Revisiting Richard Hofstadter's essay 'The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt' (1955). Here are the highlights of an essay that was in many ways prescient: (thread)

Hofstadter sketches out a distinction between restrained conservatism and pseudoconservatives revolting against the present. It's a shame he drew so heavily on Adorno's research, which doesn't offer him much.
But this characterization of pseudoconservatives resonates deeply right now.
Hofstadter considers causes, but also hints at business interests (and nowadays donors) harnessing pseudoconservatism, and highlights how making money through pseudoconservatism incentivizes paranoia. Consider Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Dinesh D'Souza and so on.
Why are pseudoconservatives obsessed by the threat of *their own government*, Hofstadter wonders.
Hofstadter famously and controversially answers that modernity's instability and America's complex sense of identity fuels status anxiety and conflict.
The status politics stuff hasn't aged perfectly, as Hofstadter himself quickly realized (in this postscript), but at the time, it was a dramatically new type of analysis in addition to basic economic interests.
Today, I think we would talk about the previous normative certainties of race, gender, sex, religion changing over the past 60 years and the reaction to that, blasted through partisan media (which is in part a direct successor to Hofstadter's pseudoconservatives.)
Why now, Hofstadter asks. Partly because new waves of immigrants no longer provide a step up the status ladder. Today we might say the unsettling of racial, religious and gender hierarchies disrupts often white, evangelical/conservative Catholic and male status.
Hofstadter fingers the mass media as a cause, today it is massively intensified by the participatory and personalizable nature of the Internet.
And the long period of liberal dominance, which the right now feels as sustained and total, incorporating all aspects of politics and culture.
Although pseudoconservatism is a small phenomenon, it has outsized influence. "In...
Hofstadter sees parts of pseudoconservatism as paranoid fantasy, not a new event in history. The past four years has been a Bircherfied right. But where does this pathologizing get us, beyond catharsis? I'm not sure.
Finally, Hofstadter returns to the distinction between conservatism and pseudoconservatism. Pseudoconservatism's total opposition to compromise takes it out of the bounds of democratic politics. Instead, it is "implicit utopianism." /Fin.

More from History

THREAD: With #silversqueeze trending on Twitter, it appears that this week's market spectacle may well be in the silver market.

A perfect moment for a thread on the Hunt Brothers and their alleged attempt to corner the silver market...


1/ First, let's set the stage.

The Hunt Brothers - Nelson Bunker Hunt, William Herbert Hunt, and Lamar Hunt - were the sons of Texas tycoon H.L. Hunt.

H.L. Hunt had amassed a billion-dollar fortune in the oil industry.

He died in 1974 and left that fortune to his family.


2/ After H.L.'s passing, the Hunt Brothers had taken over the family holdings and successfully managed to expand the Hunt empire.

By the late 1970s, the family's fortune was estimated to be ~$5 billion.

In the financial world, the Hunt name was as good as gold (or silver!).


3/ But the 1970s were a turbulent time in America.

Following the oil crisis of the early 1970s, the U.S. had entered a period of stagflation - a dire macroeconomic condition characterized by high inflation, low growth, and high unemployment.


4/ The Hunt Brothers - particularly Nelson Bunker and William Herbert - believed that the inflationary environment would persist and destroy the value of their family's holdings.

To hedge this risk, they turned to silver.

They began buying the metal at ~$3 per ounce in 1973.
Folks who don't know history just tweet whatever they want.

On Feb 1935, Bose attacked the Nazis as he was angry as Indians were described as Sub-Humans in Mein Kampf. The British arrested Bose in April 1936, because he insulted the Nazis.

#Thread


The West at this point had a soft spot for the Nazis. France, Great Britain, Netherlands, Poland all gave the Nazi Salute during the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.

Even during the Spanish Civil War (1936 - 1939), the Western powers observed neutrality as the Fascists rose in Spain.


In 1937, Hitler told British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax that one of his fav movies was ‘The Lives of a Bengal Lancer’. Why?

‘The Lives of a Bengal Lancer’ depicted a handful of "superior race" Brits holding sway over an entire Indian subcontinent (Sub-Humans).

"Shoot Gandhi. If necessary, shoot more Congress Leaders (Nehru & Bose)."

- Hitler to Lord Halifax, Britain's Foreign Secretary

This statement by Hitler in 1937 angered many pro-Leftist leaders of the INC including Bose.

Bose reached London in Jan 1938, and he met many leaders of the British Labour Party including Attlee.

1938 & 1939 were two huge years for the Indian National Congress. As i always say, the 10-year phase from 1938 - 1948 shaped modern India and it began in 1938 Haripura session.

You May Also Like