Party, and some Nazism is seen in the Party as well. "1984" is supposed to be a warning about the possibility of totalitarianism, and the Communists and Nazis were among the largest recent threats during the time Orwell wrote the novel. Big Brother no doubt represents both Hitler and Stalin with the description: "...the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black mustache and ruggedly handsome features". Perhaps it was meant to resemble Stalin more so, but I think Orwell left it open for both of these feared dictators and their totalitarian regimes.

You noticed I said the supposed dictator, there is room open to believe Big Brother might not be real. Goldstein's Book in "1984" suggests that he's just a face on the screen and poster to personify the Party. Something for the people to love, and feel loved by, and have safety in like a parent embracing their children. It's conceivable that the face of Big Brother is a man from the Inner Party, and perhaps was part of the Revolution to create Oceania. But, O'Brien says "Of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the Party." And when Winston asked if B.B. would die, "Of course not. How could he die?"

Do you think he really exists? Is O'Brien lying?

Now, let's talk about current politicians. Several images I have seen show Presidents Bush and Obama in the image of  Big Brother. While I can appreciate homage to a favored novel, I would of course still consider the comparisons to Big Brother to these two politicians far fetched. While everyone has a right to share opinions, this can be touchy as sometimes inaccuracies and exaggerations get out there. Despite the flaws that Bush and Obama have, I don't agree with that, even the comparisons to Hitler and Stalin. To say that these two presidents are like the dictators of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany would be a gross exaggeration. Any dictator comparison is ridiculous. Would you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Okay, so maybe it's fair that people are concerned with the actions taken by both these presidents, but exaggerations might be damaging to your cause. Sure, it might get people's attentions, but it can cause misinformation and inaccurate reasons for the distrust of the politicians. Now, I know it seems ridiculous to need a solid reason to distrust a politician, since on a level no one trusts them. However, good and solid facts are needed for understanding why they shouldn't be trusted and how they could be threats to the people. With all the fiction in books, movies, and games we easily mingle the fact with fiction.

It's no secret that Bush and Obama have done a high amount of executive orders during their times (still in Obama's time). Executive orders, while legitimate actions for a president are still a risky move for them. Especially when it's for war, or to cut through laws just because they can. Do you think this should be avoided, even/especially for convenience? Consider the recent trade of five Taliban prisoners for one soldier, should Obama have notified Congress first then perhaps try to push to cut the thirty day action? Or should he have just followed the protocol concerning the prisoner trade? Do you think it's immoral for a president to break rules easily just because he can with an executive order? How many areas of gray should we allow to be mingled in with this legitimate way of pushing through rules and red tape? Or are black and white better shades in executive orders?

 Still, ever since the birth of the United States the presidents have been using executive orders or proclamations as they used to be called. Yes, even George Washington used five executive orders, the first of which was on October 3, 1789 for a public Thanksgiving, and this was approved by congress. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2014/01/30/how-president-obama-could-be-swept-away-with-his-executive-orders-that-defy-congress-and-the-courts/). I would like to point out that Article II Section 2 of the Constitution "constitutes a grant of all executive powers of which the government is capable of" you'll find that from the credited site.

How do you think this could translate? Could it be misused by presidents? Should executive orders be first approved by congress before the president carries them out? Or should executive power mean nothing can stop the president's decision?

Certainly if you look deeper you can see this: "Justice Hugo Black, another Democrat, wrote the majority opinion invalidating the seizures. Black explained that an executive order (1) "must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself" and (2) an executive order is on dubious ground if it's "incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress" If this is the case why has Obama been ignoring protocol with Congress? Do you agree that Congress should have the final word on any executive order? Could a president of the United States become a dictator like Hitler or Stalin by using executive powers? Is a totalitarian state conceivable or impossible in the United States? Should we even fear that possibility?

Next post will look more deeply into executive orders carried out by presidents Busy and Obama. Big Brother is watching you!