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.

Letter to Senator Jim DeMint

I write in opposition to your legislative proposal to cut all federal funding to NPR--an effort to punish that media outlet for firing Juan Williams. NPR is one of the few media sources that does not spout bigoted anti-Muslim rhetoric, and to end federal support for NPR is not a blow for "free speech," but rather an effort to silence a news source that does not permit slurs in the public square. You are, in effect, celebrating the right of commentators to blather inane statements that incite an unjustified fear of a category of people based on the actions of the few, conceivably a version of someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In effect, you are contributing to a growing and increasingly ugly domestic crusade against Islam.

I am not one of your constituents, but your proposed legislation directly affects me and millions of fellow Americans. I deeply regret your contribution to a US image abroad that we are hypocrites, preaching liberty abroad while trumpeting religious intolerance at home. And I strongly resent your attempt to hamper our ability to find news and political commentary that does not contribute to the anti-Muslim hysteria.

Viral Ignorance

A recent Pew Survey produced some pretty remarkable findings. Evidently, the number of people who believe that President Obama is a Muslim, or not a Christian, has been growing over the past few years. As well, and less surprising, those who buy the falsehood already have a poor opinion of the president.

What explains what must be willful ignorance, the insistence on believing the innuendo and misinformation? Given the correlation between people's opinion of President Obama and their belief regarding his religion, it must be that people feel the need dress up their dislike of him and his policies with spurious attributes. It's not enough to disagree, they must demonize. It's an embarrassing aspect of our political culture--that people would dress up a political leader they oppose in the robes of a Muslim or non-Christian because that somehow confirms his supposed vileness.

I can understand why people might oppose President Obama. It's depressing how some of them are framing that opposition in bigoted terms.

Birther Pangs

The other day at the grocery store I saw the National Enquirer headline proclaiming, once again, that Obama is not a US citizen. Politifact.com has examined three chain emails scurrying through cyberspace that deliver a similar fanciful story.

One makes the pitch that "Obama had to have been traveling on another country's passport in order to get into Pakistan" in 1981. Another hustles the rumor that "Obama's college transcripts reveal foreign citizenship." A third claims that the "Supreme Court has agreed to rule on Obama's citizenship."

One element in what makes films or novels successful is their ability to convince the audience to suspend disbelief. The Birther fiction has enjoyed that kind of success--the collective story-telling of a small but vocal minority of Americans trying to make their own peculiar sense of what may be a perfect political storm: economic hard times, warmaking without seeming end, a polarized polity, and a black President with an ambitious domestic agenda. An important difference, though, is that filmakers and writers know they are creating fictional, if plausible worlds (excepting those like Oliver Stone and Tim LaHaye). Birthers apparently really believe the narrative they're constructing, sustained by the sincere or cynical shout-outs from pundits like Lou Dobbs or politicians like Michele Bachman.

I could just dismiss Birthers as loonies, and remark that their "movement" will maybe get a line or two in a future text on US political history, another generation in the genealogy of paranoid politics. I could worry about the propensity of some to believe in "proofs" of conspiracy based on lame research. I could just be depressed by the anti-intellectualism and racism underlying Birther claims that President Obama is not really one of us. Or I can write to myself. It won't exorcise my dismay, but may help me understand it.

Goats in Guate

Guatemala City is a terrible and marvelous place. When I lived here fifteen years ago, in the city center (zone 1), I had no fear of returning to my pensión late at night. My route from the bus stop at the Parque Concordia ran through the neighborhood where gay and straight prostitutes plied their trade, and, except for a few catcalls--"chi-chi, guapito"--I was never bothered, though it was depressing to see how young some of those kids were. Now, everything shuts down by 7:00pm, and people close themselves behind barricaded doors and concertina wire. People leaving the city center at night, if they can afford it, get a special taxi service that time-stamps their pick-up and drop-off times, with recorded emergency contact information on hand, in case there's a kidnapping or other criminal threat.

