More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Miles Mogulescu

GET UPDATES FROM Miles Mogulescu
 

The Paranoid Style in American Politics: Its Past, Present and Future

Posted: 01/12/11 11:38 AM ET

In the wake of the Tucson shootings, there's been plenty of instant political punditry -- about the need to tone down inflammatory political rhetoric, about whether anyone should be able to walk into a store and buy a semiautomatic Glock with 31 rounds, about whether toxic right-wing rhetoric pumps polluted water into the ocean in which apparently unhinged people like the accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner swim. Most of it has a modicum of truth, yet most of it is oddly predictable and superficial.

Now that a few days have passed since the Arizona shootings, perhaps it's time to place the analysis of political violence in America in a broader historical perspective. A good place to start is with historian Richard Hofstadter's classic 1964 essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" which is standard reading in many college courses.

Here's how Hofstadter describes the Paranoid Style:

"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 constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse...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. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid's sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes."

Although Hofstadter was writing partly in response to 1950s McCarthyism, to JFK's assassination, and to the 1960s version of conservative wingnuts like the John Birch Society, Hofstadter notes that "the paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life". He traces the Paranoid Style in American politics back to the late 1700's, including movements which saw a treasonous conspiracy against America by secret Illuminati in the late 18th century and by secret Masons in the early 19th century, by Catholic immigrants taking orders from a foreign Pope in the mid 19th century, and by McCarthyite fears of an UnAmerican communist conspiracy at the highest levels of government in the 20th century.

While, historically, Hofstadter did not view the Paranoid Style as the sole province of the right, he saw a unique manifestation of it in contemporary right-wing movements:

"The modern right wing...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. "

Flash forward nearly 50 years -- Doesn't this description have an ominous resonance with the beliefs of the Republican right, the Tea Party, and their political and media spokespeople like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sharron Angle, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin?

Michele Bachmann: ''We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months (since Obama's election) and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves.''


Mark Williams, national spokesman for the Tea Party Express: ''[Obama is an] Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug.''

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), member of the House Tea Party Caucus: ''He ("Obama") has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.''

These paranoid denunciations of the absolute evil of their political opponents often merges with calls -- either implicit or explicit -- for violence to eliminate them:

Sharron Angle: ''I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.''


Glenn Beck: "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I should kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could."

Ann Coulter: "My only regret with Tim McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building."

G. Gordon Liddy (on how to kill law enforcement officers): "...head shots, they are wearing body armor, head shots... or shoot for the groin".

Dick Heller, the plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects the right of individuals to own guns: "We the people,' armed, are TRULY what the Writers of the Constitution intended for us to be in Art. 1, Sec. 8, para. 15, and that is the CITIZEN MILITIA. If suicide terrorists DO attact our city, ARMED CITIZENS could be the First to counter these hostilities in our individual neighborhoods."

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence lists 21 armed attacks on innocent people by right-wing vigilantes since 2008, including:

July 27, 2008 -- Jim Adkisson shoots and kills two people at a progressive church in Knoxville, Tennessee, wounding two. Adkisson calls it "a symbolic killing" because he really 'wanted to kill...every Democrat in the Senate & House' but was unable to gain access to them.

April 4, 2009 -- Neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski shoots and kills three police officers in Pittsburgh. His friend Edward Perkovic tells reporters that Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on its way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon." Perkovic also commented that Poplawski carried out the shooting because "if anyone tried to take his firearms, he was gonna' stand by what his forefathers told him to do."

May 31, 2009 -- Scott P. Roeder shoots and kills Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. The FBI lists Roeder as a member of the Montana Freemen, a radical anti-government group.

June 10, 2009 -- James W. von Brunn walks into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. and shoots and kills a security guard. Von Brunn believed that Western civilization was going to be replaced with a "ONE WORLD ILLUMINATI GOVERNMENT" that would "confiscate private weapons" in order to accomplish its goals.

February 18, 2010 -- Joseph Stack of Austin, Texas, flies a single-engine plane into an office building containing nearly 200 IRS employees, killing one and wounding 13. In a suicide note, Stack lays out his grievances with the federal tax agency, stating, "The law 'requires' a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that's not 'duress' than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is ... Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer."

