Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

Blog

Roundtable

  • Peter Struck

    Perfecting the Paranoid Style

    Tags:
    ,
    ,
    ,
    ,

    beck-time-cover.jpgFrom Buckley to Beck

    Back in 1996, I had a correspondence with William F. Buckley, Jr., who, like many of those on the Right at the time, had a habit of claiming ownership over the ideas and spirit of the classical past. So it wasn’t altogether surprising to see him on television aligning himself with Socrates and pressing for the triumph of absolutes over relativism. What did catch my ear was that Buckley was arguing in favor of the death penalty, and was using Socrates to make his case. I couldn’t resist writing the man about the cruel irony of holding up as a poster boy for the death penalty the Western Tradition’s most famous victim of it. Buckley responded promptly, but never really engaged the most challenging issue: that Socrates, the paragon of classical rationalism, was deeply suspicious of that other signature legacy of his countrymen, democracy. He saw it as a system of government whose weakness was precisely that it rewarded those who could most artfully whip up a bunch of hot-headed boobs with the power to kill whoever displeased them. At its worst, it was rule by mob.

    Seeing the doughy face of Glenn Beck extending his tongue at me from the cover of Time magazine last month made me recall that previous generation of Right-wing dogmatists with a whiff of nostalgia. Buckley, Irving Kristol, and the rest had a comparative seriousness of purpose in their ideas. Their bluster and posturing had an intelligent wrapper to it and they surely appreciated the danger of crowds. Their most recent successor for the Fox News set revels in his theme of pitchforks and barricades. Beck’s message, rooted in disenfranchisement and a quest for simple purity, bubbles out of him each evening in artfully arranged displays of resentment of the type that would make Huey Long and Richard Nixon envious.

    In Slate, David Greenberg recently tried to set the angry Right into historical context by re-evaluating Richard Hofstadter’s essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” the famous 1960s attempt to get a grip on Goldwater followers and John Birch Society members. Greenberg was casting about for better answers as to why some Americans find such an angry politics appealing, but it seemed to me that after swimming through the froth around Beck in recent months, he had allowed Beck’s appeal to become more mysterious than it really is. Nativism and resentment of privilege have an enduring attractiveness. Add a flair for the theatrical, and the truism that angry crowds have momentum, and you hardly need exotic explanations to reckon the appeal. This formula has been successful in many countries and times, and Buckley’s spirit reminded me of the very remote past.

    It Was Cleon Who Shouted the Loudest

    The archetype for Glenn Beck is a fifth century B.C. Athenian figure named Cleon, our first well-documented populist. Cleon represented a new class, made possible for the first time in democratic Athens. The notion that the whole people of Athens should participate in decisions collectively allowed for the rise of figures who presumed to speak for them. Cleon became wildly famous and successful not by coming from a powerful family, or by serving in regular office, but by delivering fiery speeches to thousands of Athenians in public. The Greek sources leave behind an unsparing portrait of an impulsive, histrionic bully. Aristotle tells us that “he was the first to use unseemly shouting and abusive language in the public assembly; and while it was customary to speak politely, he addressed the assembly with his cloak lifted up.” In Thucydides’ version, Cleon’s own lack of a pedigree provided him a plentiful source of resentment against those that had one, and he cast every self-aggrandizing gesture as a motivated by a love of the people over the aristocrats. He flattered his audience as being more capable of governing than the supposed experts in power. He personalized politics and under his influence those who disagreed with the state were referred to, for the first time in ancient Greece, as “haters of the people.” The comic playwright Aristophanes vividly portrayed him on stage as a man in a constant state of anger, his voice resembling the squeal of a scalded pig.

    Beck’s One-Room Schoolhouse

    Beck’s signature piece is an essayistic rant, “The One Thing,” a free-form monologue that can run to lengths that are the television equivalent of War and Peace. The title bespeaks his exasperation, as if after having delivered a long string of wisdom to a noncompliant elite, he wants to make sure they will at least understand this. It is theater for a world on the edge of collapse. His favorite device is a chalk board that he uses to simplify issues. The atmospherics welcome you to Beck’s one-room schoolhouse— simpler times, wholesome educations, homogeneous agrarian center of gravity.

