1984 slogans essay

The Meaning of ‘War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength’

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

‘War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength.’ These three short sentences are a central part of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949): a book which is probably the best-known dystopian novel ever written.

It’s also one of the books most people lie about having read, perhaps because they feel they already know the overarching plot points and key ideas within the novel, so well-known are they even to non-readers.

But what precisely does ‘War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength’ mean in the context of Nineteen Eighty-Four ?

George Orwell (1903-50), born Eric Arthur Blair, was one of the most remarkable writers of the first half of the twentieth century. His essays are among the best in the English language, not least because of their clear-headedness, married with a clarity of expression. Indeed, Orwell even wrote an essay about the need for political language to be clear and direct; we need his advice now more than ever.

As well as writing numerous essays and short journalistic pieces, he also wrote a number of novels. Two of these, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four , remain popular and widely studied in schools and universities.

Orwell’s last novel before his untimely death from tuberculosis was Nineteen Eighty-Four , completed in 1948 and published a year later. The novel is a classic example of dystopian fiction, and depicts a near future in which Britain has become a one-party state, in which thinking the wrong thoughts can be a crime (see ‘thoughtcrime’) and land you in trouble with the ‘thought police’. The dictator who rules over this totalitarian state is known as Big Brother.

The protagonist is Winston Smith, who works for the Ministry of Truth (a body partly inspired by Orwell’s time spent working at the BBC ) where old historical records are altered, to remove any embarrassing facts that don’t fit with the party line.

Early on, we are introduced to the ‘War is Peace’ slogan, along with the accompanying slogans ‘Freedom is Slavery’ and ‘Ignorance is Strength’:

The Ministry of Truth – Minitrue, in Newspeak – was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

  WAR IS PEACE

  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

  IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And again, later, Winston recalls these slogans from the Ministry of Truth, before finding them inscribed in other places, too:

Like an answer, the three slogans on the white face of the Ministry of Truth came back to him:

He took a twenty-five cent piece out of his pocket. There, too, in tiny clear lettering, the same slogans were inscribed, and on the other face of the coin the head of Big Brother.

This quotation, presenting three sets of axiomatic statements which are fundamentally contradictory, exemplifies the ways in which the totalitarian society in Orwell’s novel alters the meanings of words in order to manipulate people’s understanding of the world around them.

How can war be its opposite, peace? How can freedom be enslaving, when the two things stand in stark opposition to each other? And how can ignorance be lauded as a strength? It is from such topsy-turvy statements that the dystopian world of Orwell’s novel was created.

But ‘War is Peace’ is explained in more detail in the ‘book within a book’ that features in Nineteen Eighty-Four . This (fictional) book is titled The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism and its author is Emmanuel Goldstein, a rival of Big Brother who supposedly runs the Brotherhood, a resistance movement. Chapter III of Goldstein’s book, which Winston reads, is titled ‘War is Peace’, and explains the origins of the Party’s slogan:

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. […] But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.

War, then, against some imagined enemy helps to mobilise society and keep its hierarchical structures in place. People become unified in a wartime situation and when on a wartime footing. Goldstein goes on:

The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries.

Goldstein then continues, explaining how the terms  war  and  peace  become interchangeable in the new political landscape:

For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This – although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense – is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.

Through being united by a common hatred of ‘the enemy’, then, the people of Oceania in Orwell’s novel remain focused on their shared purpose, which is to win the war. But war in the old sense has become meaningless, has ceased to exist: it is merely a device by which the fabric of society is kept going, the way ‘peace’ is maintained.

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

Type your email…

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

1984 Quotes

Quotations are quotes, expressions, phrases or sentences taken out from a literary work that consist of universal themes and beliefs. Every person who reads can use the quotes and apply to their daily situation. Written by George Orwell , 1984 quotes are not only memorable but also suitable for the various current global circumstances. Some of the famous quotes have been explained below.

Quotes in 1984

“ BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU .”

 Part-1, Chapter-1

This is the most critical quote seen by Winston Smith on posters every time he enters his apartment. This is a slogan propagated by the Party that Big Brother, the leader of the country Oceania to warn all the citizens that Big Brother is watching everyone. Therefore, everyone must stay within the given lines of the Party or else face the consequences. This slogan is given in all capital letters to show that this directive is very important. It relates to the existing surveillance through the internet and smartphones.

“ WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH .”

These slogan type of quotes occur in the first chapter of the novel . These are mottos of the Ministry of Truth of the state of Oceania. The main political party “The Party” has introduced these slogans to manipulate and control the minds of people while putting ‘thoughts from the Party’ about what is important for them and what is not. In other words, these mottos show that people should accept these truths. In recent circumstances, it shows the subversive use of language to make people think what the governments want them to think.

“One of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the Thought Police, the stability of the Party depended.”

 Part-1, Chapter-2

These lines are about Parsons, the fellow employee of Winston Smith, the main character of the storyline of 1984. This line is a comment on his enthusiasm to work for “The Party” and the government. It says that the Party depends on such unquestioning fellows who prove diehard followers . These people become the main source of the Thought Police to control the thoughts of the people. This shows their relevance to the religious fanatics of the modern times.

“The past was dead, the future was unimaginable.”

This short line occurs in the second chapter of the novel. It is a significant line that shows how the past is modified to make it equal to zero, or almost dead for the people. The main character, Winston Smith, is feeling quite odd when working in the party office. He feels that the past is more before him and that he cannot imagine what may happen to him in the future. Therefore, he is clueless about time due to his work in the Ministry of Truth.

“Who controls the past’, ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

 Part-1, Chapter-3

These lines are from the third chapter. Winston Smith thinks about the existence of knowledge and realizes that truth is being annihilated. He thinks that if the line of the Party is accepted that who controls the present controls the past, it means it also controls the future. Therefore, the Party is working to obliterate all records. Then it will own the future as it can create its own record for future reference.

“Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your own nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptom.”

 Part-1, Chapter-6

These lines are spoken in the sixth chapter. Winston Smith, the protagonist of this novel, is in a reflective mood . He is writing a diary which could prove a rebellious act against him. In these sentences, he thinks that his nervous system could prove bad for him. He knows that his inner tension could become visible, and he could be arrested. These lines show how the Party has overpowered the mental processes of its workers.

“Until they become conscious, they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”

 Part-1, Chapter-7

The hero of the novel, Winston Smith, writes these lines in his diary in the seventh chapter of the first section. He has been visiting the proles, the settlements of the proletariat people. He is thinking about the mob of the proletariat and states that if they become conscious of the situation in which they are forced to live, they will rebel. However, their thoughts have been curbed so much so that they could not become conscious of why they rebel and against whom they are rebelling. These lines, given in italics in original, are significant as they show how the politicians dominate the commoners using their power .

“At the sight of the words I love you the desire to stay alive had welled up in him, and the taking of minor risks suddenly seemed stupid.”

 Part 2, Chapter 1

These lines occur in the first chapter of the second section. These are very important lines, as Winston Smith has already read “I love you” when Julia secretly passes the note. Now he is reflecting upon its meanings and feeling passionate intimate moments with Julia. In the past, he has experienced intimacy is a routine matter where no love is involved. Hence, meeting Julia has changed that thought and he has become passionate. He also understands that taking these small risks for love is mindless and yet worth it because Julia makes him feel alive

“The smell of her hair, the taste of her mouth, the feeling of her skin seemed to have got inside him, or into the air all around him. She had become a physical necessity.”

 Part-2, Chapter-4

These lines occur in the fourth chapter of the second section. Here Winston is again thinking about his girlfriend, Julia, with whom he has met earlier. Although in the past sexual relationship was declared a routine matter for breeding more members of the Party, it is still a passionate act for him. He thinks about Julia and feels her presence. Then it suddenly dawns upon him that Julia has removed all his repression from the past and that he craves to be with her.

“For the first time, he perceived that if you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”

 Part-3, Chapter-4

These words are the thoughts of Winston Smith. He is very much overwhelmed by his rebellious thoughts, and seems, to be on the verge of spilling the beans or making it visible. He is very much aware of ‘Thought Police’ and the consequence of his thoughts. It has occurred to him for the first time that if you are working as a spy, you must hoodwink yourself, too. This line is significant in the novel and shows how a change of thoughts sometimes causes delusion.

Related posts:

• 1984 Themes
• 10 Imaginative Similes in 1984
• Othello Quotes
• Frankenstein Quotes
• Oedipus Rex Quotes
• Slaughterhouse-Five Quotes
• Catch-22 Quotes
• Antigone Quotes
• Inferno Quotes
• Fahrenheit 451 Quotes
• Into the Wild Quotes
• The Alchemist Quotes
• Night Quotes
• Life of Pi Quotes
• The Invisible Man Quotes
• The Tempest Quotes
• The Iliad Quotes
• The Jungle Quotes
• Siddhartha Quotes
• The Stranger Quotes
• The Aeneid Quotes
• Dracula Quotes
• Animal Farm Quotes
• Pride and Prejudice Quotes
• To Kill a Mockingbird Quotes
• The Great Gatsby Quotes
• The Scarlet Letter Quotes
• Death of a Salesman Quotes
• Things Fall Apart Quotes
• The Things They Carried Quotes
• A Tale of Two Cities Quotes
• Jane Eyre Quotes
• The Grapes of Wrath Quotes
• Twelfth Night Quotes
• Crime and Punishment Quotes
• Their Eyes Were Watching God Quotes
• Wuthering Heights Quotes
• In Cold Blood Quotes
• The Kite Runner Quotes
• The Glass Castle Quotes
• The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Quotes
• Macbeth Quotes
• Hamlet Quotes
• The Crucible Quotes
• The Awakening Quotes
• The Metamorphosis Quotes
• Odyssey Quotes
• Beloved Quotes
• Romeo and Juliet Quotes
• Lord of the Flies Quotes
• Alice in the Wonderland Quotes
• Great Expectations Quotes
• Heart of Darkness Quotes
• A Doll’s House Quotes
• Julius Caesar Quotes
• King Lear Quotes
• Big Brother is Watching You
• War is Peace
• Under the Spreading Chestnut Tree
• Ignorance is Strength
• Animal Farm Characters
• George Orwell
• Animal Farm
• Literary Writing Style of George Orwell

Post navigation

George Orwell

Ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

Welcome to the LitCharts study guide on George Orwell's 1984 . Created by the original team behind SparkNotes, LitCharts are the world's best literature guides.

