As a non-American watching the US, one cannot ignore the level of paranoia in everyday American political discourse. On both sides of the aisle exists the paranoid imagination that the other side is engaged in some sort of wrong-doing, exploitation and the eroding of “American Values.”

The Paranoid Style in American Politics written by Richard Hofstadter in the mid-sixties reveals some of the historical roots of paranoia in American politics. He shows numerous examples of suspicions through history, each generation seeming to apply a simple template of paranoia on a new set of contemporary issues. We see it today in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, we saw it in 18th century sermons against the Illuminati.

Though paranoid politics may not be uniquely American, I think it is very strong in America. The US was born in revolution and is based on revolutionary ideals. It all started with fighting off the big, bad British Empire.

Part of the American identity the interpretation of American values and priorities on a very individualistic level. This is reflected in the decentralized style of deciding policy, which is very different from parliamentary democracies around the world. The US even fought a debilitating civil war on different interpretations of “freedom” and “American values.”

It is important to consider this underlying cultural characteristic when examining America’s actions — and it’s interpretations of those actions — at home or abroad.

Hofstadter sheds some light on the situation, and closes with this brilliant bit:

A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen. It is precisely this kind of awareness that the paranoid fails to develop. ... We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

Read the essay in its entirety.


COMMENTS / 7 COMMENTS

OK, I have a few bones to pick with this post—some just nitpicking, and some more philosophical.

I do not think that American policy is decided in a decentralized manner. Especially with the recent coming to light of the British memo detailing that Bush basically ensured war, one could argue the opposite: that little outside of Washington DC effects national policy.

Also, and I think Hofstadter would agree, that the Civil War was not one fought over interpretations of freedom and American values. I am not sure if this is a short cut to the ‘slavery’ issue, but most historians regard the Civil War as the political manifestation of competing economic systems.

Some other things to think about: the American Revolution may nominally called a ‘revolution’, but in reality is more of a rebellion. It does not fall in line with the traditional lineage of French & Russian Revolutions. I also believe you are talking about the anti-Free Mason movement in the 19th century.

-Alec

Alec added these pithy words on 31 Mar 06 at 6:28 pm

Alec,

As for the de-centralized manner of policy creation in the US, I am mostly referring to domestic policy. There is much greater autonomy in the US than in say Canada.

I think you made my point about the Civil War. The South was fighting for the freedom to continue their economic system.

Whether or not the American Revolution is considered a “revolution” or a “rebellion” is was by definition “anti-establishment” which is just as important for the conspiracy nuts today.

Younghusband added these pithy words on 31 Mar 06 at 7:10 pm

about conspiracy theorys somebody have read or visit this site http://www.infowars.com is scary

felipe the latinlover added these pithy words on 31 Mar 06 at 9:47 pm

Alec wrote:

“Some other things to think about: the American Revolution may nominally called a “Ëœrevolution’, but in reality is more of a rebellion.”

The Boston Tea Party was an act of rebellion. The Declaration of Independence was an act of revolution.

“It does not fall in line with the traditional lineage of French & Russian Revolutions.”

I hasten to point out a few things:

1. Most revolutions begin as a defense of traditional rights, which was certainly the case for both the American and French Revolutions. The French revolutionaries certainly would have found Ale’s argument to be bizarre as they took their inspiration and rhetoric in the early stages from the American example – recall the symbolic importance of Washington, Marquis de Lafayette, Tom Paine etc..

2. The American Revolution, having preceded the French and Russian Revolutions, could hardly have followed their ” lineage”.

3. Where the French and Russian Revolutions deviated from the American model, with the use of state terror initiated by a vanguard of intellectuals and justified by appeals to ethereal abstractions, was hardly to the advantage of either the French or the Russians.

Or any of the peoples who were later dragged down the same path.

mark safranski added these pithy words on 01 Apr 06 at 3:41 am

Part of the American identity {...} the interpretation of American values and priorities on a very individualistic level.

Younghusband, I think you are astute on this point, if I understand the fragment here. The paranoia comes from the understanding that “free radicals” abound. Or, to put it another way, not only are individual Americans quite protective of their own individual (personal) freedoms, they are also aware of the 300mil+ claims of individual freedom issuing from their neighbors, over which they have little say. The paranoia is a result of these two factors, and it’s tempting to say that the paranoia is, at root, a morbid fear of universal freedom.

Tangentially, I’ve wondered if this same dynamic has thus far prevented revolution in modern China. Imagine: 1.3 billion (or so) neighbors to worry about!

Naturally, if this is true, then adding to the number of neighbors, via fantasies of “globalization,” would produce even more paranoia—although, true, the fantasizers are probably transferring their own concepts of freedom onto all those foreign neighbors who are not as accustomed to the extraordinary freedoms we claim for ourselves.

Citizens of other nations have and have had the same sort of paranoia; but in America, “freedom” is fetishized.

Curtis Gale Weeks added these pithy words on 01 Apr 06 at 6:46 am

Secret N.S.A. Memos Reveal
Critically Thinking Americans Still at it

Washington (Internet News Wire) – A Pentagon source revealed yesterday that several N.S.A. memos, which hadn’t been shredded, apparently because the office shredder had broken due to the volume of documents it had been handling, were discovered in Jack Abramoff’s former K Street office by Slavo Gvingstich, a recently immigrated illegal alien now working as a janitor in the building. The memos – all dated in 2005 – uncover a massive investigation into terrorist activities via widespread wiretapping programs conducted both domestically and overseas by the N.S.A.

