<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Differentiating Conservatism from Fringe Lunacy
Review: During the fifties, and up to the time of his death in the sixties, Richard Hofstadter was one of America's most renowned historians with two Pulitzer Prizes to his credit. He was at his intellectual peak when, as one of America's eminent authorities of his country's political ideologies, he tackled the developing phenomenon of the early sixties' right wing extremism under the guise of conservatism. He differentiates between the traditional American conservatism espoused by the likes of President Herbert Hoover and Senator Robert Taft alongside the venom of Robert Welch's John Birch Society, in which, as the group's idea man, Welch referred to Dwight D. Eisenhower as a "dedicated and conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy."Hoftstadter delineates how fringe rightist elements took over the Republican Party and rallied behind the banner of Arizona's Senator Barry M. Goldwater, resulting in one of the party's most calamitous losses in the 1964 presidential election against incumbent Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson. The work has a timely ring as an historical analytical measuring rod in comprehending the activities of current right wing movements, such as the Christian Right behind the banners of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and its link to the militant anti-abortion movement, alongside earlier rightist political philosophies and their vigorous adherents such as Welch and television commentator Dan Smoot.
Rating:
Summary: Differentiating Conservatism from Fringe Lunacy
Review: During the fifties, and up to the time of his death in the sixties, Richard Hofstadter was one of America's most renowned historians with two Pulitzer Prizes to his credit. He was at his intellectual peak when, as one of America's eminent authorities of his country's political ideologies, he tackled the developing phenomenon of the early sixties' right wing extremism under the guise of conservatism. He differentiates between the traditional American conservatism espoused by the likes of President Herbert Hoover and Senator Robert Taft alongside the venom of Robert Welch's John Birch Society, in which, as the group's idea man, Welch referred to Dwight D. Eisenhower as a "dedicated and conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy." Hoftstadter delineates how fringe rightist elements took over the Republican Party and rallied behind the banner of Arizona's Senator Barry M. Goldwater, resulting in one of the party's most calamitous losses in the 1964 presidential election against incumbent Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson. The work has a timely ring as an historical analytical measuring rod in comprehending the activities of current right wing movements, such as the Christian Right behind the banners of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and its link to the militant anti-abortion movement, alongside earlier rightist political philosophies and their vigorous adherents such as Welch and television commentator Dan Smoot.
Rating: 
Summary: Devastating, yes; clairvoyant, no
Review: Granted that Prof. Hofstadter's evaluation of the "pseudo-conservatism" of the Goldwater campaign is rather patronizing, and that, too optimistically, he predicted that the paranoid style was condemned to permanent minority status. Otherwise, the book is a prescient and devastating analysis of the breathless mindset on display, mainly from the Right, over the last ten years or so. Just last November right-wing commentators as bright and well-educated as George F. Will were fulminating against Gore's "slow-motion coup" in Florida, and lesser conservatives were passing the word that President Clinton was about to seize dictatorial powers. The fact that the most conservative president since Reagan--maybe since the Roaring 20s--is currently sitting in the Oval Office, courtesy of a hypocritical decision by a quintet of conservative Supreme Court justices, means nothing to the conservatives immersed in the paranoid style. THEY didn't subvert the system; they saved the U.S. from the liberals, the liberals, the liberals. Back in 1964, Prof. Hofstadter noted that people who think like this tend to imitate the massive conspiracies they imagine threatening themselves. Writing in an era that still resembled the stereotypical 1950s more than the stereotypical 1960s, Hofstadter did not forsee the current power of the paranoid style. But the title essay of his book nails it right to the wall. Reading it, I feared for my country.
Rating:
Summary: Devastating, yes; clairvoyant, no
Review: Granted that Prof. Hofstadter's evaluation of the "pseudo-conservatism" of the Goldwater campaign is rather patronizing, and that, too optimistically, he predicted that the paranoid style was condemned to permanent minority status. Otherwise, the book is a prescient and devastating analysis of the breathless mindset on display, mainly from the Right, over the last ten years or so. Just last November right-wing commentators as bright and well-educated as George F. Will were fulminating against Gore's "slow-motion coup" in Florida, and lesser conservatives were passing the word that President Clinton was about to seize dictatorial powers. The fact that the most conservative president since Reagan--maybe since the Roaring 20s--is currently sitting in the Oval Office, courtesy of a hypocritical decision by a quintet of conservative Supreme Court justices, means nothing to the conservatives immersed in the paranoid style. THEY didn't subvert the system; they saved the U.S. from the liberals, the liberals, the liberals. Back in 1964, Prof. Hofstadter noted that people who think like this tend to imitate the massive conspiracies they imagine threatening themselves. Writing in an era that still resembled the stereotypical 1950s more than the stereotypical 1960s, Hofstadter did not forsee the current power of the paranoid style. But the title essay of his book nails it right to the wall. Reading it, I feared for my country.
Rating:
Summary: The perennial work in the field of American paranoia
Review: Hofstadter's use of pseudopsychology to analyze Goldwater and the conservative movement of the mid-sixties shows how blind the author was to cultural movements. Although it surely wasn't the case when he wrote it, his thesis is now denounces half of the American people as paranoids - the saner half. This book has no historical value and should only be read by those interested in exactly why "anti-intellectualism" is so prevalent "in American life:" men like Hofstadter and their triumphalist egos.
Rating:
Summary: The perennial work in the field of American paranoia
Review: Though wacky folks here and there may be offended by Hofstadter, social and political scientists recognize this work as the perennial analysis of American paranoia as a social phenomenon.
<< 1 >>
| 