1984: Introduction

1984: plot summary, 1984: detailed summary & analysis, 1984: themes, 1984: quotes, 1984: characters, 1984: symbols, 1984: theme wheel, brief biography of george orwell.

Historical Context of 1984

Other books related to 1984.

• Full Title: Nineteen Eighty-Four: A Novel
• When Written: 1945-49; outline written 1943
• Where Written: Jura, Scotland
• When Published: June 1949
• Literary Period: Late Modernism
• Genre: Novel / Satire / Parable
• Setting: London in the year 1984
• Climax: Winston is tortured in Room 101
• Antagonist: O'Brien
• Point of View: Third-Person Limited

Extra Credit for 1984

Outspoken Anti-Communist. Orwell didn't just write literature that condemned the Communist state of the USSR. He did everything he could, from writing editorials to compiling lists of men he knew were Soviet spies, to combat the willful blindness of many intellectuals in the West to USSR atrocities.

Working Title. Orwell's working title for the novel was The Last Man in Europe .

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Books — 1984

Essays on 1984

Hook examples for "1984" essays, the dystopian warning hook.

Open your essay by discussing George Orwell's "1984" as a prophetic warning against totalitarianism and government surveillance. Explore how the novel's themes are eerily relevant in today's world.

The Orwellian Language Hook

Delve into the concept of Newspeak in "1984" and its parallels to modern language manipulation. Discuss how the novel's portrayal of controlled language reflects real-world instances of propaganda and censorship.

Big Brother is Watching Hook

Begin with a focus on surveillance and privacy concerns. Analyze the omnipresent surveillance in the novel and draw connections to contemporary debates over surveillance technologies, data privacy, and civil liberties.

The Power of Doublethink Hook

Explore the psychological manipulation in "1984" through the concept of doublethink. Discuss how individuals in the novel are coerced into accepting contradictory beliefs, and examine instances of cognitive dissonance in society today.

The Character of Winston Smith Hook

Introduce your readers to the protagonist, Winston Smith, and his journey of rebellion against the Party. Analyze his character development and the universal theme of resistance against oppressive regimes.

Technology and Control Hook

Discuss the role of technology in "1984" and its implications for control. Explore how advancements in surveillance technology, social media, and artificial intelligence resonate with the novel's themes of control and manipulation.

The Ministry of Truth Hook

Examine the Ministry of Truth in the novel, responsible for rewriting history. Compare this to the manipulation of information and historical revisionism in contemporary politics and media.

Media Manipulation and Fake News Hook

Draw parallels between the Party's manipulation of information in "1984" and the spread of misinformation and fake news in today's media landscape. Discuss the consequences of a distorted reality.

Relevance of Thoughtcrime Hook

Explore the concept of thoughtcrime and its impact on individual freedom in the novel. Discuss how society today grapples with issues related to freedom of thought, expression, and censorship.

The Importance of Fear in 1984

Life under the doublespeak office analysis, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Big Brother in George Orwell’s "1984"

George orwell’s representation of authority as illustrated in his book, 1984, orwell's use of literary devices to portray the theme of totalitarianism in 1984, the culture of fear in 1984, a novel by george orwell, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

1984 by George Orwell: Literary Devices to Portray Government Controlling Its Citizens

The use of language to control people in 1984, dictatorship of the people: orwell's 1984 as an allegory for the early soviet union, searching for truth in 1984, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

A World Without Love: The Ramifications of an Affectionless Society in 1984

On double-think and newspeak: orwell's language, the theme of survival and selfishness in the handmaid's tale in 1984, government surveillance in 1984 by george orwell: bogus security, george orwell's 1984 as a historical allegory, exploitation of language in george orwell's 1984, how orwell's 1984 is relevant to today's audience, the relation of orwel’s 1984 to the uighur conflict in china, symbolism in 1984: the soviet union as representation of the fears people, parallels to today in 1984 by george orwell, the relationship between power and emotions in 1984, proletariat vs protagonist: winston smith's class conflict in 1984, a review of george orwell’s book, 1984, o'brien as a dehumanizing villain in 1984, family in 1984 and persepolis, the philosophy of determinism in 1984, orwell's use of rhetorical strategies in 1984, control the citizens in the orwell's novel 1984, dangers of totalitarianism as depicted in 1984, dystopian life in '1984' was a real-life in china.

8 June 1949, George Orwell

Novel; Dystopia, Political Fiction, Social Science Fiction Novel

Winston Smith, Julia, O'Brien, Aaronson, Jones, and Rutherford, Ampleforth, Charrington, Tom Parsons, Syme, Mrs. Parsons, Katharine Smith

Since Orwell has been a democratic socialist, he has modelled his book and motives after the Stalinist Russia

Power, Repressive Behaviors, Totalitarianism, Mass Surveillance, Human Behaviors

The novel has brought up the "Orwellian" term, which stands for "Big Brother" "Thoughtcrime" and many other terms that we know well. It has been the reflection of totalitarianism

1984 represents a dystopian writing that has followed the life of Winston Smith who belongs to the "Party",which stands for the total control, which is also known as the Big Brother. It controls every aspect of people's lives. Is it ever possible to go against the system or will it take even more control. It constantly follows the fear and oppression with the surveillance being the main part of 1984. There is Party’s official O’Brien who is following the resistance movement, which represents an alternative, which is the symbol of hope.

Before George Orwell wrote his famous book, he worked for the BBC as the propagandist during World War II. The novel has been named 1980, then 1982 before finally settling on its name. Orwell fought tuberculosis while writing the novel. He died seven months after 1984 was published. Orwell almost died during the boating trip while he was writing the novel. Orwell himself has been under government surveillance. It was because of his socialist opinions. The slogan that the book uses "2 + 2 = 5" originally came from Communist Russia and stood for the five-year plan that had to be achieved during only four years. Orwell also used various Japanese propaganda when writing his novel, precisely his "Thought Police" idea.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” “Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.” “Confession is not betrayal. What you say or do doesn't matter; only feelings matter. If they could make me stop loving you-that would be the real betrayal.” “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” "But you could not have pure love or pure lust nowadays. No emotion was pure, because everything was mixed up with fear and hatred."

The most important aspect of 1984 is Thought Police, which controls every thought. It has been featured in numerous books, plays, music pieces, poetry, and anything that has been created when one had to deal with Social Science and Politics. Another factor that represents culmination is thinking about overthrowing the system or trying to organize a resistance movement. It has numerous reflections of the post WW2 world. Although the novella is graphic and quite intense, it portrays dictatorship and is driven by fear through the lens of its characters.

This essay topic is often used when writing about “The Big Brother” or totalitarian regimes, which makes 1984 a flexible topic that can be taken as the foundation. Even if you have to write about the use of fear by the political regimes, knowing the facts about this novel will help you to provide an example.

1. Enteen, G. M. (1984). George Orwell And the Theory of Totalitarianism: A 1984 Retrospective. The Journal of General Education, 36(3), 206-215. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27797000) 2. Hughes, I. (2021). 1984. Literary Cultures, 4(2). (https://journals.ntu.ac.uk/index.php/litc/article/view/340) 3. Patai, D. (1982). Gamesmanship and Androcentrism in Orwell's 1984. PMLA, 97(5), 856-870. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/pmla/article/abs/gamesmanship-and-androcentrism-in-orwells-1984/F1B026BE9D97EE0114E248AA733B189D) 4. Paden, R. (1984). Surveillance and Torture: Foucault and Orwell on the Methods of Discipline. Social Theory and Practice, 10(3), 261-271. (https://www.pdcnet.org/soctheorpract/content/soctheorpract_1984_0010_0003_0261_0272) 5. Tyner, J. A. (2004). Self and space, resistance and discipline: a Foucauldian reading of George Orwell's 1984. Social & Cultural Geography, 5(1), 129-149. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1464936032000137966) 6. Kellner, D. (1990). From 1984 to one-dimensional man: Critical reflections on Orwell and Marcuse. Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 10, 223-52. (https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/from1984toonedimensional.pdf) 7. Samuelson, P. (1984). Good legal writing: of Orwell and window panes. U. Pitt. L. Rev., 46, 149. (https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/upitt46&div=13&id=&page=) 8. Fadaee, E. (2011). Translation techniques of figures of speech: A case study of George Orwell's" 1984 and Animal Farm. Journal of English and Literature, 2(8), 174-181. (https://academicjournals.org/article/article1379427897_Fadaee.pdf) 9. Patai, D. (1984, January). Orwell's despair, Burdekin's hope: Gender and power in dystopia. In Women's Studies International Forum (Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 85-95). Pergamon. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0277539584900621) 10. Cole, M. B. (2022). The Desperate Radicalism of Orwell’s 1984: Power, Socialism, and Utopia in Dystopian Times. Political Research Quarterly, 10659129221083286. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10659129221083286)

Relevant topics

• Bartleby The Scrivener
• Frankenstein
• Catcher in The Rye
• Of Mice and Men
• Into The Wild
• Their Eyes Were Watching God
• The Diary of Anne Frank
• The Things They Carried
• The Yellow Wallpaper

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Themes, Motifs, and Symbols in 1984

• The Albert Team
• Last Updated On: March 1, 2022

What We Review

Major Themes in 1984

In the dystopian novel 1984 , George Orwell’s use of a totalitarian government exemplifies its themes throughout the story. Themes and motifs such as censorship, freedom, and propaganda are prevalent throughout the novel and explored through the suspense of Big Brother’s control and motives. Orwell’s use of language defines what it means to be a citizen of Oceania and its threats to individuality and freedom. 

Propaganda is defined as information, typically biased, used to support a certain point of view. Through the use of telescreens, slogans, and other pieces of propaganda, the loyalty of the Oceania citizens is controlled and manipulated by the Party. Unbeknownst to themselves, the citizens lose their ability to think on their own and live in a world full of devotion and patriotism. Much like the World War I Uncle Sam poster, which is a United States staple piece of propaganda, the Party uses posters of Big Brother as a patriotic symbol. 

