Customer Reviews

The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

During the fifties, and up to the time of his death in the sixties, Richard Hofstadter was one of America's most renowned historians with two Pulitzer Prizes to his credit. He was at his intellectual peak when, as one of America's eminent authorities of his country's political ideologies, he tackled the developing phenomenon of the early sixties' right wing extremism under the guise of conservatism. He differentiates between the traditional American conservatism espoused by the likes of President Herbert Hoover and Senator Robert Taft alongside the venom of Robert Welch's John Birch Society, in which, as the group's idea man, Welch referred to Dwight D. Eisenhower as a "dedicated and conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy."

Hoftstadter delineates how fringe rightist elements took over the Republican Party and rallied behind the banner of Arizona's Senator Barry M. Goldwater, resulting in one of the party's most calamitous losses in the 1964 presidential election against incumbent Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson.

The work has a timely ring as an historical analytical measuring rod in comprehending the activities of current right wing movements, such as the Christian Right behind the banners of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and its link to the militant anti-abortion movement, alongside earlier rightist political philosophies and their vigorous adherents such as Welch and television commentator Dan Smoot.

This book is as relevant now as it was when it was first written. An excellent blend of accuracy and eloquence.

Granted that Prof. Hofstadter's evaluation of the "pseudo-conservatism" of the Goldwater campaign is rather patronizing, and that, too optimistically, he predicted that the paranoid style was condemned to permanent minority status. Otherwise, the book is a prescient and devastating analysis of the breathless mindset on display, mainly from the Right, over the last ten years or so. Just last November right-wing commentators as bright and well-educated as George F. Will were fulminating against Gore's "slow-motion coup" in Florida, and lesser conservatives were passing the word that President Clinton was about to seize dictatorial powers. The fact that the most conservative president since Reagan--maybe since the Roaring 20s--is currently sitting in the Oval Office, courtesy of a hypocritical decision by a quintet of conservative Supreme Court justices, means nothing to the conservatives immersed in the paranoid style. THEY didn't subvert the system; they saved the U.S. from the liberals, the liberals, the liberals.

Back in 1964, Prof. Hofstadter noted that people who think like this tend to imitate the massive conspiracies they imagine threatening themselves. Writing in an era that still resembled the stereotypical 1950s more than the stereotypical 1960s, Hofstadter did not forsee the current power of the paranoid style. But the title essay of his book nails it right to the wall. Reading it, I feared for my country.

Throughout the ages the "paranoid style" has been used to arouse public indignation and to attack established institutions and/or entrenched traditions that have grown ineffectual. Usually, the darkest and most abhorrent aspects of the accuser's personality are projected onto the hated enemy. Moreover, the true menace is sometimes seen as a malaise that lurks in a nation's midst rather than as something that exists outside its borders. And these chimeras tend to be the shadow projections of the idealistic personality (that is deeply concerned with the moral decay of the society around them) rather than realistic assessments of the true dangers that exist in the objective world. It gives the paranoid the illusion of control since there is little or nothing they can do about world opinion outside his or her borders, although they often imagine this to be so. As a consequence, many foreign policy initiatives are doomed to failure because a distorted picture of the world is being refracted through what amounts to a narrow, insular prism. That is, instead of viewing startling political developments throughout the world as complex historical processes that are unfolding for entirely legitimate reasons they might be seen as betrayals or acts of deliberate defiance. Especially when the vital interests of the observer are threatened.

Then too, Americans have often seen any failure as the work of people within our own government who allowed such things to happen. For if some of our own people are to blame for our weakness, then we do not have to deny "the myth of American Omnipotence."

This is an ideal time to read Hofstadter's book. It was written in the 1950s and 60s, so you get an excellent feel for postwar America (after the bomb) and the advent of the Cold War. Hofstadter's account of the McCarthy Era and Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign (of 1964) is quite instructive. An astute reader will notice many parallels with today. But he also discusses earlier periods of our history when the paranoid style was in its infancy, and yet was destined to become the genesis of the "liberal-conservative" split that is with us to this day.

One fascinating period was the 1890s, the era of Populist William Jennings Bryan and the "Free Silver Movement," which went down in defeat to William McKinley in the presidential election of 1896. Prior to McKinley's victory there was also public outrage over Spain's oppression of Cuba. And although McKinley did not advocate war with Spain, nor did Republican business leaders that had financed his campaign, he was swept into the Spanish-American War by the spirit of the times. Having filled up the continent with Westward expansion and the dream of "Manifest Destiny," many Americans felt a sudden lack of opportunity and purpose. But after Admiral Dewey's sudden victory in Manila Bay Americans began to grapple with their "Duty and Destiny" in an increasingly imperialistic world that they thought was filled with decadent and dangerous foreign powers.

There is no way to summarize the exquisite detail in Hofstadter's book. One must read it and ponder its many lessons. For the sum of its parts are greater than the whole. Good history always makes us realize that there really is nothing new under the sun, and yet, there most certainly IS! Mark Twain said it best when he joked: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."

One of America's leading historians of his time, and a great instructor and mentor at Columbia University, RH turned his gimlet eye to the question of how and why some conservative voices seem to mutate and metastasize into something more akin to emotional illness.

I have little original to add to the reviews precceding this. The book is a series of essays, some historical and other more relevant to the current scene in the period in which they were written [the late 1950s to the early 1960s]. This is one of those indispensible books which every concerned citizen ought to read, it's relevance has scarcely dimmed in nearly 50 years. Alas, I fear it's more relevant than ever.

It is a pity that Hofstadter died in 1970 at the young age of 54. He easliy had another 20 productive years in front of him.

The lead essay is quite good. E.H. investigates the tendency to ascribe to others underhanded motives that they rarely have, and how this paranoid thinking is common and becomes more common under circumstances such as we have today, circa 2009-2012.

You will find keys to understanding the fringes of the Tea Party movement, the hows and whys of our current popular talk shows, and the hallmarks of the style.

I've expanded some on E.H.'s work on my blog -- you can find it with a goog search for "The Paranoid Style in American Commentary -- Are we 1920s Germany?"

Though wacky folks here and there may be offended by Hofstadter, social and political scientists recognize this work as the perennial analysis of American paranoia as a social phenomenon.