In George Orwell's Animal Farm, a "fairy story" loosely based on the key events and figures of the Russian Revolution, the early leaders of the analogous animal revolution are two prize pigs: Snowball, roughly modeled on Leon Trotsky, and Napoleon, modeled on Joseph Stalin. Early in the novel the farmer, Mr. Jones, tries to retake the farm from which the animals had expelled him. The animals fight back and win, in what becomes known as the "Battle of the Cowshed." Snowball is the hero of the Battle, taking on Jones's men and getting wounded by Jones's shotgun, while Napoleon remains largely on the sidelines.
Later in the novel Napoleon expels Snowball from the farm and consolidates power for himself, telling the other animals that Snowball was really a traitor who never truly believed in the principles of "Animalism." The story of the Battle of the Cowshed gradually changes as the animals' memory of it fades, as Napoleon's underlings tell tales that make Napoleon more heroic and Snowball less so, chastising the other animals for not remembering such an important event. Ultimately the animals all come to "remember" that Snowball had, in fact, actively fought against them on Jones's side, and that his wounds were inflicted by Napoleon himself.
I ran into a rather interesting troll over at HuffPo yesterday, who like a lot of right-wing trolls has a rather interesting "memory" of recent history, the kind that always reminds me of Animal Farm and the notion that "Snowball fought on Farmer Jones's side." Follow me below the orange squiggle to see how.
Most of what this person laid out was pretty standard; subjective characterizations of people and events, the broad outlines of a fictional narrative, the kind of thing you'd be handing out at the initial pitch meeting for a new television show. In this case, the characters are Presidents Bush and Obama, and the Democratic and Republican Congresses of each respective presidency; the show is about the motives, intentions, virtues, vices and blameworthiness of each President and each Party. You can see where this is going:
[Responding to a comment that President Bush was responsible for or presided over two wars, the financial collapse, TARP, Hurricane Katrina, and 9/11:] All of that Democrats voted for, in fact TARP was written by Democrats, passed in Democrat controlled House and Senate, and placed on Bush's desk by Democrat for his signature.
Then it was Democrats and Obama who actually controlled the TARP process so Bush had nothing to do with the results.
And 9/11 was caused by Clinton, Bush was only in office a few months while the attack was being planned for many years before that.
Katrina was a storm, Bush has no control over the weather.
Banks failing was because of Fannie/Freddie, something the Republicans attempted to regulate several times but Democrats blocked.
Bush actually had little to do with any of that.
...
The Democrats had the same ability to filibuster under Bush but they never used it, so that means everything people try to blame on Bush was actually supported completely by Democrats of the time.
...
Where Bush was a good leader is he always made sure to involve the democrat leadership in all the big issues. He kept the details of negotiations in private and made sure even when Democrats backed off they could still save face.
...
When Bush was in office the Democrats did not filibuster much, but why? Do you know why Bush was so successful and Obama is not?
Leadership.
When Obama wants something passed he goes on speaking tours all over the Nation attacking Republicans to try and bully them into passing what he wants. When Bush wanted something he brought people into a room outside of the media circus and hammered out a deal both sides could support.
...
Democrats voted for everything Bush did...
Bush was successful in bring both sides together to pass legislation both sides could support. ... Obama's only play is go cry to the people with lies...
Obama seems weak and clueless instead of being able to look in command the way Bush did. ...
Bush took our Nation from the devastation of the 9/11 attack that did more damage to our economy than most can even understand and even with the Democrat forced bank mess he still ended in a net gain on jobs during his time in office.
...
Bush was one of the most successful [presidents] because of his leadership after 9/11 brought us together and his work even with a sometimes hostile Democrat party still ended up with a very large amount of bipartisan laws that everyone voted for and supported.
...
[Bush] made sure his legislation objectives were things both sides wanted and supported. It is called leadership. Obama preaches and orders people around through media attacks to try and get his way. Bush brought people into rooms and hammered out deals without the media circus. This way when bills hit the floor, most of the time he already knew it would pass.
Obama is wanting to pass completely partisan legislation that Republicans have no input on, how are they supposed to vote in cases like this?
...
Bush worked with both sides 99% of the time, that is why rarely saw Democrats fight against his legislation agenda, he always included things they wanted to get their votes.
Obama never has meetings with Republicans unless it is a show for the media. Obama does not try to work things out with them, he makes demands and runs off crying to the people if the Republicans don't just lay down and let him have whatever he wants.
And the evidence of all this? The "voting record":
Go look at the voting records and see how they almost always voted for these things, obviously they liked it if they voted for it.
...
All facts. Go back and look at the voting records if you can't remember on your own. The proof is in the votes.
...
I have the fact backing up what I say, simply look at the voting record.
If you want to exist in the pretend world the Democrats order you to live in well that is certainly your right, but those of us who think for ourselves will look at hard facts like the voting record to make up our minds.
We've seen, heard and read all of this (Bush was a brilliant, strong, resolute, patriotic, divinely-ordained, historically-great leader who was powerless to prevent the Democrats from ruining everything) before. I personally read things like this with a mix of amusement, fascination and frustration. In a way it's a very impressive, fully-realized and well-thought-out fictional scenario, a good pitch for a good story, with compelling characters, heroes and villains, but it
is complete fiction. What's happened here, as we all know, is that a
paracosm has been created in which this whole fictional narrative substitutes for what actually happened; to us this is fiction, but to those living inside the paracosm,
this is history. This is what they "remember," this is their story and they're sticking to it.
What interested me the most about this person was a comment made on a different thread, on a different topic:
The [Afghanistan and Iraq] wars were completely supported by both the Republicans and the Democrats. A little known fact few Democrats can remember is that it was the Democrats pushing for war with Iraq long before Bush ever took office.
...
It was the Democrats who talked Bush into attacking Iraq, not the other way around.
There you go. Democrats talked Bush into attacking Iraq. It was the Democrats' idea all along. Bush never wanted to attack Iraq, and Republicans never wanted to attack Iraq; it was
Democrats who pushed them into it, and Bush and the Republicans simply went along with what Democrats wanted, reluctantly, and against their better judgment, because Democrats forced them to do it. If it hadn't been for Democrats, Bush never would have even thought of invading Iraq, let alone actually done it.
I've actually written about this before; I did a short diary about a year ago about a HuffPo troll who claimed that President Bush had singlehandedly brought the price of gasoline down from $4.50 in September 2008 to under $2 in a matter of weeks "by simply opening more offshore oil drilling," and a longer one back in October about a friend-of-a-friend on Facebook who believed that President Obama "tried to force wounded veterans to pay the bills for their own war injuries."
It's only natural to give the people with whom we identify, including those for whom we tend or prefer to vote, the benefit of the doubt, and to be skeptical and cynical about those with whom we don't identify or for whom we don't vote. It's also true that if one wants to believe something badly enough, if one needs to believe it in order to validate something important about oneself, then practically everything "proves" it. But to arrive at a place like this, that Democrats (and only Democrats) pushed and persuaded President Bush, the GOP and the country into invading Iraq, requires a special kind of mental gymnastics, which Orwell described as "doublethink" in his other great novel, 1984. But it's Animal Farm, and "Snowball fought on Jones's side," that occurs to me every time I read something like this.
As I noted above, I find this amusing and fascinating, but also frustrating. The idea that there are so many people out there living in a fictional world, for whom fiction is their reality, and who are absolutely convinced that the fiction is real and that their "facts" "prove" it, is unsettling to say the least. The frustration comes from not being able to do anything about it, not knowing if anything can be done about it.
Snowball fought on Farmer Jones's side. I guess we just have to accept that.