Of course, some things have changed. Back in my Peace Corps days in the mid-80s, beggars asked for cinco centavos. Now it’s a quetzalito. The Parque Central has been completely refurbished, with pedestrian walkways instead of streets on three sides. And the city is making Sixth Avenue, the main commercial street between the National Palace and the government buildings 15 blocks away, a pedestrian passageway with express bus service down the middle. It’s still a work-in-progress, so pedestrians have to navigate the holes, ditches, flying clods of clay being tossed around by the diggers, and dump trucks inching their way along the narrow way. Yesterday I saw one truck’s right side tire inching over the edge into a four foot deep ditch and waved frantically at the driver while women behind me shouted “Se va allí, se va allí!” Why in god’s name there was no one in front of the truck to guide the driver, I don’t know, but así es, and as the truck crawled by us the driver, smiling, said “gracias,” as if we had opened a door for him or something rather than averting a construction-site catastrophe.

Today, while out to get some cash and a newspaper, I walked this same avenida, this time avoiding motorcycles and cyclists rather than trucks. I saw two small groups of blind young adults, apparently getting lessons on how to negotiate the streets. One was stopped at a light, and it’s leader was explaining something, while another group behind was in the middle of a little herd of goats—yes, smack dab in the middle of Guate, goats, which is why I can stand the concussive noise and acrid odors of this city. While the leader took their hands one by one to feel the goats, I asked the goat-tender if he was selling goat milk to the restaurants and stores along the way and he said no, and pulled out of stack of styrofoam cups from his shoulder bag. Twenty years ago I would have bought a cup of milk, but, for good or ill, I’m much more cautious now that I’m of AARP age. But maybe my years have also taught me how to see something lovely in all this seeming mess.

How-To Guide to TV Punditry

On “Tax Day,” April 15^th, a federal judge declared

that the US law authorizing a National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. US District Judge Barbara Crabb said the federal statute violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on government endorsement of religion. She issued a 66-page decision and enjoined President Obama from issuing an executive order calling for the celebration of a National Day of Prayer. The National Day of Prayer was first authorized by Congress in 1952. Since 1988, the date has been set as the first Thursday in May. The judge stayed her own injunction pending the resolution of any appeals.

“I understand that many may disagree with [my] conclusion and some may even view it as critical of prayer or those who pray. That is unfortunate,” Judge Crabb wrote. “A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant, or undeserving of dissemination,” she said. “Rather it is part of the effort to carry out the Founders’ plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.”

On May 6, National Prayer Day, Bill O’Reilly weighed in on the matter, and it’s an exemplary model of how to turn a policy disagreement into a threat to the American way of life.

First, remember that your show is not about making a reasoned argument based on logic and evidence. It’s theater. It’s a show, so start with a simple, straightforward assertion, and add a dose of hyperbole:

O'REILLY FACTOR: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, today is a National Day of Prayer. It has been endorsed by President Obama. But there are legal challenges all over the place. And that of course, is dumb. The Constitution clearly states the government cannot impose religion on citizens. But setting aside a day to encourage expression of voluntary spirituality is in no way an imposition.

Simple, right? The judicial ruling is “dumb.” ‘Nuff said.

And nevermind that there aren’t “legal challenges all over the place." One group, in one venue, the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit asserting that the federal government’s Day of Prayer violates the First Amendment’s proscription on government establishment of religion. But facts need not trouble us here.

Second, bring someone on the show who shares your view, someone who also enjoys authoritative weight among your viewers. Invite someone equally capable of oversimplifying a complex issue, and someone who won’t make you look stupid. Someone, say, who couldn’t even handle the marshmallow grilling she got at the hands of Katie Couric.

Now, a few weeks ago Sarah Palin said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska,: For any leader declare that America isn't a Christian nation and poking an ally like Israel in the eye, it's mind-boggling for--to see some of our nation's actions recently.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: All right. The governor joins us now. So why do you think America is a Christian nation?

PALIN: I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, you know, nobody has to believe me, though. You can just go to our Founding Fathers' early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that allows that Judeo- Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives.

And our Constitution, of course, essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don't come from man. They come from God. So this document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe upon our rights to have freedom of religion and to be able to express our faith freely.

O'REILLY: OK.

