Re: The Paranoid Style in Nazi Germany & the U.S. Today
Thanks for your post. Since receiving it, I have been mulling over a thought-provoking observation you made:
I believe the myths you outline were not actually
based in paranoia, but purposefully created and promulgated, unlike
"traditional" or classic socio-historic myths that are often hard to trace back to their source.
This is a very crucial point in analyzing all "paranoid style" movements, not just the Nazi movement. (I'll get to the definition of the paranoid style later.) To what extent are they spontaneous, and to what extent are they "artifically" created and manipulated from above?
In the Nazi case, I would see it as a combination. On the one hand, certain elements were "spontaneous", or "traditional", as you put it, a standing feature of the "folklore". That is notably (and notoriously)true of the myth of the Jewish Plot against Christianity/civilization/Germany/whatever..In a recent book ('Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From')Daniel Pipes notes that the Jewish Plot myth goes as far back as to the First Crusades.
In turn-of-the-century Germany (and indeed throughout Europe) intellectuals helped "refine" this myth, until Hitler came upon it, added a few touches of his own, and incorporated it into his Weltanschauung. Other elements in the Nazi mythos were indeed newly fabricated.
The next step? Pipes advances what I think is a very illuminating idea: the believer in the mythic conspiracy creates a real conspiracy to counter it. The conspiracy theorist becomes a conspiracist! Virtually the only successful conspiracies have been counter-conspiracies, according to Pipes. He notes the following about Hitler specifically (from a radio interview about his book):
Take Hitler. He believed in a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. What he did to counter that alleged Jewish conspiracy was to create a real conspiracy, the Nazi Party, and he took a number of ideas from the alleged Jewish conspiracy and made them part of his Nazi movement, and the Nazi movement was an attempt to take over the
world.......And so my policy conclusion from this is: when you hear a conspiracy theory being alleged, watch out for the [real] conspiracy.
holysmoke.org
The question that you raised, of course, still remains: did Hitler actually believe in a Jewish conspiracy, or did he just pretend to believe it, and use it to manipulate the masses? Both?
2) What is the "paranoid style", specifically? Richard Hofstadter's classic book, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, defines it as follows:
The distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents see conspiracies or plots here and there in history, but that they regard a 'vast' or 'gigantic' conspiracy as the motive force in historical events...The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of this 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.
To elaborate on one point that Hofstader makes: not all believers in a conspiracy can be said to display a "paranoid style". For example, I may see a real, but limited conspiracy out there (i.e., a real cabal is plotting to take over the government of Fredonia); or, my belief (that such a cabal is trying to take over the government of Fredonia) may be wrong, but it nevertheless does not color my entire political vision.
Again, as Hofstadter puts it:
In paranoid political philosophies, the world is divided into us and them. Evil conspirators control world events. A special few have been given the knowledge of this massive conspiracy and it is their solemn duty to spread the alarm across the land.
In the past, conspiracy theorists like Hitler -- and Lenin's Bolsheviks -- used this rhetoric when they were out of power, in order to get into power; and once in power, they used it to eliminate their "enemies."
Do we see any parallels in America today? Certainly, paranoid styles have appeared in America in the past, otherwise Hofstadter would not have written his book.
Forgive me, MrK, but I don't see any parallels here with the Clinton administration, however much you may think the President lies. Clinton did not use a paranoid style in order to get into power, and he is not using it now. (Hillary Clinton's reference to a "vast right wing conspiracy" is a special case, which I would like to get into at another time.)
I think we do see some classic paranoids. Louis Farrakhan may be a very good example. There is even a book out on the subject (I have not read it): "The Farrakhan Phenomenon; Race, Reaction And The Paranoid Style In American Politics."
For the most part, however, the classic paranoids seem to be "on the fringe."
I am more troubled by the degree to which paranoid-style rhetoric has oozed into the general political discourse in this country, and has begun to permeate it more and more. Particularly troubling is the scapegoating, the demonizing of the opponent. To what extent does this rhetoric represent the way people really think?
For example, what about the vision of the "assault" of the Evil Liberals on our "liberties" and "values", with its resultant "catastrophic moral decline", and which, if not arrested, will lead to God knows what? And (let's be fair here) what about the counter-vision of hordes of fanatic bible-thumpers from the Religious Right, who, if not checked, will burn all our books and put us all in concentration-camps?
Everywhere I see an "us vs. them" mentality. Needless to say, it is not conducive to reaching mutual understanding and consensus. And, as in the Hitler case, I think it may be legitimate to ask how much of this is "spontaneous," and how much is being deliberately cultivated by "forces" that wish to gain, or to stay in, power.
Your thoughts?
jbe
|