Of course most right-wing Republicans and Tea Party supporters don't engage in acts of violence. But their political views often reflect the Paranoid Style described by Hofstadter in which they see their very way of life as under attack by liberal elites and in which their political opponents are not only wrong but illegitimate and must be destroyed. As Ed Kilgore writes,

"To put it bluntly, it has become common on the Right to treat conservative policy prescriptions as exempt from the normal procedures of democracy because they reflect the preferences of God, the Founding Fathers, or Real Americans. Indeed, the essence of the Tea Party Movement, which dominates the GOP from top to bottom, is the belief that by advancing such quotidian centrist policies as a managed-competition health care system or a market-based cap-and-trade device, Democrats are not simply wrong, but are violating permanent and never-to-be-amended guarantees of low taxes, small government, and laissez-faire capitalism. That point of view helps explain the spluttering rage of people like Glenn Beck and his most devoted fans, who really do seem to believe their 'fundamental liberties' include the right to enrich themselves limitlessly and to be exempt from any collective responsibilities, and that mildly redistributive and exceptionally traditional practices like progressive taxation or unemployment insurance represent a totalitarianism that must resisted by any means necessary."

The Paranoid Style in American politics tends to become most virulent during periods of rapid social change and economic crisis when significant portions of the population feel their way of life threatened and do not see any way in which conventional politics will protect them. That's certainly true of the present post-Wall Street bust era. In coming years, we're likely to see a new normal of low economic growth, high unemployment, lower incomes for much of the middle and working class, greater economic inequality, more political gridlock, and even greater control of the political system by corporations.

Under these circumstances, in the absence of a significant progressive populist movement to channel legitimate popular anger towards meaningful solutions to our nation's problems as a viable alternative to the timid corporatism of the Obama administration and many Democratic office-holders, right-wing movements which reflect the Paranoid style in American politics are likely to grow and flourish in coming years.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 48
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
noaxe397
08:03 AM on 01/13/2011
I enjoyed your article, but you are too kind to those on the right and their heated rhetoric.
 
Quoting people like Angle and Bachman is to give attention to those who are nobodies.
 
If you want to hear truly dangerous right wing hate speech, then listen to the top tier of right wing leadership, starting with the patron saint, Ronald Reagan, who said government is the problem and the 9 most dreaded words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
 
Gingrich amped that up calling government the enemy that needed to be zeroed out and the Clintons as radical socialists.
 
How about Bill Bennet, the so-called "virtues czar", saying we could reduce the crime rate if we abort black babies.
 
The nation's leading anti-tax activist, Grover Norquist compares bi-partisanship to date rate and wants to drown government in the bath tub.
 
 
No, you don't need to give the limelight to right wing losers like Bachman and Angle.
 
Progressives need to punch up, not down, if the ever hope to win back the message.
02:04 PM on 01/13/2011
Please explain how Reagan's saying, "government is the problem", or "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" was hateful. It expressed a different opinion of government than yours (that he didn't actually adhere to, by the way), but what was hateful in those statements?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
noaxe397
10:52 AM on 01/14/2011
It creates the slippery slope of paranoia and mistrust of critcal bonds necessary for a democratic republic to function.
 
Common sense:  if government is the problem, why work for government?  Why be a part of the problem?
 
And he didn't adhere to his views as he grew the size of government (from a defecit point of view) more than any other president.
08:40 PM on 01/12/2011
We glorify violence.
02:05 PM on 01/13/2011
Or glamorize it in a lot of our movies and TV shows, at least.
08:32 PM on 01/12/2011
One of the things that never ceases to amaze is the false equivalency the Right works overtime to draw between Liberals' (*many* Americans' besides just self-styled Liberals, in fact) disgust and anger over Bush, and the freaky Tea/GOP rage over Obama.

Anger over an election where the person with the most votes lost (look it up), fiddling around and ignoring intel during the summer of 2001 as al Qaeda made their final preparations, lying us into war in Iraq, warrentless wiretapping, and, then, torture is the kind of thing I would think *justifies* some anger at the head of government.

Contrast that with the unalloyed rage at the "wrongness" of Barack Obama winning in a landslide, after adopting (during the last couple months of the campaign) the "bailout" policies of his *Republican* predecessor, agreeing to virtually all the tax-breaks Republicans insisted on for the Stimulus Bill (but Republicans still voted against it), ditching single payer *and* the public option to basically set up a Romney-style health care system, then tightening (tepidly, I admit) regs against Wall Street (which the Tea People claim to hate). O.K., there are the FEMA boxcars with shackles in them, but that was a campaign promise, right?

Gad.
12:16 AM on 01/13/2011
Here's what's wrong with this "my side is good"/"their side is bad" view of the world. First of all, it blinds you to the things your side is doing wrong. Second, when the "bad guys" actually do have something correct or valuable to say, you brush it aside without considering it. Third, independents like me, who aren't on either of the teams have to live in a country where the politics is defined by this counterproductive, contentious party system.
06:53 AM on 01/13/2011
No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an honest evaluation of any given matter or situation. You're not "independent." You're a Republican who calls yourself an "Independent." There's no crime in that, of course. That's your choice. But doing the false equivalency thing in a way to rationalize or downplay the GOPesque double standard/s (see my comment immediately above) is not something I or any other honest person will abide. You addressed not one iota of the actual sum and substance of my comment. Noted.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kansasmagic
My micro-bio is empty. Should I be concerned?
08:05 PM on 01/12/2011
Great article! I've tried posting about the continuity of McCarthy's rhetoric with the current TP rhetoric, and so far all my posts have been banned by the moderators. Maybe this one will get through...

Anyway, this perfectly captures my thoughts about the current "atmosphere" of political discourse in this country. I don't think that Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc., are *personally* responsible for Loughner's actions. They do, however, contribute to and represent (in their words and actions) the "paranoid style" that Hofstadter identified. While Keith Olbermann and other liberal pundits have apologized for their rhetoric, Limbaugh and Palin are on the defensive. (I want to know: why was that their first impulse? In Palin's recent video comment, she even turns this emerging dialogue on political rhetoric into another "attack" on her and her values.

What do we do about it? The idea of a renewed progressive movement is a good idea - but what is the plan?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ConcernedCitizen78
07:14 PM on 01/12/2011
The "Paranoid Style of American Politics" is evident not only in domestic politics but also in the US approach to international relations.

Although this post addresses the domestic situation, it equally applies to the demonization, bashing (even if only with words) and fear-mongering of countries, socio-political systems, religions, or racial groups that are 'alien' to Americans.

It is illogical and futile to stop generating fear and incitement to violence in the US domestic arena alone without doing the same in the international arena.
12:24 AM on 01/13/2011
Totally agree with you. We are really xenophobic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blackraisin
Life, Liberty, Property.
06:37 PM on 01/12/2011
True or false: Alleged "right-wing" vigilante Joe Stacks ended his manifesto with a Karl Marx quote?

True or false: Alleged "right-wing" vigilante Richard Poplowski shot cops because they were coping to arrest him for trespassing?

True or false: Alleged "right-wing" vigilante James Von Brunn had left postings fearing that he would die a meaningless life unless he took action?
photo
Skunkman
old & decrepit
06:15 PM on 01/12/2011
This tragic murder of decent American citizens, including a child, and the attempted murder of a respected member of Congress are examples of the dangers of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party and the tea party, especially Sarah Palin and her "reload" comment, her infamous hit list and her photo of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the crosshairs of a gun - all of which appeal to the most biased, bigoted, unbalanced and ignorant people in our country.

The extremists are armed and loaded with hate and guns and driven by the shameless publicity-seeking neo-conservative politicians and media commentators with their right-wing smear and fear rhetoric. They just can't stand anyone who doesn't agree with their opinions.

We the people must pro-actively demand an end to the now deadly political rancor in Congress and quickly move to the sane center of the political road - no parking spaces for any extreme right-wing or left-wing zealots.

Mike
07:44 PM on 01/12/2011
The crosshairs were over Gifford's DISTRICT, not her picture.
Any thinking person knows that represented TARGETED districts to flip in the election.
YOU know this but it doesn't suit the left's repulsive goal of politicizing a tragedy.
There's absolutely NO evidence the shooter was politically motivated or influenced by Palin or anything other than a perceived slight when the congresslady chose not to answer a ridiculous question he submitted in 2007.
05:29 PM on 01/12/2011
Thanks for this post. Anorher book that is interesting in these times is Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer." Its theme is political fanatacism. When I listen to and read the pronouncments of some of the Tea Partiers, I think of this book.
photo
Skunkman
old & decrepit
07:57 PM on 01/12/2011
Hi Dunelm: Thank you for reading my post. I will be sure to read yours.
People will have opposite opinions. I hope they keep it civil.

Thanks for the tip on the book & take care.

Fanned & faved


Mike
04:41 PM on 01/12/2011
Just finished reading Bill Mauldin's book Back Home again after many years, and was surprised how easily he could have written it today. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Manx
04:39 PM on 01/12/2011
Another excellent post from one of my favorite bloggers.

