A Paranoid Style in American Politics for the Millennial Era

The historian Richard Hofstadter wrote "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" for Harper's back in 1964. In this now well-known piece he compared 19th century conspiracy theories with those of the "radical right" of his day, the John Birch Society and others whose political rhetoric featured "heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy."

He thought the comparison was a stretch--that the paranoid of his day were markedly different from the anti-Catholic Know-Nothings and other 19th century wingnuts:

If, after our historically discontinuous examples of the paranoid style, we now take the long jump to the contemporary right wing, we find some rather important differences from the nineteenth-century movements. The spokesmen of those earlier movements felt that they stood for causes and personal types that were still in possession of their country–that they were fending off threats to a still established way of life. But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power. Their predecessors had discovered conspiracies; the modern radical right finds conspiracy to be betrayal from on high.

Has anything changed in the last fifty years? Do we not hear in the anti-Obama/liberal/progressive tirades a lament for the disappearance of a "real America" and calls to take it back? Don't we hear wild accusations of socialism, communism, and treason? Consider other Hofstadter characterizations:

. . .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. . .

. . .A special significance attaches to the figure of the renegade from the enemy cause. . .

. . .One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. . .

The current hysteria over Muslims gives us all these facets of paranoia. You'll run smack into the apocalyptic gloom at websites like Jihad Watch or in books like "Stealth Jihad." And think of those ex-Muslims "telling all" about the evils of their former faith. Or watch one of Glenn Beck's overwrought chalkboard exercises.

I'm thinking the only difference between Hofstadter's day and ours is the name of the threat.

2012's getting closer--time to warm up the culture war!

Economic woes have dominated the national political discourse but there are some GOP factions determined to keep their conservative social agendas in play. One such faction is the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition (IFFC), which sponsored a forum of presidential hopefuls, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former US Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO and radio talk-show host Herman Cain, and former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer. Ex-Moral Majority maven Ralph Reed also shared his two cents.

The forum took place at a Christian fundamentalist megachurch, Point of Grace, and the IFFC’s Vice-President, Gopal Krishna, got the crowd warmed up with a quick, rousing ‘The country’s-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket’ introduction. I’ve been hearing this stuff for thirty years now, and wonder why it still works, but then I remember I can still laugh at old Monty Python shows. Here’s what Krishna had to say (and, boy, he can outwhite those Iowan Christians, can’t he, though apparently there’s little love lost between him and the GOP state establishment, according to this source.

. . .Therefore, allow me to express some of our concerns and let me know whether you agree with them.

We are concerned that a world-famous capitalist country is now doing a slow dance with socialism [applause].

We are concerned that a rich country which rebuilt other countries after World War Two is now borrowing mind-boggling amounts of money from other countries [applause].

We are concerned that the world’s most powerful country that was respected by the friends and feared by the enemies is now abandoning friends and apologizing to the enemies [whoops, cheers, and applause].

We are concerned that a country that was a melting pot for all the brilliant minds in the world has now become a land of law-breaking illegal immigrants who want amnesty. . .[applause]. . .granting that amnesty will be a slap in the face of all legal immigrants [applause].

We are concerned that a country that was founded on European style Christian moral values has now become multicultural haven for every weird and kinky lifestyle [cheers and applause].

Today’s program is a small part of our efforts to take back our country and restore its principles, moral values, financial independence, physical strength, and leadership. Let’s get started. . .

It’s glennbeckish tripe, based on a fanciful understanding of history and concepts like capitalism, but unsurprising given the nature of the forum. What I just don’t get is how conservative Christian groups reconcile their supposedly high moral standards with standard-bearers like Gingrich—familial wreckage in his wake, and the only Speaker of the House to be reprimanded for ethics violations—and Ralph Reed, who buddied around with Jack Abramoff. But I suppose their bad reps are the result of liberal media bias.

And what the IFFC doesn’t seem to get is that using its gospel to criminalize and demonize those whom they oppose is not going to get anyone outside its choir to listen—and they probably even lose potential allies—the social conservatives who aren’t militant Christians. But then, I understand their quandary: to be principled one must be absolutist, and if one starts compromising, then it’s that slippery slope to liberal hell. Thing is—according to their rhetoric—they're already there. Just can’t win, can you?

You can see the C-SPAN video here, and read NPR’s story on it here.