Big Brother vs United States Presidents Part 2: Revolution

For the love of Big Brother! 

Big Brother may or may not exist, but is to be the dictator of Oceania, which is a superpower of the United States, Canada, Mexico, South America, Australia, North Africa, and the British Isles. Some fans of the novel 1984 have often made the comparison of the superpowers Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia to the three real superpowers of our time: The United States, Russia, and China. It's fine to do that now, but it's unlikely that's what Orwell intended since in 1948 China wasn't at its peak in power and strength as it is now.

Oceania, while a good comparison to the United States in its size and its ties to the British Empire, still doesn't accurately reflect George Orwell's vision. Mainly he was trying to warn his own nation of how they were becoming like the enemies they fought against. Of course, I'm sure he would want future generations of various nations to also heed his warning against totalitarianism. While he took a lot of influence from the Russian Communism 1984 wasn't just a statement against Stalinism, it was a warning of the evolution of totalitarianism and where it could happen.

He feared absolute control and power individuals could have over the masses: "The first thing for you to understand is that in this place there are no martyrdoms. You have read of the religious persecutions of the past. In the Middle Ages there was the Inquisition. It was a failure. It set out to eradicate heresy, and ended up perpetuating it. For every heretic it burned at the stake, thousands of others rose up. Why was that? Because the Inquisition killed its enemies in the open, and killed them while they were still unrepentant; in fact, it killed them because there were unrepentant. Men were dying because they would not abandon their true beliefs. Naturally all the glory belonged to the victim and all the shame to the Inquisitor who burned him. Later, in the twentieth century, there were the totalitarians, as they were called. There were the German Nazis and the Russian Communists. The Russians persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition had done. And they imagined that they had learned from the mistakes of the past; they knew, at any rate, that one must not make martyrs. Before they exposed their victims to public trial, they deliberately set themselves to destroy their dignity. They wore them down by torture and solitude until they were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing whatever was put into their mouths, covering themselves with abuse, accusing and sheltering behind one another, whimpering for mercy. And yet after only a few years the same thing had happened over again. The dead men had become martyrs and their degradation was forgotten. Once again, why was it? In the first place, because the confessions that they had made were obviously extorted and untrue. We do not make mistakes of that kind. All the confessions that are uttered here are true. We make them true. And, above all, we do not allow the dead to rise up against us. You must stop imagining that posterity will vindicate you, Winston. Posterity will never hear of you. We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you: not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed." O'Brien to Winston Smith, 1984. 

Do you agree with O'Brien on the older regimes to the Party in the novel? Is their system perfect in dealing with rebellion by destroying heresy through converting thought criminals?

"You asked me once," said O'Brien, "what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." -1984

The United States is not a dictatorship, totalitarian, or a police state. So why are some people saying that anarchy seems appealing? Why do they refer to our politicians as an oligarchy? Why do some people view presidents Bush and Obama as potential dictators? Is it their uses of executive orders that have made these harsh views?

To start things off, it was Theodore Roosevelt who actually started expanding federal power, with 1,006 executive orders, which was more than any president (before his time). Roosevelt emphatically rejected the view that "what was necessary for the nation could not be done by the president unless he could find some specific authorization to do it...it was not only [the president's] right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demand unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws." 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/

What Roosevelt said could easily be twisted and misused by any individuals, but I do not think President Roosevelt would approve of what's going on in our current situations, and with President Obama and ex-President Bush carrying out executive orders without the approval of Congress and possibly bypassing the Constitution. President Roosevelt clearly believed strongly that it was his job to serve the nation, not to just lead it. Do you agree or disagree? Do you think President Obama would consider his job to serve the nation or just to lead it?

A president cannot become a dictator through executive power, despite how many people fear this possibility. No doubt from frustration and perhaps just to make the president, whoever he/she is the bad guy we see in dystopian movies and books so often. "If a president's executive orders overstep their authority or improperly interpret or seek to enforce the law, there are means of relief. Congress can re-legislate the issue or the courts can throw them out. Criticism of president-as-dictator are always overblown, as the other branches of government serve as checks on the presidential power, and those checks extend to executive orders."

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/01/30-state-of-the-union-obama-executive-orders-hudak 

Based on this information it seems unlikely that a president can make himself a dictator through executive orders. In Russia, the Communist Party was established via revolution, this too would be an unlikely thing to happen. The military branch wouldn't allow a revolution, nor would the other political branches stand by to allow this either. Also, Russia around 1917 was in decay with everyone being reduced to peasants, living in poor conditions and starving to death and the nation going into a massive debt. The first revolution overthrew the autocracy and created a provisional government in February 1917 known as the February Revolution. Unfortunately, the provisional government was weak, which led to the poverty and everyone living like peasants. The second revolution or October Revolution of 1917 removed the Provisional Government and created the Bolshevik or Communist government. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_(1917)]
World War I was when the Russian Army had a heavy setback under Nicholas II, the last Russian Emperor, this led to a mutiny in the military, which is when the February Revolution took place. For the October Revolution the Communists, led by Socialists had the allegiance of the lower class and political left. There were many protests, mutinies, and strikes as the Bolsheviks and Provisional Government vied for power. While the Provisional Government chose to continue fighting Germany, the Communist Party turned workers and militias under the Red Guard giving them substantial power. Led by Vladimir Lenin overthrew the Provisional Government and appointed themselves as leaders over various government ministries. Over the next five years, there was civil war between the Red (Bolsheviks) and White (anti-Bolshevik) until the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_(1917)]

Most citizens favored the revolution for the Communist Party. Their lifestyle greatly improved, even though there were negative consequences later on with the Great Purge. Stalin had the purge in order to eliminate dissidents from the Communist Party and to consolidate the power of Stalin. It was focused primarily on the party leaders as well as bureaucrats and military leadership. This was carried out by the NKVD or the Soviet Secret Police; most people eliminated in the purge were tortured and gave confessions from such duress. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge]

Even as bad as we have it, we're not as bad as the Russian citizens prior to the October Revolution; Nicholas II established an authoritarian system, people were expected to show more self-restraint, devotion to community, difference to the social hierarchy, and a sense of duty to the nation. He held a firm belief that his rule was of divine right. He believed that the people were loyal to him and would serve him without question. This belief led him unwilling to allow reforms that would alleviate the sufferings of the Russian citizens. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_(1917)]

Do you think a revolution might be necessary? Is it time for the current system to be disbanded and rebooted? Does revolution always need to employ violence? Or could there be a revolution without destruction? "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act" -George Orwell. Does this help in believing that a revolution could be without violence? Does that mean anything to you?