The Ministry of Truth, where the protagonist, Winston Smith, works, is responsible for dispersing all information to its people. The Ministry distorts history and facts, regardless of their accuracy, to support and promote the ideology behind the Party. This form of propaganda is just one of many that diminish the individualistic freedoms of Oceania. 

The propaganda used in Orwell’s dystopia defines what it means to be a loyal citizen to the Party. The propaganda influences the citizen’s perception of what is real and what isn’t. 

Loyalty to the Party is more than dedication to government. In 1984, the citizens must be submissive to the Party in every way. Without submissive behavior and unquestionable compliance, the totalitarian government cannot exist. Loyalty within the Party lies deeper than any other relationship, including those of father and child. 

The most prevalent example of loyalty lies within Winston and Julia. Winston and Julia’s relationship with each other proves that there is no loyalty beyond that of the government. The only love accepted in Oceania is the love that serves Big Brother. However, Julia and Winston’s mutual hatred for the Party and its ideologies create their faithfulness to each other. As the relationship and individual loyalty develop, a secret Thought Policeman, O’Brien, intervenes and develops a relationship with Winston when he senses noncompliance to Big Brother’s loyalty.

Julia and Winston’s love and rebellion against the totalitarian government ends in dismay when captured by the O’Brien and the Thought Police. After their capture, Winston’s love for Julia is replaced by the love for Big Brother, exemplifying the loyalty mindset of the Party. As O’Brien states, “You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him; you must love him” (Orwell 252). 

Manipulation

There are many forms of manipulation strewn throughout 1984. The biggest form of manipulation is the language of Newspeak, Oceania’s replacement for English. Language allows individuality, knowledge and freedom to think and speak as one feels. As a manipulation tactic, the Party controls the masses through this new use of language. Newspeak is constantly being altered and perfected. The Party perfects the language by continuously limiting what the individual can think and speak. Through this manipulation, The Party ensures that there is no rebellion or thought that goes against the Party’s ideology.  

Beyond mind manipulation, the Party also controls the body. The citizens of Oceania are required to complete Physical Jerks daily, then go to their government job, and keep up with the Party’s political agenda. The punishment for any sort of rebellion is met with physical and mental torture. With this manipulation of mind and body, the Party reaches its ideology behind totalitarianism. 

Motifs and Symbols in 1984

The ideology and dangers behind totalitarianism, propaganda, and censorship are conveyed through Orwell’s use of symbolism and motifs. Orwell uses the irony of doublethink to show how manipulation and control can restrict one’s individuality and freedom. The concept behind Big Brother represents more than just the leader of Oceania, but rather the dictatorial presence over the nation. 

Doublethink

Doublethink is a mind-manipulation strategy in which individuals hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously and believe both are true. Orwell’s language use throughout 1984 illustrates what it is to doublethink. The Party uses this strategy to invoke loyalty in its citizens.

The names of the Ministries in 1984 exemplify the idea of doublethink, “The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names, in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty” (Orwell 4).  

In reality, the Ministry of Peace is in charge of waging war, the Ministry of Truth manipulates and distorts information, the Ministry of Love oversees punishment, and the Ministry of Plenty focuses on economic shortcomings. Orwell’s use of irony in these examples highlights how Oceania manipulates its citizens’ minds in order to gain complete control and remove the ability for citizens to have independent thought, creating the idealistic totalitarian government.  

Big Brother

Orwell’s totalitarian government focuses heavily on Big Brother. The face of the Party has never been seen, however, and fear reigns across a nation as his presence is shown.  As described in the text, “…the face of Big Brother seemed to persist for several seconds on the screen, as though the impact that it had made on everyone’s eyeballs was too vivid to wear off immediately,” Big Brother’s intimidation lies deep within its citizens (Orwell 21). Big Brother symbolizes power and the state and the complete oppression of society.

Telescreens

Telescreens are used as constant surveillance for the people of Oceania and as a tactic to spread the Party’s propaganda. Orwell uses telescreens to symbolize how the totalitarian government abuses its power through different means; in this case, the telescreens are directly an abuse of technology. The telescreens watch citizens’ every move, tracking their facial features and reporting any suspicion to the Thought Police. As described in 1984:

“ The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” (Orwell 2)

The dehumanizing political philosophies of the Party are established through the various themes and motifs of the story. Orwell’s warnings about government control are manifested throughout this novel by the use of propaganda, mind- manipulation, and fear. By looking deeper into the use of language and symbolism, it is abundantly apparent: Big Brother is watching you. 

Works Cited

Elder, Natalie. “Uncle Sam: The Man and the Meme.” National Museum of American History , 3 May 2016, americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2013/09/uncle-sam-the-man-and-the-meme-the-origins-of-uncle-sam.html. Orwell, George. 1984 . Penguin Books, 2020.

Interested in a school license?​

Popular posts.

AP® Score Calculators

Simulate how different MCQ and FRQ scores translate into AP® scores

AP® Review Guides

The ultimate review guides for AP® subjects to help you plan and structure your prep.

Core Subject Review Guides

Review the most important topics in Physics and Algebra 1 .

SAT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall SAT® score

ACT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall ACT® score

Grammar Review Hub

Comprehensive review of grammar skills

AP® Posters

Download updated posters summarizing the main topics and structure for each AP® exam.

Examine the party's three slogans: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." What do you think they mean?

1948 by george orwell

THese are all paradoxical slogans. There is a lot to this but here is a simple explanation,

War is Peace- While the country is fighting, people within the country are on the same side hence the Party enjoys uncontested power. Nobody questions their government while at war...It's that sort of thing.

Ignorance is strength- If people remain ignorant, they will not question the Party hence making the country "stronger".

Freedom is slavery- If people are free to do things and express ideas contrary to party doctrine, everybody is made weak. They are slaves to their own ideas and not strong under one idea from the Party.

These are all paradoxical slogans. There is a lot to this but here is a simple explanation,

War is Peace. In their society, keeping the masses believing that constant war is being waged is actually a way of maintaining peace. War elicits great patriotism and devotion to country; it also promotes sacrifice and giving to the community over oneself. So, if there is constant war, the people are constantly giving, sacrificing, and pledging devotion to their government. This keeps the people in check and in control, and hence, peaceful. That is how the Party uses that slogan. The people think it just means that world peace is maintained through war. Without war, their security would be threatened.

Freedom is slavery is more tricky. The people probably believe that to mean that having total freedom is actually a way to become enslaved to your senses, weaknesses and vices. For example, the Party encourages young women to remain virtuous and restrict themselves from being romantically involved or sentimental in any way. The society has firm beliefs about sex and relationships--there is very little freedom there, because they feel that sex and relationships enslave people. If you are constantly embroiled in relationships, you are subject to the turmoil and unhappiness that they sometimes cause, and are constantly thinking about it. That is not freedom, according to them. So, to the people and the masses, they have been taught that freedom to act, and sometimes act poorly, actually tends to enslave one to sentimental and unessential vices and emotions. To the Party, a free people represents the removal of their power. So, the people must not be free in order to remain in power.

To the masses, being ignorant about the true condition of things is actually beneficial, because it helps them to remain happy and optimistic, and thus strong. To the workers within the Party, like Winston, their entire jobs rely on keeping the people ignorant of true facts and statistics. Essentially, lie to keep the people in the dark, and then the Party--and their jobs--will always be strong. The people's ignorance gives the Party strength; if they really knew the true state of things and how they had been manipulated, they would rebel, and take away the Party's power.

In the end, it all comes down to the Party creating slogans that ensure the continuation of their power and contro

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/novel-1984-what-do-3-slogans-mean-201861

With all due respect, you're all missing the point a bit here. The broad strokes of what's going on here is one of the ongoing themes in 1984. The use and corruption of language by power structures as a form of mind control is a very important theme in his work. These are mantras. The only logic to them is that they are supposed to destroy the meaning of words, and break down the positive or negative associations people have with those words. It's an excersise in thought control. They aren't supposed to make sense, and that's precisely the point. By invoking a paradox, you destroy meaning and control thought.

You can see exactly this happening in the modern world. Progressives are Nazis. Freedom fighters are terrorists if they're foriegn, but "disturbed" if they're domestic. "Fake News" and the most Orwellian phrase I've ever heard used in modern politics: "Alternate Facts".

It's fairly obvious that the slogans in 1984 are forms of propaganda. But there are plenty of other examples of the idea at work elsewphere. There's the baffling "newspeak", designed to soothe and obfruscate meaning, and the interigation methods designed to re-condition and reprogram thought. “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.” [1984 p31]

http://www.berkes.ca/archive/berkes_1984_language.html http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/quotes.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Log In To Your GradeSaver Account

• Remember me
• Forgot your password?

Create Your GradeSaver Account

INGSOC, or English Socialism, is the totalitarian political party of Oceania, in George Orwell’s '1984.'  

• INGSOC, the political ideology of Oceania in George Orwell's " 1984 ", symbolizes the extreme form of totalitarianism that seeks complete control over the populace's actions, thoughts, and language.
• Through mechanisms like Newspeak , doublethink , and the alteration of history, INGSOC aims to eliminate any possibility of dissent, ensuring that the concept of rebellion or disagreement with the Party becomes unthinkable.
• The Party's use of propaganda, such as the "Two Minutes of Hate," is designed to manipulate emotions, direct public hatred towards external enemies and internal traitors like Emmanuel Goldstein , and reinforce loyalty towards Big Brother , illustrating the depths of control INGSOC intends to exert over society.

Article written by William

A Level in English Literature, Masters Degree in Automotive Engineering.

INGSOC is used by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four as the only political party in the super-state, and, according to Winston Smith , no one is quite sure when the Party came into power.

Explore INGSOC

• 1 INGSOC Definition
• 2 Two Minutes of Hate 
• 3 Principles of INGSOC
• 5 Related Terms in 1984 
• 6 Other Resources 

INGSOC Definition

INGSOC comes from the English Socialist Party of the British Isles, and is based around the principle that the party needs to use whatever power they can to retain control over the people of Oceania. 

It’s believed that the Party seized power during the establishment of the super-state of Oceania, with Big Brother as the figurehead. (It is debated whether or not Big Brother is, or ever has been, a real person, or if he is just a symbol used to personify INGSOC’s values created by the inner party .) 