Third, don’t worry about coherence. Palin’s answer to O’Reilly’s question—is the US a Christian nation—is evidently yes, but she confuses “Christian nation” with “Judeo-Christian beliefs,” two distinct concepts. That’s okay because we want to stay unclear while sounding so assertively clear. After all, saying “America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs” is about as informative as saying the US’s roots lie in the Renaissance revival of ancient Greek and Roman thought, or Enlightenment principles. Sure, the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible are a part of the canon of US political culture—but that Bible is not the only text in that canon. Nor is there some sort of single, pristine Judeo-Christian belief system that traveled through time from the early Roman Christians to the doorsteps of the US Founding Fathers. But only dumb eggheads worry about such historical distinctions.

Follow the vague incoherence with some obfustication. Yes, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution permit the “Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation” for those who choose it, or were simply born with it, but they do not mandate it. But make it sound as if they do codify the Judeo-Christian tradition. And then stretch the meaning of the texts. The Declaration makes vague theistic references with the words “God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence,” but for our purposes here, that’s good enough to say we’re a Christian nation. Unfortunately, the US Constitution—the text with the force of law—does not make any reference to a divine entity, except for the standard practice of saying “Year of Our Lord” after the date. And it’s the Declaration that says “inalienable,” not the Constitution. This gives us the fifth point--don’t let facts get in the way of making your point.

PALIN: So it's ironic that here, on the National Day of Prayer, you know, there's so much controversy about whether or not we're a nation that's build on Judeo-Christian beliefs and whether or not we can even talk about God in the public square is absolutely nonsense what we are hearing.

This is good. O’Reilly’s smart programming—addressing the topic of Christian nation on the National Day of Prayer, gives Palin the opening to turn a policy difference over the role of religion in government activities into irony, though it’s not really “ironic.” Irony would be something like an Alabama judge insisting, in the name of religious liberty, that everyone must respect his particular religious beliefs and allow him to plant a huge 10 Commandments monument on government grounds. Well, maybe that’s not irony. It’s just hypocrisy. Again, only smartypants worry about careful use of language.

O'REILLY: All I have to do is walk into the Supreme Court chamber, and you'll see the 10 Commandments. And so we know that you're absolutely correct. The Founding Fathers did base not only the Declaration of Independence but the constitutional protections on what they thought was right and wrong. And what they thought was right and wrong came from the 10 Commandments, which is Judeo-Christian philosophy. That is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sixth, be very selective with your evidence—what those social(ist) scientists call ‘massaging the data.’ And use that evidence to set up the simple equation. 10 Commandments in Supreme Court Chamber equals Christian nation. Easy. Don’t complicate matters by noting the others figures featured on the Supreme Court external friezes such as Menes, Hammurabi, Confucius, and Augustus, or Mohammed, Grotius, and Napoleon—or those pagan Three Fates near the main entrance.

O’REILLY: But here is what's happened. America has, as they say in California, evolved. And now we're a much more secular nation than we were back in 1776. So the opponents of spirituality in the public marketplace say, "Hey, this is a violation. We can't be pushing any kind of spirituality." And you answer?

PALIN: Well, that new kind of world view that I think is kind of a step towards a fundamental transformation of America that some want to see today, I think, again, that it is an attempt to revisit and rewrite history.

I think we should kind of keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant. They're quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 Commandments. It's pretty simple. I think what's missing in...

Seventh—accuse those whom you oppose of doing what you’re doing (what psychologists call “projection”). O’Reilly trots out a quick version of the modernization = secularization thesis that no one really buys anymore. Palin then knocks down this straw man by labeling it revisionism, even though she’s revising US history to fit her argument. Whatever the case, times have indeed changed, perhaps more rapidly in recent decades. According to one survey study, the percentage of US Americans identifying as Christians has declined from 86% in 1990 to 76% in 2008 (Another survey by Pew reports 78%). And a large proportion of those not identifying as Christians have not joined any other religious affiliation. Maybe O’Reilly and Palin are unaware of these data, but if they were aware, they were right not to mention them. You don’t name the secret fear—the growing pluralism of US society. And did you notice O’Reilly’s sly move? Opponents of federal government sponsorship of religious rituals really oppose spirituality in general. That suggests an eighth point. Never miss an opportunity to misrepresent those with whom you disagree.

