Shortly after Donald Trump was inaugurated as president of the United States in January 2017, George Orwell’s 1949 novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” shot to the top of Amazon’s bestseller list. Apparently, lots of people thought Orwell had something relevant to say in that political moment.
Nearly eight years later, the United States once again faces the prospect of a Trump presidency.
In 2016, many Americans were caught off guard by Trump’s win, leading them to grapple with the potential consequences of a Trump presidency only after he was elected. But this time, more people seem to be thinking about the ramifications of such an outcome in advance.
In my work as a professor of philosophy and law, I’ve spent a lot of time studying Orwell’s writing. I think people were correct eight years ago to conclude that Orwell could provide insight into a Trump presidency.
Here are three such insights that I think are useful for Americans to keep in mind as they prepare to vote for their next president.
Nationalism is not patriotism
In his 1945 essay “Notes on Nationalism,” Orwell distinguishes between the terms nationalism and patriotism.
For Orwell, nationalism was “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.”
He was quick to point out that this was distinct from the concept of patriotism, which he defined as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.”
To understand Orwell’s conception of patriotism, I find it useful to consider an analogy. Many parents think that their kids are the best kids in the world. This doesn’t mean that they think there are objective metrics that could be used to rank children. Most parents recognize that there is no such thing, and they don’t go around saying other children aren’t as good as theirs. Yet there is still a real sense in which they see their own kids as the very best.
There is something similar in the attitude of Orwell’s patriot. They may think that their country or their way of life is the best, but – and this may be the most important part – they have no wish to force their views or way of life on others.
Not so with the nationalist. Orwell claims, “Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power.” The nationalist is like a parent who goes around tearing other people’s kids down in order to lift theirs up.
Mere love of country is not inherently dangerous. Making advancement of one’s nation or culture one’s top priority is extremely dangerous. Patriotism sticks to the former. Nationalism goes in for the latter.
Orwell insightfully recognizes that when the nationalist makes advancement of their way of life their top priority, they inevitably end up placing that goal “beyond good and evil.” This makes the nationalist susceptible to endorsing unethical means for advancing their own way of life.
A prime example of such a nationalist mentality was Trump’s response to losing the 2020 presidential election. He sought to subvert the election results by lying and by encouraging insurrection.
Similarly, Trump’s supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 were embracing a nationalist mentality. They engaged in an unethical means of trying to advance their own political agenda.
Donald Trump does exactly what Orwell predicts the nationalist will do. He conceptualizes everything, as Orwell put it, “in terms of competitive prestige” and “his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.”
Fixation on competitive prestige is not patriotic. It’s unadulterated nationalism.
An autocrat is easy to underestimate
In a 1942 essay written during the middle of World War II and reflecting on his experiences as a volunteer soldier in the Spanish Civil War, Orwell wrote that “our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the thing you most fear never really happens,” and that “we believe half-instinctively that evil always defeats itself in the long run.”
Orwell was worried by these optimistic instincts because he thought they ran counter to the evidence. The evidence, on the contrary, suggested that things typically don’t turn out right on their own. Rather, social improvements normally require concerted effort and vigilance against backsliding.
In another essay from the same year, Orwell criticized various intellectuals who treated Hitler as “a figure out of comic opera, not worth taking seriously.” And he criticized many English-speaking countries for being places where it was “fashionable to believe, right up to the outbreak of war, that Hitler was an unimportant lunatic and the German tanks made of cardboard.”
As numerous commentators and news outlets have noted, Trump routinely speaks like an autocrat.
Yet many Americans excuse such talk, failing to treat it as the evidence of a threat to democracy that it is. This seems to me to be driven in part by the tendency Orwell identified to think that truly bad things won’t happen – at least not in one’s own country.
Orwell thought it was worth taking the possibility of bad outcomes seriously. This is one way to understand what he was up to in his most famous books, “Animal Farm” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Americans would benefit from taking potential threats to U.S. democracy seriously, too.
Nationalism can attack within
You can read “Nineteen Eighty-Four” as Orwell’s attempt to think about what a ruling political party completely captured by nationalism might look like.
In “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” orthodox party members in the fictional nation of Oceania are obsessed with “competitive prestige” and “the desire for power.” Activities such as the Two Minutes Hate, where party members were encouraged to scream and jeer at a video of a political opponent, prompt party members to focus their thoughts on “victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.”
A notable feature of the party is how often it turns on its own members through kidnapping, torture and murder. The occurrence was so frequent in Oceania that it had a name: being “vaporized.” Nationalists are a threat not only to those outside the nation but also to those inside the nation who don’t fully support the nationalist’s pursuit of power at any cost.
From this perspective, Trump’s threats against those whom he views as “the enemy from within” reveal his own nationalistic desire to turn on Americans who threaten his pursuit of power.
Orwell’s writing suggests that voters should take such threats seriously.
(This article was republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons License)
Mark Satta is an Associate Professor of Philosophy and Law, Wayne State University