It becomes clear as the book progresses that the accumulation of power and the exertion of that same power over everyday people is what the Party strives for. The more control they gain, the stronger they become, and the further towards total authoritarianism they venture, with complete control being the endgame objective.

Importantly, it’s not just the control over what people do or what they believe, but also what they think (or even what they’re capable of speaking). Through the implementation of Newspeak, the government is purposefully whittling down the English language, removing words they believe could lead to rebellion or discontent. They are also adding shortened versions of words like “INGSOC” itself, thinkpol , MiniLuv, and unperson .

If the government can control what people think, there is no way that someone would think themselves into a different opinion of Big Brother and the leaders of the Party. Without words like “rebellion” or “free speech” one will lose the ability to conceive of them. 

Additionally, as seen through the torture of Winston Smith towards the end of the novel, the Party leaders seek to snuff out any hint of rebellion in the form of brainwashing and mind control before even killing that person. Consider this interaction between Winston and O’Brien during this scene: 

Tell me, Winston—and remember, no lies: you know that I am always able to detect a lie—tell me, what are your true feelings towards Big Brother? ‘I hate him.’ ‘You hate him. Good. Then the time has come for you to take the last step. You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him.’

O’Brien makes it clear that obedience is not enough, Winston has to love Big Brother and the ideology of INGSOC. 

Two Minutes of Hate 

The “Two Minutes of Hate” is an integral part of society under the rule of the Party. In the novel, one iteration of the Two Minutes of Hate begins with a video of Emmanuel Goldstein and images of the Eurasian army. The former speaks against Big Brother in a way that riles up the crowds watching. The narrator explains how the following occurs when Winston watches. 

his diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard—a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a sheep-like quality.

Even Winston, who is against what the Party stands for, is not immune to the propaganda meant to make him feel hatred towards Goldstein. The narrator goes on, describing how in the second minute of the hate, it rose “to a frenzy.” 

People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O’Brien’s heavy face was flushed.

Winston finds himself shouting with the others. The purpose of this process is to allow the citizens of Oceania to feel strong emotions. It’s the only time they’re allowed to do so. If the government can focus it on political enemies, then they’re sure that that energy is not going to be expended somewhere else. It’s often described as a stand-in for sex and true passion about something one loves. 

Principles of INGSOC

There are three “sacred principles” of INGSOC. They are Newspeak, as described above, doublethink, and the mutability (or changeability) of the past. The Party attempts to control what its citizens are thinking through all three of these means. With doublethink, Orwell stated that it is “to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies” and “to hold simultaneously two opinions which” one knows to be contradictory but believing them both. It’s a paradox that allows the Party to do anything it wants, including changing which other totalitarian states Oceania is at war with without the majority of the citizens noticing. For example, the narrator says that: 

At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines.

Winston knows that it was “only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in an alliance with Eurasia.” But, as is the case with doublethink, “that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control.” 

What are the three principles of INGSOC?

The three principles of INGSOC are the mutability of the past, doublethink, and Newspeak. They all allow the government to exert control over what their citizens believe and even what they think.

Who is the leader of INGSOC?

Big Brother is the leader of INGSOC in the novel 1984 . He is a dark-haired, mustachioed figure who features on posters and videos around Winston Smith’s city.

What does INGSOC mean in 1984 ?

INGSOC stands for “English Socialism” in 1984. It is a Newspeak word. Part of the dictionary of words that’s seeking to shorten the English language into controllable bites.

Who is the enemy of INGSOC?

INGSOC’s Oceania is at almost perpetual war with either Eastasia or Eurasia. However, their main enemy is Emmanuel Goldstein and The Brotherhood. The true threat to INGSOC comes in the form of ideologies that threaten their control.

What is Oceania in 1984 based on?

While Oceania is fiction and is not based on any specific real-world country, George Orwells totalitarian nation is based on the idea of what could happen if a government’s power is left unchecked.

What is INGSOC in 1984?

INGSOC is the only party in the huge country of Oceania, which is mainly composed of the Americas, the British Isles, Australasia, and part of Africa. They believe in gaining total control of their citizen’s actions, thoughts, and words. INGSOC are the main antagonists of the novel 1984.

Related Terms in 1984 

• Ministry of Love : responsible for brainwashing the citizens of Oceania. 
• Ministry of Truth : the ministry responsible for changing history to suit the Party. 
• Thought Police : the group responsible for arresting those charged with thoughtcrime . 
• Thoughtcrime : any thought that goes against what the Party believes or what one is supposed to be doing. 
• Newspeak : the language used to diminish the range of thought in Oceania. 

Other Resources 

• Watch: INGSOC Propoganda
• Watch: Two Minutes of Hate
• Read: 1984 Summary

About William

Will founded Book Analysis back in 2020 to help others understand and enjoy books, just like he does. After studying an A Level in English Literature, Will completed Masters degree in Automotive Engineering and now works full time on Book Analysis, and similar sites alike.

Discover literature and connect with others just like yourself!

Start the Conversation. Join the Chat.

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts
• Invite this member to groups

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

The Power of Persuasion: how Gatorade’s Slogan Captures the Essence of Sports Culture

This essay about Gatorade’s iconic slogan “Is it in you?” explores how it transcends traditional marketing to embody the ethos of sports culture. Introduced in 1997, the slogan effectively positions Gatorade not just as a beverage, but as a symbol of the resilience, strength, and determination inherent in athletes. It challenges the consumer to reflect on their own inner qualities and aligns the drink with the pursuit of athletic excellence. The slogan’s rhetorical power lies in its simplicity and dual meaning, resonating both as a physical intake and a metaphor for internal qualities necessary for success. The essay also discusses how Gatorade leverages visual endorsements from renowned athletes to strengthen its brand identity, making the drink synonymous with peak performance and recovery. Through this slogan, Gatorade markets both a product and an ideal, emphasizing that it is essential for anyone striving to realize their potential in sports.

How it works

When Gatorade coined its famous slogan “Is it in you?” back in 1997, it wasn’t just introducing a new tagline—it was embedding itself into the cultural fabric of athletics. This slogan goes beyond a simple marketing phrase; it serves as a rallying cry that resonates with the ethos of athletes around the world, encapsulating the spirit of determination and endurance. This analysis examines how Gatorade’s slogan captures the essence of sports culture and contributes to its brand identity, transforming the way consumers perceive sports beverages.

Gatorade has consistently positioned itself not just as a product but as an integral part of the sports narrative. The development of the slogan “Is it in you?” was a strategic move to highlight the intrinsic connection between the drink and the athlete’s internal drive and perseverance. This question does not merely ask if Gatorade is physically inside the athlete, but rather, it calls into question the presence of the qualities that Gatorade embodies: resilience, strength, and the relentless pursuit of victory.

The success of this slogan can be attributed to its deeply motivational nature. It challenges athletes to reflect on their own inner strength and determination, aligning the product with the inner qualities that sports enthusiasts aspire to exhibit. By doing so, Gatorade transcends the typical consumer product categorization, becoming a symbol of athletic excellence and ambition. This slogan encourages athletes to push their limits, suggesting that consuming Gatorade is synonymous with nurturing the qualities that make great athletes.

Moreover, the rhetorical power of the slogan lies in its simplicity and its evocative appeal. The structure of the phrase “Is it in you?” is open-ended, prompting an internal dialogue. It’s a clever play on words—on one hand, it references the physical consumption of the beverage, and on the other, it metaphorically speaks to the ingredients of success that must come from within the athlete. This dual meaning not only enhances the memorability of the slogan but also reinforces the message that Gatorade is essential for anyone striving to unleash their potential in the realm of sports.

The emotional resonance of the slogan is amplified by its widespread use in advertising campaigns featuring renowned athletes. These figures are often seen reaching for a bottle of Gatorade during their most challenging moments, thereby visually associating the drink with peak performance and recovery. The presence of Gatorade in contexts of extreme exertion and triumph sends a powerful message that the brand is a key component in the quest for athletic success. It subtly suggests that the qualities that define greatness are indeed “in” the athletes who choose Gatorade, thereby making it a part of their essential gear.

In conclusion, Gatorade’s slogan “Is it in you?” effectively captures the essence of sports culture by aligning the brand with the core attributes of dedication and excellence in athletics. It’s more than a marketing tool; it’s a philosophical inquiry that challenges athletes to introspect and recognize their potential. By intertwining the product with the identity and aspirations of its consumers, Gatorade has not only marketed a beverage but has also sold an ideal. This slogan remains a testament to the powerful role that effective branding can play in not just shaping consumer behavior but in becoming a part of the consumer’s identity and lifestyle. Through clever wording and emotional engagement, Gatorade ensures that it is not just seen as fuel for the body, but also as inspiration for the spirit.

Cite this page

The Power of Persuasion: How Gatorade’s Slogan Captures the Essence of Sports Culture. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-power-of-persuasion-how-gatorades-slogan-captures-the-essence-of-sports-culture/

"The Power of Persuasion: How Gatorade’s Slogan Captures the Essence of Sports Culture." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-power-of-persuasion-how-gatorades-slogan-captures-the-essence-of-sports-culture/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Power of Persuasion: How Gatorade’s Slogan Captures the Essence of Sports Culture . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-power-of-persuasion-how-gatorades-slogan-captures-the-essence-of-sports-culture/ [Accessed: 16 May. 2024]

"The Power of Persuasion: How Gatorade’s Slogan Captures the Essence of Sports Culture." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 16, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-power-of-persuasion-how-gatorades-slogan-captures-the-essence-of-sports-culture/

"The Power of Persuasion: How Gatorade’s Slogan Captures the Essence of Sports Culture," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-power-of-persuasion-how-gatorades-slogan-captures-the-essence-of-sports-culture/. [Accessed: 16-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Power of Persuasion: How Gatorade’s Slogan Captures the Essence of Sports Culture . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-power-of-persuasion-how-gatorades-slogan-captures-the-essence-of-sports-culture/ [Accessed: 16-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Turkey sentences pro-Kurdish politicians to lengthy prison terms over deadly 2014 riots

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

A Turkish court on Thursday sentenced several pro-Kurdish politicians to between nine and 42 years in prison over deadly riots in 2014 by Kurds angered by what they perceived to be government inaction against Islamic State group militants who had besieged the Syrian border town of Kobani.