O'REILLY: What do you say, though -- what do you say to the people in Chinatown and San Francisco and here in New York and other big cities, the Asian-Americans who come from a different religious culture? Do they not participate in the Judeo-Christian tradition? I mean, they don't believe it. They believe in something else.

PALIN: We get to say to them, "Yay, welcome to America, where we are tolerant and you have a freedom to express whatever faith. You can participate peacefully in whatever religion that you choose. That's what America is all about."

And we would ask, though, that there be respect by our courts. Look at Judge Crabb and this ridiculous ruling or her opinion that's come down that says the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. We would ask that there would be respect for what the Judeo-Christian beliefs are, too. It's mutual tolerance.

Here we see a nice repetition of the seventh and eighth points. Judge Crabb (perfect name!) and the courts are not keeping the state out of promotion of a theistic practice, they are discriminating against all those who share Judeo-Christian beliefs. And this suggests a ninth tactic—act as if you speak for all right-minded people. Your beliefs are common sense; those of your opponents are nonsensical, and this is so obvious that you don’t need to spell out why.

O'REILLY: What do you think drives -- what do you think drives Judge Crabb, who I agree with you is desperately wrong? Again, there is no imposition of religion on a voluntary National Day of Prayer. It's just encouraging people to be spiritual. You can pray to a tree. You can be a Deist. I mean, you know, Founding Fathers, some of them were.

PALIN: Yes.

O'REILLY: So there's no imposition. So what drives a Judge Crabb to say, "Hey, this should be illegal"? What do you think drives that?

PALIN: You know, you wonder what in hell scares people about talking about America's foundation of faith, and you wonder why in the world would she rule as she's ruled? And I guess she'll further explain herself.

But every state Constitution acknowledges God, because every state Constitution, which backs up our U.S. Constitution, can acknowledge that our unalienable [sic] rights came from God not from man.

O'REILLY: Why would Crabb do that? You must have thought about it. Why would Crabb do it? What does she want to accomplish by this?

PALIN: It is that world view that, I think, involves some -- some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square. That's the only thing I can attribute it to, is some fear of some people.

But look at our national motto, "In God We Trust." How inconsistent, then, to be told that we, on a National Day of Prayer, which, as you point out, isn't any kind of mandate or any kind of force for anybody to believe any certain thing, but how inconsistent to say that, though, in the public square we cannot talk about or talk to that God that is in our national motto.

O'REILLY: Yes, we can only trust in the God inside our own homes, but once we get out, we can't trust him.

A version of the ninth point. O’Reilly is figuratively shaking his head at the idiocy of people like Judge Crabb. Just a crazy world. Then a flourish of misrepresentation, incoherence and non-facts by Palin. Opponents of the National Day of Prayer have dubious motives (they fear believers), and the federal practice of a theistic ritual is not sanctioning a particular religion, but is a natural response to the roots of our country (also a nice confusion of a government-sponsored ritual and the entire public square). Nevermind that the National Motto was an early Cold War creation (1955), not a primordial creed of the nation. But again, don’t worry about historical accuracy. Palin could have passed off other Cold War religious innovations as existing since the founding: along with the National Day of Prayer (1952), there was adding “under God” to the Pledge (1954), and the National Prayer Breakfast every February (1954). The federal government even granted Billy Graham permission to hold an evangelical revival on federal grounds (1952). Man, those were the days.

All right, Governor, always good to see you.

PALIN: Bill -- Bill, OK, hey, we also need to remember, though, Margaret Thatcher and other foreign leaders and foreign observers thinking America is such a great and exceptional nation, because we do base our lives, our values on the God of the Bible, the Old and the New Testament.

O'REILLY: All right.

PALIN: If they can observe it, we should.

O'REILLY: We appreciate you coming on. . .

Yes—always good to end with some chest-thumping patriotism. In short—oversimplify the issue, misrepresent your opposition, don’t worry about accuracy, logical consistency, or historical complexity, and deliver it all with the upmost confidence in your righteousness, and the certainty of wrongdoing in others.