Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

Richard Hofstadter on "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (1963)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct-03-09 01:46 PM
Original message
Richard Hofstadter on "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (1963)
Please note that Hofstadter specifically rejects the use of "paranoid style" as an entry to arguing that to be conservative is to be clinically paranoid. As many of yall may have experienced in your own circles, people who are otherwise fully functional and pleasant company can get suckered into the paranoid style and its assumption of a hyper-competent, all pervasive plot by hostile forces to subvert society.

To be sure, some of them are nuts. But much more of them are our cousins, secretaries, lawyers, phlebotomists, blind dates, and PTA fundraiser organizers. But what's the most important historian of the 20th century say about the birthers?

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.
now re-read that, replacing the word Goldwater with Limbaugh



There's more than just fear mongering going on from the talk radio charletans.

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention.
re-read that, replacing the words paranoid spokesman with Glenn Beck



Hofstadter tied this paranoid style not to religiosity (he was writing at a time when the main political focus of Christianity in the country was on ending segregation) but on the American desire for identity and a sense of certainty in the world--he termed it "status" but by this means a feeling of strong cultural foundations rather than socio-economic prominence.

We Americans are always trying to raise the standard of living, and the same principle now seems to apply to the standards of hating. So during the past fifteen years or so, the authoritarians have moved on from anti-Negroism and anti-Semitism to anti-Achesonianism, anti-intellectualism, anti-nonconformism, and other variants of the same idea, much in the same way as the average American, if he can manage it, will move on from a Ford to a Buick
here, replace anti-Achesonianism and anti-nonconformism with anti-healthcareism and (alas) anti-Negroism



He cites two German Jewish sociologist ex-pats who came to the United States fleeing Hitler's rise and who did research on the character of the people who agitate and rile up the gullible crowds in their 1949 book, Prophets of Deceit.
See also the comments of Leo Loewenthal and Norbert Guterman on the right-wing agitator: “The agitator seems to steer clear of the area of material needs on which liberal and democratic movements concentrate; his main concern is a sphere of frustration that is usually ignored in traditional politics. The programs that concentrate on material needs seem to overlook that area of moral uncertainties and emotional frustrations that are the immediate manifestations of malaise. It may therefore be conjectured that his followers find the agitator’s statements attractive not because he occasionally promises to “maintain the American standards of living” or to provide a job for everyone, but because he intimates that he will give them the emotional satisfactions that are denied them in the contemporary social and economic set-up. He offers attitudes, not bread.”
Change material need to "health care" or "unemployment benefits" or "actually capturing bin Ladin"



Required in all this is the need for the enemy to be flawless in his evil plans and as stealthy as the shadows. It's the commie under your bed, the UN helicopters lurking just past your neighbor's hedge, the spy tapping your phone, the NASA techies filming Neil and Buzz in a Hollywood sound stage, the one-worlder slipping Islamic propaganda into your kids' history textbooks, and the CIA agents manning robot planes and planting controlled demolition charges on every floor of the World Trade Center without ever being caught.

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman — sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction...


No one ever blows the whistle on them. There's only the long list of those who "died under suspicious circumstances" on the Bush and Clinton and (soon-to-appear) Obama/ACORN "death lists."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
   Replies to this thread
   We should start offering attitudes along with the usual bread.  anonymous171   Oct-03-09 01:50 PM   #1 
   Huh?  Bucky   Oct-03-09 02:08 PM   #3 
      But are they the correct attitudes?  anonymous171   Oct-03-09 02:13 PM   #4 
   k& a big R!  LeftishBrit   Oct-03-09 01:56 PM   #2 
   Agree  tonysam   Oct-03-09 02:20 PM   #5 
   Read "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life"  Jeff In Milwaukee   Oct-03-09 02:27 PM   #6 
   John Dean has said it more recently.  elleng   Oct-03-09 04:43 PM   #7 
   This is a classic  boobooday   Oct-03-09 04:52 PM   #8 
   Thanks! I no longer have that book at hand, and am reluctant to purchase another copy.  pnorman   Oct-04-09 04:16 AM   #9 
   "Richard Hofstadter: an intellectual biography"  pnorman   Oct-04-09 07:36 AM   #10 
   It was the stream of history that caused us to invade Iraq?  soryang   Oct-04-09 09:53 PM   #11 
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Sat Oct-03-09 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. We should start offering attitudes along with the usual bread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct-03-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Huh?
People need bread, but in my experience most of them can provide their own attitudes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Sat Oct-03-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. But are they the correct attitudes?
Plurality may be good for government, but it is terrible for electoral politics. The party needs to play the propaganda game, they need to get their message out. That is why the right wing, despite being comprised of a small number of crazy racists and rich assholes, somehow manage to control all of our political discourse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Sat Oct-03-09 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. k& a big R!
Hofstadter's article is one of the best political analyses ever IMO.