The three days of clashes that broke out in October 2014 resulted in 37 deaths and left hundreds of others — police and civilians — injured. The protests were called by leaders of Turkey’s pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party, or HDP, who were frustrated by what they considered to be Turkish support for IS militants.

A total of 108 people were charged with various crimes, including the killings of the 37 victims and crimes against the integrity of the state. The defendants include HDP’s imprisoned former leaders, Selahattin Demirtas and Figen Yuksekdag, who were accused of organizing the protests and inciting the violence.

Critics decried the trial as politically motivated and part of a wider government crackdown on the pro-Kurdish party.

Of the defendants, 18 were jailed, 18 others were freed pending the verdict and 72 remain at large.

The court in Ankara convicted Demirtas - who has run for president twice - of a total of 47 charges and sentenced him to 42 years in prison, state broadcaster TRT reported. Yuksekdag was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempts to challenge the unity of the state, of inciting criminal acts and of engaging in propaganda on behalf of a terror organization.

Twelve defendants were acquitted of all charges. Defendants still at large would be tried at a later date.

The politicians are expected to appeal the verdicts.

The hearing took place in a tense atmosphere with lawyers banging on desks and leaving the courtroom to protest the verdicts, Cumhuriyet newspaper reported.

The pro-Kurdish movement’s current co-leader, Tuncer Bakırhan, described the verdicts as a “black stain” on the Turkish justice system.

“The Selahattins, the Figens and others who were prosecuted in this Kobani conspiracy trial have been acquitted in the hearts and minds of the Kurds, the Turks, the workers, the women and the young,” he said.

In anticipation of protests condemning the sentences, authorities imposed a four-day ban on demonstrations in the predominantly Kurdish provinces of Diyarbakir, Siirt, Tunceli and Batman.

The government accused the HDP of links to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which is considered a terror organization by Turkey, the U.S. and the European Union. The group has led an armed insurgency against the Turkish state since 1984 and the conflict has killed tens of thousands of people.

Government officials accused the HDP leaders of taking instructions from the PKK to stage the riots.

The government has frequently cracked down on the pro-Kurdish political movement by stripping legislators of their parliamentary seats and removing elected mayors from office. Several HDP lawmakers have been jailed alongside Demirtas and Yuksekdag, on terror-related charges.

The party has since changed its name to the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party, or DEM, and is the third-largest grouping in Turkey’s parliament.

Top headlines by email, weekday mornings

Get top headlines from the Union-Tribune in your inbox weekday mornings, including top news, local, sports, business, entertainment and opinion.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

More in this section

Nation-World

Texas parole board recommends full pardon for ex-Army sergeant convicted of killing Black Lives Matter protester in 2020

Man convicted of murder in Detroit teen’s death despite body still missing in landfill

A Detroit man who dropped a teenager’s body into a dumpster has been convicted of second-degree murder

House panel advances contempt of AG Merrick Garland hours after White House refuses to produce audio of Biden interview

Rain, cooler temperatures help prevent wildfire near Canada’s oil sands from growing

A wildfire that has forced thousands of people out of their homes in Canada’s oil sands hub city of Fort McMurray, Alberta is being held in place as rain and cooler temperatures sweep through the area

South Sudan government and rebel groups sign ‘commitment’ for peace in ongoing peace talks in Kenya

The government of South Sudan and rebel opposition groups have signed a “commitment declaration” for peace during high-level mediation talks in Kenya, described as key step in efforts to end the conflict in South Sudan that has long crippled its economy

Experts say coral reef bleaching near record level globally because of ‘crazy’ ocean heat

Scientists say temperatures that have gone “crazy haywire” hot, especially in the Atlantic, are close to making the current global coral bleaching event the worst in history

Election Updates: Biden and Trump agree to debates in June and September.

• Share full article

Rebecca Davis O’Brien

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign is having a comedy event tonight at the storied Ryman Auditorium in Nashville: Russell Brand, Rob Schneider and the former “Saturday Night Live” actor Jim Breuer are among those expected to take the mic here. But Kennedy will be late — a longtime friend, the comedian Mike Binder, just told the packed venue that Kennedy had been detained on a “grave” family health emergency.

Chris Cameron

Just hours after CNN sealed a deal for the first presidential debate between President Biden and Donald Trump, there is already growing tension over the rules. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the independent candidate, has vowed to qualify and participate — and it is possible he could qualify. But the Biden campaign has said its terms were “for two one-on-one debates” with Trump, slamming the door on any third-party participation.

Donald Trump weighed in on the grisly story of Kristi Noem shooting her family dog in an interview that aired on Tuesday, suggesting that Noem had not read the book carefully after her ghostwriter completed it. “That’s a tough story,” Trump said, adding, with a chuckle, “She had a bad week. We all have bad weeks.”

Michael Grynbaum

ABC News has announced that David Muir and Linsey Davis will moderate its presidential debate on Sept. 10.

Katie Rogers

A whirlwind day of dueling debate R.S.V.P.s and social media swipes is ending rather soberly at the White House. As President Biden welcomed combatant commanders for a meeting in the Cabinet Room, a reporter asked him if he looked forward to debating former President Donald J. Trump. “I am,” he replied. Biden was also asked if he was worried about his standing in recent polls. He shook his head.

Jake Tapper and Dana Bash have been announced as the moderators of the CNN debate on June 27. ABC News, which is hosting the later debate on Sept. 10, has not yet said who its moderators will be.

Reid J. Epstein

The Biden campaign slammed the door on Donald Trump’s attempt to have more than two debates. “President Biden made his terms clear for two one-on-one debates, and Donald Trump accepted those terms,” said Jen O’Malley Dillon, the campaign’s chair. “No more games. No more chaos. No more debate about debates.”

Maggie Astor

Former President Donald J. Trump said on social media that he would "hereby accept" a third debate on Oct. 2, hosted by Fox News. President Biden hasn’t offered that, though — he has agreed to two debates, not three, and Fox News doesn’t meet the criteria Biden proposed for hosts.

It could actually be slightly easier for Kennedy to qualify for the CNN debate in June, compared with the ones traditionally hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The commission requires at least 15 percent support in five national polls , while CNN only requires four of those polls . Kennedy would also need to get on the ballot in enough states to reach a 270 electoral vote threshold. He has about five weeks to do.

Reid Epstein and Shane Goldmacher

Before the Biden campaign’s debate proposal Wednesday morning, backchannel talks about debates had been taking place between senior officials in the Biden and Trump campaigns, according to four people familiar with the discussions. The two campaigns had mutual interest in both circumventing the debates commission and excluding Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other independent and third party candidates.

Such was the preparation before Wednesday’s announcements that the Biden campaign had in recent days moved to reschedule a major New York fund-raising event planned for the evening June 27.

Presidential debates matter in part because of their mass audience: 73 million watched the first debate of 2020. How many will watch if the debate is limited to a single network? Both campaigns know that bypassing the debate commission means a smaller live audience in case of any gaffes or major stumbles.

The first presidential debate will be held in Atlanta, the political engine of a key southern battleground state, Georgia. President Biden won the state by less than 13,000 votes in 2020.

Nick Corasaniti

In a memorandum addressed to the Biden campaign, the Trump campaign agreed to the June debate and proposed a monthly debate schedule: “a debate in June, a debate in July, a debate in August, and a debate in September, in addition to the Vice Presidential debate.” But the Biden campaign has pitched only two debates so far.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the independent candidate, complained in a statement that former President Donald J. Trump and President Biden are seeking to bypass events traditionally held by the Commission on Presidential Debates to avoid debating him. Kennedy does not, at this time, have the 15 percent support in five national polls that he needs to be included in a debate under the commission’s rules.

The late June date of the CNN debate means that it will come right on the heels of Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in New York, which could very likely reach a verdict by then. Plus, the trial of Hunter Biden on gun charges is scheduled to start in Delaware on June 3. The CNN studio in Atlanta is also just a few miles from where Trump was booked in the Fulton County jail in another criminal case.

Shane Goldmacher

In a departure from the usual Biden posture of not commenting in any way on Trump’s legal troubles, the campaign is now selling a t-shirt that reads: “Free on Wednesdays.” That, of course, is a reference to Trump’s trial schedule.

Jess Bidgood

General election debates usually happen in late September or October. By agreeing to a debate with Trump in late June, the Biden campaign is essentially attempting to kick off the general election season early, even before the Democratic and Republican conventions — something they hope will benefit them as voters compare Biden and Trump directly.

One unusual aspect of this year’s eventual general election debates: Both men will be coming in relatively cold. Usually, the challenger has honed their skills in a series of primary debates. But Trump skipped those this year, meaning the last debate either of them attended was with each other.

Maggie Haberman

This isn’t the first time in history that a candidate has tried going around the debate commission. George W. Bush’s team wanted to in 2000, but ultimately returned to the table with Al Gore’s team and the commission.

President Biden made a return to political norms a central part of his campaign in 2020. This move to jettison the traditional presidential debate marks an extraordinary break with those norms and an attempt by his campaign to reconfigure the format in a way that might be more favorable to them.

One thing that’s worth remembering: after the Republican National Committee made extensive efforts to force the party’s eventual nominee away from the Commission on Presidential Debates, Trump and his team have been more open to working with the commission. But Biden’s team is saying no.

Jonathan Swan

And in Trump’s Truth Social post about the debates, he goes even further in terms of lowering expectations, saying Biden “is the WORST debater I have ever faced” and that “he can’t put two sentences together!”

This is the same error Trump made in 2020 — setting expectations incredibly low for Biden ahead of the first debate, during which Trump, sweating profusely, seemed off while Biden performed steadily.

Right out of the gate, Trump has done something that will likely please the Biden campaign — setting expectations so low for Biden that there’s a good chance he will exceed them. Trump said that he’s happy to debate Biden and told a Fox reporter: “Let’s see if Joe can make it to the stand-up podium.” Memories of Biden’s relatively strong State of the Union speech seem to have already faded from Trump’s mind.

