[<< "On the Air America dustup..."] [Archive Index] [>>"Does the White House ever fact-check anything?"]
04/15/2004 Archived Entry: "Interesting, if long, read"
Interesting, if long, read
The Howling Wilderness of Pseudoconservatism. Here's the preface.
"Pseudoconservativism is among other things a disorder in relation to authority, characterized by an inability to find other modes for human relationship than those of more or less complete domination or submission ... The pseudo-conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition ... [He] sees his own country as being so weak that it is constantly about to fall victim to subversion; and yet he feels that it is so all-powerful that any failure it may experience in getting its way in the world ... cannot possibly be due to its limitations but must be attributed to its having been betrayed." Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, 1965.
If you don't have time to read it, bookmark it. It explains a lot.
Replies: 4 people speak up
Noting the date of the writing, I would be hardpressed to describe 2004 conserativism as being that of 1965 conservatism. It has evolved considerably from that time.
When you consider that Johnson's War on Poverty began that very year, you must agree that modern liberalism had its roots about the same time and is starkly different in 2004. John F. Kennedy by most of today's standards would be seen as conservative.
Grampa may have voted for Eisenhower because Lincoln won the war, but by now his party affiliation may likely have changed.
There does seem to be a resurgence in paranoioa....but remember: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!
Posted by Murphy @ 04/15/2004 01:18 PM NY
Who's out to get me? And where did you hear that??
Posted by editor @ 04/15/2004 02:14 PM NY
And BTW, Murph - the date is only for the preface. The rest of the piece is much more recent.
Posted by editor @ 04/15/2004 02:15 PM NY
Yes, I noticed. I just went specifically to the paragraph you mentioned. The rest of the piece is not only more recent, but it was an interesting read as well.
I'm not sure who's out to get you. It's just something I heard...I'm not confirming anything.
Posted by Murphy @ 04/15/2004 04:17 PM NY