Sadly, the Goldwaterites were almost sane compared with the current brand of RW haters.

The disease is milder in my country, but can still be seen, especially in the RW tabloids which have a lot of influence here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tonysam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Sat Oct-03-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Agree
I have read that essay a number of times over the years. It is as pertinent now as it was when it was written some 45 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Sat Oct-03-09 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. Read "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life"
also by Hofstadter. He was an incredibly gifted historian who died far too young.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct-03-09 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. John Dean has said it more recently.
Edited on Sat Oct-03-09 04:50 PM by elleng
First Sentence of Conservatives without Conscience:
'To understand contemporary conservative thinking it is essential to understand authoritarian thinking and behavior in the context of traditional political conservatism, for authoritarianism has become the dominant reality of conservative thought. Read the first page '

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-...


So has George Lakoff:

Moral Politics gives book-length consideration to the conceptual metaphors that Lakoff sees as present in the minds of American "liberals" and "conservatives". The book is a blend of cognitive science and political analysis. Lakoff makes an attempt to keep his personal views confined to the last third of the book, where he explicitly argues for the superiority of the liberal vision.<2>

Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens. Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family. Conservatives would subscribe more strongly and more often to a model that he calls the "strict father model" and has a family structured around a strong, dominant "father" (government), and assumes that the "children" (citizens) need to be disciplined to be made into responsible "adults" (morality, self-financing). Once the "children" are "adults", though, the "father" should not interfere with their lives: the government should stay out of the business of those in society who have proved their responsibility. In contrast, Lakoff argues that liberals place more support in a model of the family, which he calls the "nurturant parent model", based on "nurturant values", where both "mothers" and "fathers" work to keep the essentially good "children" away from "corrupting influences" (pollution, social injustice, poverty, etc.). Lakoff says that most people have a blend of both metaphors applied at different times, and that political speech works primarily by invoking these metaphors and urging the subscription of one over the other.<4>

Lakoff further argues that one of the reasons liberals have had difficulty since the 1980s is that they have not been as aware of their own guiding metaphors, and have too often accepted conservative terminology framed in a way to promote the strict father metaphor. Lakoff insists that liberals must cease using terms like partial birth abortion and tax relief because they are manufactured specifically to allow the possibilities of only certain types of opinions. Tax relief for example, implies explicitly that taxes are an affliction, something someone would want "relief" from. To use the terms of another metaphoric worldview, Lakoff insists, is to unconsciously support it. Liberals must support linguistic think tanks in the same way that conservatives do if they are going to succeed in appealing to those in the country who share their metaphors.<5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Sat Oct-03-09 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is a classic
"angry minds" indeed. It is ever so, and we must keep the angry minds out of the driver's seat as much as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct-04-09 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
9. Thanks! I no longer have that book at hand, and am reluctant to purchase another copy.Updated at 7:53 AM
But you've provided me with some very useful excerpts.

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct-04-09 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
10. "Richard Hofstadter: an intellectual biography"Updated at 7:53 AM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soryang (127 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct-04-09 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. It was the stream of history that caused us to invade Iraq?
No malice involved? No sinister, powerful, cruel, deciders involved?

Confusing ignorance and mass psychology with paranoia is an analytic fallacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 23rd 2009, 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC