From John Birchers to Birthers - The right's paranoid political style has gone mainstream

WSJ ^ | 10/20/09 | Thomas "don't call me Barney" Frank

[pissant]

Next month will mark the 45th anniversary of the publication by Harper's Magazine of Richard Hofstadter's famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," a work that seems to grow more relevant by the day.

I was not always a fan. When I first read it two decades ago, I thought Hofstadter was being needlessly insulting by equating political views with mental illness—despite his insistence that he wasn't using the word that way. Besides, I thought, who really cared about the strange notions that occurred to members of marginal groups like the John Birch Society? Joe McCarthy's day was long over, and even in the age of high Reaganism, I thought, the type of person Hofstadter described was merely handing out flyers on street corners.

As the historian himself admitted, "in America it has been the preferred style only of minority movements." Why bother with it, then?

How times have changed! Hofstadter's beloved liberal consensus has been in the grave for decades now. Today it would appear that his mistake was underestimating the seductive power of the paranoid style.

The essential element of this mindset, Hofstadter explained, was its predilection for conspiracy theory—for understanding history as a theater in which sinister figures control the flow of events from behind the scenes, nudging us constantly and secretly in the direction of communism.

Back in Hofstadter's day this sort of thinking at least had something supremely rational going for it: The existence of the Soviet Union and its desire to bring the West to its knees.

But take that away and the theories become something far more remarkable. Consider, by contrast, the widespread belief that President Barack Obama's birth certificate was forged. What could have been his parents' motives for committing such a bizarre deed, or his home state's motive for colluding

[April Lexington]

And thank YOU for your kind words. We need honest dialog between Jewish tradition and conservative thought. Many similarities and much paranoia. All well founded. In the end, I think we are all better off on the same side.

[April Lexington]

though there is a certain type of "conservative" I want nothing to do with. And I don't trust the JBS.

Agreed. Small minds are never in short supply. "Its always the scape goat..." We all need to rise above the "isms" and get the job done for all peaceful, freedom-loving people. I was hoping Kristol and Co. would be that bridge. I think they have to some extent but, wow, did the MSM take them out at the knees?

[katlynne11]

I am not a Bircher, but I have read the New American for the past 25 years. It is one of the most informative magazines, well written, well researched, and pro American magazines that is out there. I have never noted evenf a hint of anti-Semitism or racism. And their articles on History are second to none.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I am not a Bircher, but I have read the New American for the past 25 years. It is one of the most informative magazines, well written, well researched, and pro American magazines that is out there. I have never noted evenf a hint of anti-Semitism or racism. And their articles on History are second to none.

True, it isn't openly anti-Semitic, but it peddles a "conspiracy theory" that often turns people anti-Semitic. And it is certainly not friendly to Israel. It represents a continuation of the pre-WWII right and leans heavily to chr*stian reconstructionism rather than conventional Fundamentalism.

I continue to maintain that the JBS and its organs are very inconsistent in their position on "American interference" abroad. The JBS had an organization in the Eighties called the Western Goals Foundation which was all for American aid to anti-Communists in Central America. But when it comes to Israel and the Middle East, they are strangely isolationistic.