    In a recent week, Beck made the following points: his enemies hate him, but they also hated Benjamin Franklin. His enemies think he is stupid, and he isn’t. His enemies think his audience is stupid, and they aren’t. The only values that motivate him are simple curiosity and his love of country and the truth. Issues are not complicated. Bilingualism is the equivalent of slavery. Obama is committed to redistribution of wealth, so is Michael Moore, and so was mass-murdering dictator Joseph Stalin. The government is forcing people to get injections (health care workers getting swine flu vaccine), giving the rats in your basement lawyers (Cass Sunstein), and indoctrinating your children to love Obama. Democrats at the inauguration of President Obama littered; the crowds at the tea parties in Washington did not (this point occupied him for nearly six minutes).

    But the most powerful rhetorical force was given to multiple reiterations of quotations from Rahm Emanuel that you never want a crisis to go to waste and Obama’s statement on the eve of election that promises fundamental transformation. These last two may speak to you of the idea that the financial crisis offers a chance to fix Wall Street (which actually turns out not to have been taken); and the idea that after eight years of George Bush Americans were hungry for change. For Beck, these statements speak to a government systematically committed to removing individual liberty.

    From Beck to Buckley

    In the line from Cleon to Beck there is hardly a wiggle. Less obvious but telling is the connection between both these figures and Buckley. Driven by an unyielding sense of their own correctness, all three are experts in the trade of absolutes, always pressing toward a higher-contrast world of black and white. While it has become utterly common to see people in the public sphere assume such a posture, it does not stand to reason that they must. Among Republicans, for example, one used to see a strain based on intellectual modesty, of resistance to grand theories and attempts to explain everything. Eisenhower built a coalition around such principles that held up for decades. Obama may well be up to doing the same. In order to get on with fixing what it was possible to fix, they recognized the usefulness of an ability to live with a degree of uncertainty, a quality that Goldwater, and later George Bush and Karl Rove, vanquished from the Republican Party.

    This Republicanism of certainty has had a good run, but it has likely reached the end of its appeal. David Brooks, whose sympathies attune with refinement to Eisenhower Republicanism, sounded its death knell in a recent column in the New York Times. If Beck’s days as the center of attention are numbered, as Brooks claims they are, it will not be because of his coarseness or his rejectionism, but because of his imperviousness to doubt. Intellectual hubris is tiresome in any case, but it is an especially odd standard to use to rally people who understand themselves as conservatives. Certainties are what one needs to upend things, and at a some point conservatives grow uncomfortable with that sort of thing. Cleon, that ancient voice of certainty, was not among the conservative lot at all, but a radical through-and-through.

    While Buckley was of course right to point to Socrates as someone who endorsed the idea that there are absolutes, he missed the most important part of the story. The Greek philosopher was equally convinced that only a fool and a demagogue would claim to know them. If only Buckley were around to teach this lesson too.

    Was Athenian statesman Cleon the original Glenn Beck?

    November 5, 2009
Roundtable Archive Love this? Subscribe to Lapham's Quarterly today.

Comments Post a Comment »

  • Opinions and ideas is what Lapham's broadcast.

    More like: "narrow, closed minded, reclusive".

    Struck runs an oh so typical, left wing, "hit" piece, on the angry Right. Yawn!

    I can read his type of work on the peaceful, loving, Moveon.org and Huffington Post all day long; and for free. He is every bit as virulent and hateful as the posters on those forums.

    Struck is detached and oblivious to the informed, discriminating minds that have spent the time to analyze the issues from the lunatic left to the radical right.

    Thanks to Beck, many have reread history on the founding fathers and found them to be nothing like the description provided by the lunatic left of which Struck is a proud member.

    Struck would fail miserably in the free marketplace of ideas. Let him take his "ideology" to the air waves and TV. Like all of his previous lunatic friends, his "vision" would be trounced in the ratings.

    Posted by William Scott on Sat 7 Nov 2009

  • What part of the history of the founding fathers does the "lunatic left" get wrong? I am curious.

    I find it a bold stretch to pronounce that the Corporate owned Media is anything remotely close to a free market of anything much less ideas.

    Not sure T.V. ratings is a barometer of truth or validity either.

    Posted by Joel on Sat 7 Nov 2009

  • "Like all of his previous lunatic friends, his "vision" would be trounced in the ratings."

    LOL

    Too bad for the right-wing, they always confuse 'ratings' with 'votes'. With a percentage of only 19-20% of American's identifying as Republican's, they will not be able to win another national election for a long, long, time. ;-)

    Posted by lpeg on Sat 7 Nov 2009

  • "What part of the history of the founding fathers does the "lunatic left" get wrong? I am curious."

    Oh come now! I know the lunatic left always falls back on the tried and true: "Separation of Chruch and State" as found in the constitution. Too bad the loonies simply made it up! Never to be found in the constitution. Oh T J did make the reference alright but in a letter to a Baptist's convention.

    You know that TJ wrote Virginia's Sabbath law? The same TJ also wrote ordinances sanctioning days of prayer and fasting in Virginia?

    Hmmm. Only 19-20% are Republicans. Now that is looney! Tell that to Corzine in New Jersey. Tell that to Deeds in Virginia. Tell that to Obama.

    Posted by William Scott on Mon 9 Nov 2009

  • By "TJ" do you mean Thomas Jefferson? This Thomas Jefferson?
    "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."
    -Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800
    Or is this the "TJ" Thomas Jefferson the loonies got wrong?
    "And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.... error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.... I deem the essential principles of our government.... Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; ... freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.
    -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
    Or is it this the "TJ" Thomas Jefferson you mean:
    I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them.
    -Thomas Jefferson, to Levi Lincoln, 1802
    Or this one?
    Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

    Please Dear William pull yourself away from the alter of Mr. Beck and do clear this up for me as I am having a hard time.

    Posted by Joel on Tue 10 Nov 2009

  • What part of the 1st Amendment, specifically the bit about "an establishment of religion," am I making up?

    Posted by dj lane on Wed 18 Nov 2009

  • Simply look at the way Right wingers like Beck and Luntz use language, associating anything they don't like with thugs, lunatics or Hitler, and you know where the toxins of Fascism are accumulating. Fascism is not a left or right issue. Fascism is the rule of the most hostile and hyper-heroic defiant ones and their instinct for talking to the fear of others. They have no real interpersonal skills; they have group skills. "Just listen to us and the world will be better, purer." Fascism is the dopamine rush of feeling outrage and defiance...on steroids. And THIS is what the left and right wrangle over. Who gets to be the righteous savior this week? American Democracy needs to get over this game or it will drown in its own offal and I'll be living in Provence. Read your George Lakoff, O America!

    Posted by Tim on Thu 19 Nov 2009

Post a Comment

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times.

RSS
RSS
Featured Contributor
Peter Struck is Associate Professor of Classical Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of their Texts. Professor Stuck is a member of the Lapham’s Quarterly editorial board.
Recent Posts
  1. Riding the Godless Express — 02/03/2010: The Soviet anti-religious movement revealed it was easier to attack God than successfully install atheism as state religion.
  2. Psalm Pushers — 01/20/2010: Publishing may be in trouble, but the Bible is one book that's always been in demand.
  3. Reverend Billy and Lewis Lapham Compare Notes on God — 01/19/2010: LQ and Killing the Buddha present Lewis Lapham and Fred Phelps at Bookcourt this Thursday.
Archives
  1. February 2010
  2. January 2010
  3. December 2009
Blogroll
The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in the shadow than in the Church.
—Ferdinand Magellan, c. 1510
Events & News
January 28 / Killing the Buddha is pleased to join LQ in celebrating the winter 2010 Religion issue with a reading at Bookcourt. Lewis Lapham will read from the issue and Reverend Billy Talen will perform a discourse on the nature of God. More
Reader Survey Take the LQ reader survey! Your two cents will help us keep making history ... Take Survey
Apropos

In Stir

No. 44