Back in 1964, Historian Richard Hofstadter wrote the now-classic “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” for Harper’s Magazine. According to Hofstadter, this style of mind was characterized by “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy”, commonly expressed in an “apocalyptic and absolutistic framework”. Hofstadter goes on:
“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.”
The enemy in this paranoid narrative is a “perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving”, who:
“…manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. …Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing)…”
Sound familiar? It should. If it doesn’t, sleep on it.
Next: Part II: An Illustration of the Paranoid Style in American Politics
—
Reference: The Paranoid Style in American Politics by Richard Hofstadter/ November 1964 issue of Harper’s Magazine https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/