Nicholas Nehamas

President Biden made a rare reference to former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in a video he released today challenging Trump to two debates. “I hear you’re free on Wednesdays,” Biden said. Trump’s trial takes a break every Wednesday. Biden has largely avoided mentioning the trial but the video, also posted on Truth Social, seemed designed to get under Trump’s skin.

Katie Glueck

The Biden campaign has laid out its terms for debating Trump starting as soon as June, reflecting Democratic hopes of framing the election as a choice between Biden and Trump, rather than a referendum on the president, amid Democratic concerns that some Americans are remembering the Trump years through rose-colored glasses.

Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman

Biden and Trump agree to two debates on June 27 and Sept. 10.

President Biden and Donald J. Trump have agreed to two debates, one on June 27 on CNN and one on Sept. 10 on ABC News, the first onstage clashes between the former president and his successor in more than three years.

While some of the details were still being hammered out, the agreement to the two debates, reached in a series of social-media posts Wednesday morning, raises the likelihood of the earliest general-election debate in modern history and immediately delivered a jolt of electricity to a campaign that had settled into something of a rut.

Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden believe firmly that if the American people get a look at their opponent on a debate stage they will be less likely to vote for them.

Mr. Biden opened the exchange on Wednesday by saying he was willing to debate Mr. Trump twice before the election, and as early as June, but on the condition that the arrangements bypassed the nonpartisan organization that has managed presidential debates since 1988.

Mr. Biden and his top aides want the debates to start much sooner than the dates proposed by the organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates, so voters can see the two candidates side by side well before early voting begins in September. They want the debate to occur inside a TV studio, with microphones that automatically cut off when a speaker’s time limit elapses.

And they want it to be just the two candidates and the moderator — without the raucous in-person audiences that Mr. Trump feeds on and without the participation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or other independent or third-party candidates.

It remains unclear whether the Trump campaign will agree to the Biden campaign’s proposed rules, including the mic cutoff and lack of an audience.

Before the Biden campaign’s debate proposal Wednesday morning, at least one behind-the-scenes conversation between aides to both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump had taken place, according to four people familiar with the discussion. The two campaigns had mutual interest in both circumventing the debates commission and excluding Mr. Kennedy.

That mutual interest between the two camps did not necessarily mean mutual agreement.

Mr. Trump added a new wrinkle when he announced on his social-media site Truth Social that he had agreed to a third debate on Fox News on Oct. 2. But the Biden campaign slammed the door on that.

“President Biden made his terms clear for two one-on-one debates, and Donald Trump accepted those terms,” Mr. Biden’s campaign chair, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, said. “No more games. No more chaos. No more debate about debates.”

Shortly after the Biden campaign had announced that they would consider invitations from news organizations seeking to host the debates, Mr. Biden posted on X that he had accepted an invitation from CNN for a debate with Mr. Trump on June 27 in Atlanta.

“Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place,” Mr. Biden wrote.

Mr. Trump quickly responded, telling Fox News Digital that he would “be there” and was “looking forward to being in beautiful Atlanta.”

A short time later, Mr. Trump posted on Truth Social that he had accepted the ABC News debate. The Biden team then said the president will attend that one as well.

Mr. Biden gave Mr. Trump what he has openly clamored for: a televised confrontation with a successor Mr. Trump has portrayed, and hopes to reveal, as too feeble to hold the job. The move suggests that Mr. Biden is willing to take some calculated risks to reverse his fortunes in a race in which most battleground-state polls show the president trailing Mr. Trump and struggling to persuade voters that he’s an effective leader and steward of the economy.

Mr. Biden recently indicated he would debate Mr. Trump, but had until now declined to give any firm commitment or specific details. Mr. Trump had declared repeatedly that he will debate his successor “anytime and anywhere,” and demanded as many debates as possible.

The public back-and-forth over debates started on Wednesday morning, after Mr. Biden’s campaign chair, Ms. O’Malley Dillon, sent a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates. The letter notified the group that Mr. Biden will not be participating in the three general-election debates sponsored by the commission, which are scheduled for Sept. 16, Oct. 1 and Oct. 9.

It was a striking decision for Mr. Biden, an institutionalist who has tried to preserve the traditions of Washington. Instead, Ms. O’Malley Dillon writes in the letter that Mr. Biden will participate in debates hosted by news organizations.

In a video announcing his offer, Mr. Biden taunted Mr. Trump. “Make my day, pal,” he said, adding a reference to the one weekday Mr. Trump’s Manhattan trial is generally not in session. “Let’s pick the date, Donald. I hear you’re free on Wednesdays.”

Mr. Trump, in his insult-laden response on Truth Social, said he would like to see more than two debates and for “excitement purposes, a very large venue.” Calling Mr. Biden “the WORST” debater and “crooked,” he accused the president of being “afraid of crowds.”

The Biden campaign also proposes that one vice-presidential debate be held in late July after Mr. Trump and his running mate are formally nominated at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

For the president, early debates hold significant advantages. Early votes are crucial, especially for Democrats. And polls show that Mr. Biden currently trails Mr. Trump and that his messages on core issues like the economy are not resonating with enough voters.

The Biden campaign and the president’s White House staff widely feel that the debates were important in 2020, and that they will be important again this year.

The Biden campaign has been trying to remind voters of why a majority removed Mr. Trump from office in 2020. People close to the president have said they’re worried about so-called Trump amnesia — that voters are nostalgic about Mr. Trump and have forgotten how divisive he was — and some of the recent polling underscores that point.

A side-by-side debate, which could have a large viewing audience, is the most dramatic way for the Biden campaign to give Mr. Trump more exposure, in their view.

In the first debate in 2020, Mr. Trump barely allowed Mr. Biden to get a word in. He was aggressive and constantly interrupting, while sweating and appearing unwell. Mr. Biden, exasperated, famously said to Mr. Trump, “Will you shut up, man? This is so unpresidential.” And in the days following that first debate, Mr. Trump’s poll numbers fell .

The Trump campaign’s top officials, Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, see the situation differently and share their boss’s eagerness for him to debate Mr. Biden as often as possible. They have indicated that they don’t care who hosts the debate, or where it’s held. The Trump campaign believes, almost to a person, that Mr. Biden has declined significantly since 2020 and would be exposed in a debate against Mr. Trump.

Mr. LaCivita said in a statement the only reason Mr. Biden agreed to debates was because he had “trapped” himself last month by telling the radio host Howard Stern that he would participate.

The letter from Ms. O’Malley Dillon makes clear that the Biden campaign does not trust the Commission on Presidential Debates to conduct a professional debate, saying it “was unable or unwilling to enforce the rules in the 2020 debates.”

Among other grievances with the commission, Biden aides are still furious that Mr. Trump debated Mr. Biden in 2020 and appeared visibly under the weather, announcing soon after the debate that he had tested positive for the coronavirus. The Biden team was also livid that members of the Trump family took their masks off when they arrived in the audience for the debate.

Still, the decision to sideline the commission offers clear advantages to Mr. Biden.

For starters, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump agreed to two debates, but the commission had already scheduled three debates. Also, Biden campaign officials want the debates to be held in a television studio without an in-person audience that could cheer, boo and derail the conversation, as Trump supporters did during a CNN town hall last year. The commission always invites an audience to watch its presidential debates.

There’s also a chance that Mr. Kennedy reaches the 15 percent national polling threshold to qualify for the commission’s debates. The Biden campaign views Mr. Kennedy as a spoiler candidate and people close to the president worry that with the Kennedy name he could attract support from voters who might otherwise support Mr. Biden.

Ms. O’Malley Dillon writes in her letter that the debate should be one-on-one to allow voters “to compare the only two candidates with any statistical chance of prevailing in the Electoral College — and not squandering debate time on candidates with no prospect of becoming president.”

Mr. Kennedy criticized both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump as the debate plans became public. “They are trying to exclude me from their debate because they are afraid I would win,” he wrote in a statement posted on X . “Keeping viable candidates off the debate stage undermines democracy.”

The Biden campaign has proposed rules — including the automatic cutting-off of microphones — to ensure Mr. Trump does not blow through his time limits and talk over Mr. Biden as he did relentlessly during their first debate in 2020.

“There should be firm time limits for answers, and alternate turns to speak — so that the time is evenly divided and we have an exchange of views, not a spectacle of mutual interruption,” Ms. O’Malley Dillon writes in the letter.

She also proposed criteria to limit which television networks are allowed to host debates. It should only be hosted, Ms. O’Malley Dillon writes, by broadcast organizations that hosted both a Republican primary debate in 2016 in which Mr. Trump participated and a Democratic primary debate in 2020 in which Mr. Biden participated — “so neither campaign can assert that the sponsoring organization is obviously unacceptable.” That criteria excludes Fox News.

The Trump campaign has been complaining about the commission for months.

In a statement on May 1 condemning the organization, Ms. Wiles and Mr. LaCivita blasted the group for not agreeing to earlier debates given the fact that early voting begins well before Election Day.

“We must host debates earlier than ever before,” they said. “Again, we call on every television network in America that wishes to host a debate to extend an invitation to our campaign and we will gladly negotiate with the Biden campaign, with or without the stubborn Presidential Debates Commission.”

Reid J. Epstein and Maggie Astor contributed reporting.

Neil Vigdor and Yan Zhuang

Trump’s jet clipped a parked plane in Florida.

Former President Donald J. Trump landed in Cincinnati on Wednesday for a campaign fund-raiser, but without his ubiquitous Boeing 757, which had clipped a parked plane as it was taxiing at a Florida airport early on Sunday morning.

It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Trump was aboard his plane at the time of the mishap, according to details released by the Federal Aviation Administration and public information about the two aircraft that were involved. The incident happened several hours after Mr. Trump held a campaign rally at the Jersey Shore .

No injuries were reported, according to the F.A.A.’s notice about the incident , which listed the Boeing’s registration number as N757AF .

That is the same tail number as “Trump Force One,” the moniker for Mr. Trump’s airliner, which regularly shuttles the former president to campaign rallies and court appearances. The aircraft has been a source of braggadocio for Mr. Trump over the years — not to mention speculation about whether it might be seized as part of his civil fraud penalty in New York.

But on Wednesday, the aircraft was conspicuously absent as Mr. Trump descended from a considerably smaller private jet at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.