After years of monitoring the electronic communications of millions of Americans, as well as thousands of foreigners, four genuine suspects were caught planning terrorist activities. Ibrihim Abdul Mulloka, an Algierian and card carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood, representing the most formidable threat, had concocted elaborate plans to poison the soft chocolate ice cream at a Dairy Barn in Swiddleville, a small town in West Virginia, on August 2, 2004 along with Muhhamad Dahmid Ramalamid, a green tea farmer from Afghanistan. The plot, according to Stanley R. Billock, Deputy of Homeland Wiretap Operations, would have “ruined the lives of scores of innocent children.”

The second threat, equally ominous, was posed by Abdullah Kalfaruk, a Cleveland youth, born Sandy G. Hollister, who converted to Islam in 2002. Mr. Kalfaruk, and two other converts, Ali Aksafar and Jilhadi Dahlilabod, intended on the night of October 17, 2003 to lace the gas tanks of cars parked along Greenwide Avenue in Cleveland with Domino sugar, permanently disabling them in order to cripple the American workforce one worker at a time. Their plans targeted many other Cleveland thoroughfares as well as streets in other American cities.

The third threat, oddly enough, was a plot, created by Idressa Makabir, a failed suicide bomber/Miami homemaker, who intended to swindle millions from American Express through a cunning credit card fraud scheme that would’ve netted millions. The money would’ve been sent to Islamic extremists so they could purchase unlimited numbers of the book, Milestones, the ideological tract by Sayyid Qutb, that would then be indiscriminately distributed to American school children for the purposes of brainwashing innocent Americans.

The last threat, initiated by an odd shoemaker in Iraq – Ghafar Mahawon, consisted of a plot to make shoes accessible to plastique explosives that would be far less cumbersome than the standard suicide belt now worn by unfashionably radical bombers. A stockpile of the footwear, including brown and black models, along with beautifully crafted Italian-like spiked heels, was discovered sitting on a dock in Jersey City awaiting distribution.

Aside from those actual threats, a slew of other leads, prompted mainly by pranksters and cranks, are also accounted for in the N.S.A. memos. The investigations, however, did lead to a number of startling and unexpected revelations that were not actual threats but indirect dangers to American security. Above all, it was revealed, there is a sizable percentage of the American public, perhaps as much as 23% of the general population, who are highly critical of the Iraqi war and even have the nerve to question the President’s integrity regarding Homeland policies.

This group, termed the Mutinous Americans, doubt the rational for the war, are convinced that a nascent civil war is brewing in Iraq, believe that most politicians are being bought and paid for by big business, and last, but not least, think that the government and most of the people in it need a radical overall. These thinking beings represent “The gravest threat to American security out there, more than those Moslem fundamentalists,” N.S.A. Bureau Chief, Mortimer C. Caruthers, insists in one of the memos.

These so-called thinking Americans are, for the most part, expressing themselves on blogs, as opposed to rallying grass roots events and marches so that their numbers don’t appear threatening. But, Caruthers noted, “If this contingency – a veritable domestic insurgency – continues with their anarchistic efforts, a remedy will be necessitated. At this point, a number of options have been considered, including an embargo of their economic assets, the spread of a limited, genetically engineered pandemic aimed to attack only truly active brains, and intimidation techniques such as anonymous death threats.

Several techniques garnered from our research are also being considered, including poisoning their ice cream, spiking their gas tanks, selling them explosive footwear and making their children read Milestones in order to convince them of the deadly serious Moslem threat that does exist in this dangerous world.”

The memos are now being examined by a Congressional panel and a public inquiry is scheduled for the fall. Meanwhile Mr. Gvingstich is being held at Sing-Sing. His bail was set at $1 billion.

#

arty kraft added these pithy words on 01 Apr 06 at 7:39 am

The word lineage was not intended to be read literally as a chronical one. OK, reasons the American Revolution should be called a revolution: a) it was the replacement of one form of government with another b) it already has the word revolution in it. Can you define ‘traditional rights’ by the way (are we talking about the social contract?). I’m not sure if traditional in the sense of established rights can be defined (or existed) in pre-revolutionary France, Russia, or America. But if you are speaking of inherent rights, then I agree with you.

Reasons the American Revolution should not be called a revolution: a) the American Revolution was not a grass roots movement or what we would traditionally think of as revolutionary progression—it was very top-down. Ie. Mr. Adams & Mr. Washington did not like losing their money without having some stake in the King’s government.

On your third point, I would say that individual/mob terror manifested itself as much as state terror. Yes, the Directory, BUT I would say this is a reflection more then an intellectual movement. I will leave you with a slightly unrelated quote by Danton (French Revolutionary turned bourgeois hypocrite turned head chopped off by Robespierre): “The Revolution is like Mercury, devouring all of its children”.

alec added these pithy words on 01 Apr 06 at 2:00 pm
Return to Top

Conspiracy Theory and American Politics

Posted on 31 Mar 06 by Younghusband. Subscribe to follow comments on this post. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

DISCUSSION / RECENT ACTIVITY

TAGS / TOPICS AND REGIONS