In Orwell's pre-history nonfiction novel 1984, Oceania's ruling ideology was known as Ingsoc, short for "English socialism." Having made a transatlantic move to Washington, D.C. — specifically, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. — the name Ingsoc has thoughtfully updated itself. From "American fascism" comes Amfac.
Though the name has changed, its core principal of doublethink goes on unmolested, which is to say, remaining intact is war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Yet one accommodation has been made to better suit the limited mind of fascistic America; the adjustment, as you might have guessed, centers on simplification.
In Amfac's relocated, Trumpist version of Ingsoc, monosyllabic upside-downs are favored over what Trumpers see as expansively syllabic expressions such as "freedom is slavery." Put simply — which, as noted, is the point of it all — no means yes.
To better understand this doublethinking principle, let's look at a recent, unreal-world example. First a bit of background. In a Politico Magazine piece published Thursday, former federal judge Shira Scheindlin said the "red line" separating U.S. constitutionalism from its crisis state "is if the executive branch defies the judiciary."
That said — and disregarding that the executive branch has already defied the judiciary — Politico's interviewer, Ankush Khardori, interjected in his written report that such defiance is "a move that Trump says he wouldn't take." This presumed clarifying remark ended there, although Khardori linked his eight written words to an NBC News piece as corroboration.
Which I jumped to (or on). There I read that Fox News' Laura Ingraham had interviewed Trump this week, asking him if he would defy a court order. His answer was this:
No, you can’t do that. However, we have bad judges. We have very bad judges, and these are judges that shouldn’t be allowed. I think they, I think at a certain point you have to start looking at, what do you do when you have a rogue judge?
And there you have it, Amfac's celebrated no meaning yes.
In Trumpism, whenever that monosyllable of negation is followed by however or but, as it was in this case, its inherent negation is double-negated by the act of turning it on its head. No absolutely Trump would never defy a court order; yes of course he would (and has) if the order sprang from a bad, roguish, shouldn't-be-a-judge judge.
I won't discomfort you by revealing what Judge Scheindlin said in response to Khardori's question, "But if [defiance] were to happen?" I won't because her answer — "I think [a judge's] only real option is civil contempt" — is just too depressingly wrapped in a Hellerian Catch-22 piled atop an Orwellian doubleungood.
Which is the shorter way of saying that Trump has the Supreme Court's immunity behind him; plus he owns DOJ, which handles criminal contempt unless the criminal is Trump; plus he can't be prosecuted while serving as Führer. Hence you're better off not knowing Judge Scheindlin's grim assessment of Amfac Unbound.
I will, on the other hand, relate an even grimmer assessment made in the wake of what, by mistake, she cast futuristically: "Authoritarians become dictators and really tear down the temple by just ignoring the Constitution, ignoring the judiciary. That would be the shocking end to our 250-year experiment."
Yes it was.