In comparing the excesses of the right with those on the left, the media have been full of false equivalencies. On CNN, I heard Wolf Blitzer, compare Sarah Palin's cross-hair map targeting Gifford with a remark made by an anonymous liberal commenter on Daily Kos, which is ludicrous. It should have been obvious to Blitzer that a politician constantly in the public eye like Palin has a much greater responsiblity than an anonymous individual. It should also have been evident to Blitzer that anything Palin does receives a million times more exposure than some unknown commenter.
Obviously, CNN and other media outlets don't want to offend their conservative viewers but to hide behind false equevalencies is cowardly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blackraisin
Life, Liberty, Property.
06:39 PM on 01/12/2011
"If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun" - President Barack Obama, someone is the public eye more than Palin.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opief
07:48 PM on 01/12/2011
My thought also.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason Ryberg
I can see you.
09:27 PM on 01/12/2011
Is that all you've got? Seriously, which is the side that promotes fear, misinformation, religious fundamentalism, ant-intellectualism, profit over people, corporatism, imperialism, paranoia and "second amendment solutions?" Do your homework. The Right spews out violent, xenophobic rhetoric every hour 24/7/365. That's all they've got left. Oh, and their guns, which, I'm sure they will turn to, more and more, as they realize the country isn't just their private property, alone, and the rest of us aren't just renters and squatters.
photo
Skunkman
old & decrepit
04:58 PM on 01/13/2011
Hi Manx: I'ts my pleasure to read another of your sensible posts. Your point was
well made & difficult to rebut. Have a healthy & happy 2011. How I missed fanning
you was wrong so I'll use the "I'm a very old man excuse. :-)

Fanned & faved

Mike
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Manx
02:59 AM on 01/14/2011
Skunkman/Mike - Thank you, thank you, thank you. I like your icon. Looks like a manx cat I once had, named Sam. Happy New Year to you, too!

Manx
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:57 PM on 01/12/2011
Agreed, rapid social and economic change has fueled tremendous distrust in our government and it is only going to get worse. To take advantage of this, paranoid, bombastic media hypes get fat off the land bringing their message of vitriol to targeted audiences who never question their ideas. It is time to start talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. I know, millions coming of age today have never even heard of it, but this is why we need to bring it back or at least to start talking about it, now is the time. As a boomer, I remember it was a tool of political discourse until Ronald Reagan did away with it. Ultimately, it opened the door for media hypes like Rush Limbaugh and others to get their start to become very rich, very powerful and very famous. I believe Palin is the heir to the throne of that discourse. Having named her blood libel speech, "Enduring Freedom" it is a precursor for the banner that she will hold high above her head if she ever wants to get elected. If you are a Democrat, say, and you are against her, then you are against "Enduring Freedom." Crafty little upstart, she may be stupid, but she's no dummy either.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blackraisin
Life, Liberty, Property.
06:41 PM on 01/12/2011
When you say media hypes you mean Conservatives. Would the fairness doctrine apply to the HuffingtonPost, the DailyKos, Firedoglake, The New York Times, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, etc.? Or would it only apply to those Conservatives who have managed to capitalize on talk radio and lead to a new conservative dominance?
07:35 PM on 01/12/2011
No, but of course you would immediately get defensive. I believe the quote was "media hypes like Rush Limbaugh and others." There are partisan pundits on both the right and the left that have taken advantage of the political discourse. At the end of the day, it's not about left or right or the "he said, she said." We need to come together as Americans and learn from this terrible tragedy so that history doesn't repeat itself.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cleverboots
02:34 PM on 01/12/2011
The good thing is that the Right is outspoken about their beliefs so we know what they wish for. The bad is that they wish for destructive negative things that scare everyone else and accomplish nothing
of positive value.
01:55 PM on 01/12/2011
Everyone should read Hofstadter. But, why Mr. Mogulescu, do you only see the manifestations of "the paranoid style" on the right? There are plenty of examples of such behavior on the left, too.
04:42 PM on 01/12/2011
Ok, list them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RyanCSmith
Locke for people, Hobbes for corporations
04:45 PM on 01/12/2011
Then please provide them.
itolduso
lateral thinker
01:52 PM on 01/12/2011
Ahhh, yes, we have a long history of this....but this time around, an added twist...... a 24 hour news cycle whose lifeblood is chaos....and an explosion in information technology that makes it almost impossible to completely shutout the constant drumbeat of unrest. We live in 'interesting' times.