5. But by 1950s, fearful of McCarthyism, Hofstadter recast the American consensus as a shield rather than a straight-jacket: a way for wise bipartisan to fend off the unruliness (and potential violence) of unchecked democracy.
-
Show this thread
-
6. The anti-populist politics that Hofstadter & a few of his peers (notably Daniel Bell) hammered out in 1950s remains widely influential in elite circles: it's the consensus understanding of what is happening in west: "liberal order under siege from extremists" (Trump, Sanders)
4 replies 9 retweets 93 likesShow this thread -
7. Powering this anti-populism is the belief that mass movements that threaten the bipartisan consensus are irrational (motivated by anti-intellectualism, prone to paranoid style). Again, this is not an antiquarian matter: it's how many opinion makers continue to see the world.
1 reply 8 retweets 98 likesShow this thread -
8. So: what's wrong with the idea of having a smart bipartisan elite that marginalizes extreme voices of the right and left? Isn't that an attractive approach to politics? Don't we want stability and continuity?
6 replies 4 retweets 60 likesShow this thread -
9. One way to see the limits of Hofstadter's vision of consensus is to say that he saw the dangers of the extreme left and extreme right but not the dangers of the extreme center: the way in which a bipartisan elite, unchecked, can carry out mad policies: Viet Nam war.
4 replies 25 retweets 201 likesShow this thread -
10. Hofstader's brother-in-law, the socialist novelist Harvey Swados, read his essay on "the Paranoid style" and said: yes, you got Goldwater and the Birch Society down, but isn't what LBJ is doing in Vietnam also an example of the paranoid style.
5 replies 10 retweets 114 likesShow this thread -
11. Hofstadter responded to Swados saying, LBJ's policies are wrong, but not irrational. But Swados was right: LBJ thought North Vietnam was puppet of Red China & anti-war movement simply created by communists. That was pure paranoia, as unhinged as any Birch fantasy.
7 replies 9 retweets 128 likesShow this thread -
12. In our own day, the biggest disasters have been centrist policies: the Iraq War, the 2008 meltdown followed by quick turn to austerity. Iraq was creation of neo-cons, the most "centrist" part of GOP coalition (many are now Never Trumpers) & supported by Clinton/Biden etc.
11 replies 35 retweets 178 likesShow this thread -
13. Hofstadter's widely influential anti-populism encourages an elite complacency that has repeatedly led to disaster. More thoughts here:https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/richard-hofstadter-library-america-review/ …
11 replies 26 retweets 155 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Serious answer: as per Gramsci, elites need plausible ideologies to help sell their self-interested & complacent policies (including sell those policies to themselves). RH's anti-populism has been very influential ideological rational, a pillar of hegemony.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @mattyglesias
PS: The COVID response is the greatest disaster of our times not Iraq, it dwarfs everything. And the response has failed due to an incompetent populist POTUS and a large % of population deluded by anti-elitist/expertise populism, refusing to take even the most basic measures.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Are you fucking kidding?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.