Mr. Trump’s campaign did not respond to questions about the status of his plane.

According to the F.A.A., a Boeing 757 landed at Palm Beach International Airport at about 1:20 a.m. on Sunday and was taxiing when one of its winglets struck the rear elevator of a parked plane. A winglet is a small tip curving off the end of an aircraft’s wing in order to reduce aerodynamic drag.

No one was inside the parked plane, which was registered to VistaJet, a private charter company, the F.A.A. said in a statement , adding that the incident occurred in an area of the airfield where the agency does not direct aircraft. The agency said it was investigating the incident.

According to the F.A.A.’s aircraft registry, the Boeing plane is registered to DJT Operations I LLC, one of the companies Mr. Trump owned and resigned from at the beginning of 2017, when he became president.

The agency did not say how much damage the two planes sustained or specify the type of VistaJet aircraft that was involved. VistaJet did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

Mr. Trump, who is in New York several days each week for a criminal trial related to a hush-money payment , lives just a few miles from the Palm Beach International Airport, at Mar-a-Lago, his private club.

He has frequently used airport tarmacs and hangars as a setting for his campaign rallies, saving him time and giving his supporters a chance to cheer on the plane’s approach.

Far-right candidate in Missouri draws backlash for homophobic video.

It was a fringe Republican campaign ad that could be ripe for parody on late-night television, ideal material for a skit on “Saturday Night Live” or the target of a monologue from a bewildered Jon Stewart. Except it was real, and it is hard to imagine how it could be further satirized.

“In America, you can be anything you want,” Valentina Gomez, a 25-year-old immigrant from Colombia and real estate investor running in the G.O.P. primary for secretary of state in Missouri, says in the video as she jogs through a historic district of St. Louis to the uplifting beats of “The Show Goes On” by Lupe Fiasco.

“So don’t be weak and gay. Stay hard,” she continues, emphasizing her statement with an expletive. The neighborhood where the video was filmed, Soulard, has a significant L.G.B.T. community.

The campaign ad, which Ms. Gomez shared on her social media accounts, then transitions from the video of Ms. Gomez — wearing running shorts and a vest resembling body armor — to a still photo of the candidate in front of a truck and wearing a National Rifle Association hat, with an American flag at her side and a gun in each hand.

The campaign ad, first posted on Sunday, has drawn condemnation and scrutiny online. Mr. Fiasco, who has condemned homophobia in the hip-hop scene , distanced himself from the video that featured one of his hit singles, saying in a statement that he was “currently taking action.” Jason Kander, a former Democratic secretary of state in Missouri and a former Army intelligence officer , mocked Ms. Gomez in a social media post on Tuesday.

“So refreshing to see a female GOP candidate who never served in the military doing the whole veteran cosplay, stolen valor, bigotry as a substitute for strength routine as well as any man,” wrote Mr. Kander , who deployed to Afghanistan in 2006 and has since struggled with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder .

But Ms. Gomez’s online trolling campaign, rife with homophobia and attacks against transgender people, has also earned her the admiration of far-right lawmakers, including Representative Matt Gaetz, online conservative influencers and the expelled former Representative George Santos — who is himself gay.

The jogging video is also not the first such homophobic stunt from Ms. Gomez, who appears eager to stand out as a political newcomer in a crowded Republican primary to be Missouri’s top elections official. In February, she posted a video of herself burning L.G.B.T.Q. books with a homemade flamethrower . A month later, she said that countries that ban flamethrowers were also “weak and gay,” and has since repeatedly used the homophobic phrase as an insult, wielding it as a campaign slogan.

Ms. Gomez has spent little on the race so far in comparison with some of her better-known opponents, including Dean Plocher, the speaker of the Missouri House . But her social media posts — which come at a frantic pace on X — have lifted her profile as she rails against the state party as corrupt and compromised.

“I speak the truth, and I am waking up the lions to save America,” Ms. Gomez wrote on social media on Wednesday, in defense of her ad. “Weakness will get us nowhere. The gloves are off, and I am here to protect and fight for Missouri.”

Ms. Gomez did not respond to a request for comment on social media.

Ms. Gomez’s remarks stand out not just for their provocative nature, but also because they are something of a non sequitur in the race she is running. A secretary of state is essentially a state’s chief bureaucrat, in charge of record-keeping and overseeing the state’s elections. Ms. Gomez is a 2020 election denier, and has said she would abolish voting machines and deploy the National Guard — an authority a secretary of state does not have — to secure elections.

Reporting from Washington

Ron Klain, Biden’s former chief of staff, will take time off from Airbnb to help the president prepare.

Ron Klain, the president’s former chief of staff, will take some time away from his post-White House job to help President Biden prepare for a debate against Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Klain, who left the White House last year , said in a text message that he would take a vacation from his job as the chief legal officer at Airbnb in the coming weeks to help get Mr. Biden ready.

“On my own time, I will assist,” he said.

Mr. Klain, 62, is one of the president’s most trusted confidants, and was critical to Mr. Biden’s debate preparations during the 2020 campaign.

When he left the White House, Mr. Klain, whom Republicans sometimes referred to as “prime minister” in describing his influence, took with him decades of institutional knowledge about Washington politics, the inner workings of Capitol Hill and an intimate knowledge of the Biden family. He was so well liked within the White House that staff members had a nickname for themselves: “ Klainiacs .”

Though he took a nonpolitical job after leaving, Mr. Klain did not end up going very far: He has been summoned to the White House regularly in recent weeks to participate in political strategy discussions, and the president still calls him by phone often.

By the time Mr. Biden told the radio host Howard Stern in April that he was prepared to debate Mr. Trump, Mr. Klain had agreed to help. Days later, Mr. Klain told Jen Psaki, a former Biden White House press secretary who now hosts a television show on MSNBC, that “rules are going to have to be enforced” ahead of any debate between the two men.

“I think what we have to see is something different than we saw in 2016 and 2020, where the debate commission lost control of the debates, Trump didn’t follow the rules at all, he talked over his opponents, there wasn’t a fair division of time, it was more a spectacle than a debate,” Mr. Klain said . “That’s always going to be true with Donald Trump on the stage.”

But, he added, “we need to have debates where the candidates get equal time” and “where the American people can compare the two people who are the leading candidates for president.”

Here’s how the debates that Trump and Biden have agreed to break with tradition.

Presidential debates have been a staple of campaigns for decades, but the ones being scheduled between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump are taking an unusual turn, with only two planned — neither of which is sanctioned by the group that has traditionally run the debates — and the first one set before either candidate has officially been nominated.

No general-election debate has ever been held earlier than Sept. 21, nearly three months later than the June 27 date proposed for the first one this year, according to historical records kept by the Commission on Presidential Debates. And no debate season has ever concluded before Oct. 13, about a month later than the Sept. 10 date proposed for the second one this year.

That is just one way in which the 2024 debates are likely to stand out. Mr. Biden is asking for news organizations to host them, rather than the commission, which has organized the debates for every presidential election since 1988. And their format could differ, too, given that Mr. Biden has asked that there not be a live audience. (Mr. Trump agrees on jettisoning the commission but disagrees on the live audience.)

The debate tradition itself is, in the scope of U.S. history, pretty modern.

The first televised general-election debates were held in 1960, but they would not be repeated for 16 years. The tradition that now exists — with debates conducted every four years and a refusal to participate constituting a breach of norms — dates back less than 50 years, to 1976.

The inaugural 1960 debates are remembered for how unprepared Richard M. Nixon, the Republican candidate, was for the bright lights of live television. During the first of four events that year, on Sept. 26, the studio lights at WBBM-TV in Chicago made Nixon sweat, illuminated his apparently unshaven face and made him look generally unappealing in contrast to John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate who went on to win the White House.

For more than a decade after that, 1960 was an anomaly — nobody seemed eager to undergo Nixon’s experience. There were no debates in 1964, 1968 or 1972.

Then, in 1976, President Gerald Ford agreed to debate Jimmy Carter. It did not turn out well for him, either.

Ford was already struggling in the polls when he showed up on the debate stage and claimed, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.” He stood by that assertion even after a moderator, Max Frankel of The New York Times, asked incredulously if he was really denying the Soviet Union’s domination of countries like Poland and Romania.

Nonetheless, the tradition now stuck. The League of Women Voters hosted debates in 1976, 1980 and 1984. Duties were then turned over in 1988 to the Commission on Presidential Debates.

While Kennedy versus Nixon in 1960 was the first face-to-face general-election debate, some events, formatted differently, were held earlier.

In 1956, Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver participated in a televised debate during the Democratic primary, but there was no general-election debate between Stevenson, the party’s nominee, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Surrogates for the candidates did, however, hold one: Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Republican of Maine, debated on behalf of Eisenhower, and the former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt on behalf of Stevenson.

In 1952, the League of Women Voters hosted a televised debate for all candidates in both parties, not just the nominees.

In 1948, Thomas Dewey and Harold Stassen debated each other on the radio in the Republican primary. But Dewey did not debate — or defeat — President Harry S. Truman in the general election.

And, of course, there were the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates — but while those are commonly remembered in association with Lincoln’s presidency, they were part of his campaign for the Senate.

Jonathan Weisman

Seeking history in Maryland, and zombie campaigns linger: Primary takeaways.

Hundreds of thousands of voters in Maryland, West Virginia and Nebraska went to the polls on Tuesday, weighing in on primaries whose results pointed to a desire for moderation, achievement and diversity, and a rejection of the political power of money.

And what about those zombie campaigns in both parties’ presidential races? Nikki Haley had a pretty good night for a candidate who long ago dropped her campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Here are four takeaways:

In Maryland, a potential history maker beats the money.

Representative David Trone, a co-owner of the giant alcohol retailer Total Wine and More, gave up his safe House seat, spent more than $60 million of his fortune and lost the Senate Democratic primary to Angela Alsobrooks, who hopes to become only the third Black woman to be elected to Congress’s upper chamber.

In a showdown between money and history, history won.

Maryland would ordinarily have been a safe bet for Democrats hoping to hold the seat of Senator Ben Cardin upon his retirement, but the entry of Larry Hogan, a popular former governor and Republican moderate, into the race has scrambled the equation. Democrats initially were happy to have Mr. Trone as their nominee, knowing they wouldn’t have to spend a dime for him in the general election.

