10 February 2006

Pigs (Three Different Ones)

So, the Republican Party is all about less government interference, is it?

There was the same hearty cheering as before, and the mugs were emptied to the dregs. But as the animals outside gazed at the scene, it seemed to them that some strange thing was happening. What was it that had altered in the faces of the pigs? Clover's old dim eyes flitted from one face to another. Some of them had five chins, some had four, some had three. But what was it that seemed to be melting and changing? Then, the applause having come to an end, the company took up their cards and continued the game that had been interrupted, and the animals crept silently away.

But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Do I really have to provide a citation1 to that? Or explain how the Patriot Act (among other monstrosities) hardly represents "less government"?

The real question is this: Are the farmers the "old line" Democrats… or something darker, older, more dangerous? I vote for the latter; if I'm feeling whimsical, perhaps the Old Ones. More often, though, this reminds me of the struggle among the SRs.

Oh, and the title of this post? Well, if you're reading this blawg you probably understand it, but for those not old enough to remember the Killer Rabbit in the Presidential Primary, you can read this review page for more details. Then go listen to it. See if you can figure out which is the third kind.

  1. One of the many mistakes made in interpreting this work is neglect of the author's insisted-upon subtitle: "A Fairy Story." Although the common interpretation of the book is that it is an allegory of the October Revolution through the mid-1920s, the author hated (even "despised" is not too strong a word) allegory. The book is instead a metaphor—a metaphor with frightening parallels to most major revolutions since the Enlightenment, to greater and lesser degrees. And that is precisely why it is not an allegory. The author insisted upon calling the successor to this book "A Novel" in the subtitle; the incomplete-at-his-death third book was not yet titled.