But senior Democrats in Maryland and around the country came to believe they needed a candidate who could inspire their base voters in Baltimore and the suburbs of Washington to come out in November to beat Mr. Hogan, an anti-Trump Republican who proved his bipartisan appeal with two governor’s race victories in his blue state.

Ms. Alsobrooks crushed Mr. Trone in her home base, the diverse Washington suburbs of Prince George’s County, where she is the county executive. She beat him in Baltimore City, Baltimore County and suburban Howard County. She even narrowly beat him in his home base, Montgomery County, a Washington suburb with some of the most affluent communities in the country.

The Cook Political Report rates the seat likely Democratic, even with Mr. Hogan now the Republican standard-bearer, but the coming campaign will be hard fought. If Ms. Alsobrooks and Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester, Democrat of Delaware, both win their Senate contests in November, voters will have doubled the number of Black women elected to the Senate in American history, and for the first time ever, two Black women will serve in the Senate at once.

A resistance warrior goes down to defeat.

In the most online, partisan Democratic circles, Harry Dunn was a star, a burly Capitol Police officer who battled a pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6, 2021, testified before the House committee that investigated the attack on the Capitol and then ran for the House he had defended at risk to his life.

He may have lived slightly outside the House district he wanted to represent. He may have had no political experience. But he was the candidate running to “save democracy.”

On Tuesday, he was beaten by a soft-spoken workhorse, State Senator Sarah Elfreth, in a Democratic primary almost certain to determine who will represent Maryland’s Third House District next year.

Mr. Dunn had raised nearly $4.6 million from across the country by the end of April and dominated the airwaves. Ms. Elfreth raised $1.5 million and had the backing of the United Democracy Project, a pro-Israel political action committee affiliated with the American Israel Political Affairs Committee.

But she had something Mr. Dunn didn’t have: legislative experience and a record in the Democratic political trenches.

Hope for moderation in the G.O.P.?

Two House primaries on Tuesday offered some clues to just how far right the Republican Party was moving as its presumptive nominee, Donald J. Trump, rose back to center stage. In both Nebraska and West Virginia, the mainstream of the G.O.P. prevailed.

In Nebraska’s swing district around Omaha, Representative Don Bacon, who has a reputation as an independent voice, faced off against Dan Frei, a conservative challenger backed by the state’s Republican Party, a pro-Trump bastion. Mr. Bacon held that a Frei victory in the primary would hand his seat to the Democrats in November. On Tuesday, Mr. Bacon trounced Mr. Frei, setting up a much tougher race for the Democratic nominee, State Senator Tony Vargas.

In West Virginia, Derrick Evans, an unrepentant rioter arrested after participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, challenged Representative Carol Miller in a safe Republican seat. Ms. Miller is no moderate, but she isn’t a rioter. The incumbent whipped the insurgent.

The zombie presidential voters emerge again.

President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump, absent an unexpected catastrophe, will be their parties’ nominees for the White House, but with no one running against either man in the primaries, opposition keeps cropping up. For Mr. Biden, in heavily Democratic Maryland, it came in the form of “uncommitted” — around one in 10 Democratic primary voters cast their ballots that way, many of them presumably protesting his support for Israel in the war in Gaza. And 3.3 percent went for the defunct candidacies of Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips.

In West Virginia, 20 percent of the voters in the Democratic primary opted for marginal candidates named Jason Palmer and Stephen Lyons. Mr. Phillips, a representative from Minnesota, collected around 8 percent of the Democratic vote in Nebraska.

Unity was even less in evidence on the Republican side. Long out of the race, former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina nonetheless won around 20 percent of the vote in Maryland and Nebraska. Even in West Virginia, the deepest of Trump country, Ms. Haley got nearly one in 10 Republican votes.

Where these voters go in November could be critical. They don’t show up in polling, but they keep showing up at the polls.

Senate Republicans push for Secret Service to move protests farther from G.O.P. convention.

The director of the Secret Service met on Tuesday with Senate Republicans to discuss the party’s effort to push the expected protesters farther from the site of the Republican National Convention, set for July in Milwaukee.

Republican officials and lawmakers have objected to the placement of a designated demonstration zone near the convention venue, arguing it would create conflict between protesters and attendees. A lawyer for the Republican National Committee proposed in a letter in late April that the Secret Service expand the security perimeter around the venue, the Fiserv Forum.

The meeting came at the request of Senator Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, who warned in a letter on Friday of “a potentially volatile situation” and “a likely — and preventable — area of conflict” between attendees and demonstrators at the convention, where the party is set to officially make Donald J. Trump its 2024 presidential nominee.

“As you know, this year has been a very challenging one for protests in the United States,” Mr. McConnell wrote, referring to a recent wave of pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. “We must all take seriously that tensions are high and do our best to balance the right to express dissent while also keeping convention attendees as safe as possible.”

Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, said in an interview with local television in Milwaukee that he was one of the senators who met with Kimberly A. Cheatle, the director of the Secret Service.

“I found it a little frustrating,” Mr. Johnson said on Fox6 News Milwaukee , adding that “she basically said she does not have the authority to change their assessment, and they based it on their criteria that they’ve been using for years. And as a result, doesn’t sound like she can change anything.”

Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the Secret Service, confirmed that Ms. Cheatle “briefed members of the U.S. Senate” about the security plan for the convention, adding that the security perimeter was “based on security considerations, including protective intelligence, risk and threat assessments, and is developed to ensure the highest level of security, while minimizing impacts to the public.”

The Secret Service has also said the security plan for the convention was developed and approved by a larger committee of city, state and federal agencies.

Under the proposed security plan, according to the R.N.C., protesters would be confined to Pere Marquette Park , a small public park on the bank of the Milwaukee River about a quarter of a mile from Fiserv Forum, the arena where the convention will take place. That park is adjacent to the two streets designated as the main routes to get to the convention, and the Republican National Committee has argued that forcing attendees to pass by the protesters would heighten tensions and cause confrontation.

Republicans have cited the recent campus protests, and Mr. Johnson on Tuesday mentioned the protests that followed the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in 2020, as well as the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

A group known as the Coalition to March on the RNC has been organizing convention demonstrations. Posts on social media promoting the demonstrations suggest that in Milwaukee they would be protesting Republican policies on the war in Gaza, abortion rights and climate change, among other issues.

“The Coalition to March on the RNC denounces these attempts by Republicans to strip us from our First Amendment rights,” the group said in a statement, adding, “We will be marching within sight and sound, regardless of these kinds of complaints by the Republicans.”

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

Anjali Huynh

Sarah Elfreth, Maryland’s youngest female state senator, wins House primary.

Sarah Elfreth, the youngest woman ever elected to Maryland’s State Senate, won a crowded Democratic primary race on Tuesday in Maryland’s Third Congressional District, according to The Associated Press.

Ms. Elfreth, 35, emerged from a field of more than 20 Democrats vying in the deep-blue district to succeed Representative John Sarbanes, a Democrat who announced last October that after nine terms he would not seek re-election.

First elected to the Maryland State Senate in 2018, Ms. Elfreth often highlighted her political résumé during her run and played up the bipartisan legislative victories she helped to secure while serving in the General Assembly. She ran on a platform with standard Democratic fare that included pledges to protect abortion rights, combat gun violence and fight climate change.

Ms. Elfreth drew support from several local Democrats. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who did not seek re-election this year, spoke favorably of her while appearing on the trail alongside her last week — though he stopped short of a formal endorsement.

Her most prominent rival was Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer who was on duty during the attacks on Jan. 6, 2021, and rose to national fame after testifying in the House investigation into the attack. Mr. Dunn, a first-time candidate, had significantly out-raised his opponents in the race since announcing his run in January, and was endorsed by a number of prominent national Democrats.

Ms. Elfreth had raised about $1.5 million since starting her campaign in November, significantly less than the $4.6 million that Mr. Dunn had amassed. But she received support from outside groups, including more than $4.2 million in spending from the United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel group.

Her support drew attacks from Mr. Dunn, who swore off funding from outside groups and criticized Ms. Elfreth for at times voting alongside Republicans in the State Senate. Ms. Elfreth, for her part, said she would prioritize campaign finance reform in Congress, and her campaign said that Mr. Dunn had distorted Ms. Elfreth’s record .

Ms. Elfreth will be favored in the heavily Democratic district in November.

Angela Alsobrooks wants to be Maryland’s first Black senator.

Angela Alsobrooks, Maryland’s newly chosen Democratic nominee for Senate, is familiar with firsts.

With her election in 2018 as executive of Prince George’s County, a populous suburban area bordering Washington, Ms. Alsobrooks became the first Black woman to hold that role.

Now she has the chance to become the first Black senator to represent Maryland, which is more than 30 percent Black . If she wins this fall, she would also become the sole woman in Maryland’s congressional delegation, and the second woman ever to represent it in the Senate.

And she would be only the fourth Black woman, after Carol Moseley Braun, Kamala Harris and Laphonza Butler, to serve in the Senate — from any state.

In a campaign that became increasingly tense over the past few weeks, Ms. Alsobrooks leaned heavily on the importance of racial and gender representation in government, seemingly in hopes that her historic candidacy would counter the flood of cash being spent by her opponent, Representative David Trone.

Mr. Trone put more than $55 million of his own money into the race, making it the most expensive Senate primary ever in Maryland.

“As women, we don’t want people talking about us and making decisions about us without us,” Ms. Alsobrooks told The New York Times as Tuesday’s election approached, referring to abortion rights, one of the biggest issues of this year’s campaigns.

Before she was elected as the county executive in 2018, she also was the county’s top prosecutor, and before that she was an assistant state’s attorney focused on domestic violence.

Race was a major theme in her Senate primary, both because of the potential firsts that Ms. Alsobrooks represented and because Mr. Trone, who is white, was accused of racism after he used a racial slur in a congressional hearing (He apologized and said he had used the word inadvertently).

She received the support of most of Maryland’s congressional delegation, as well as Gov. Wes Moore — the state’s first Black governor — and Black women in other states.

In the general election, she will face a formidable opponent: Larry Hogan, the state’s popular former Republican governor.

Advertisement