According to Hofstadter’s article, he describes many different cases in the history of American politics that show a certain style. I believe that this certain style, “paranoid” style, is a great term for what the reality truly is behind all of these arguments, issues, and conspiracies within modern day society. According to many people, after 9/11 occurred there were many conspiracies about how it occurred, who knew about it, and who was truly in charge of such sick acts on American soil. Although conspiracies like this one have been going on for many years behind the eyes of American politics, I believe that this one is a great example. I have personally followed many blogs and conspiracy posts on 9/11, not that I agree with them, but I am interested in the American people’s thoughts on the disaster and why they think such a certain way. People have claimed that George Bush, the president of the United States, was in charge of 9/11. I personally believe that people who believe that are completely outrageous and are looking for something to make up and let others feed off of it. With that being said, the conspiracies that have been spread about 9/11, whatever the case might be have been spread more and more in this day in age due to technology and the internet. People who have responded to these conspiracies show this “fear” that I believe would be what Hofstadter calls “paranoid” style. I feel that they get a sense of doubt in America’s security system and a doubt in America’s government in general. 9/11 conspiracies, to me show some of the best examples of the “paranoid” style of contemporary issues in modern day politics.
Paranoia within the American Political spectrum has been around since the inception of the United States Federal Government. I think a great recent example of this type of ideology is clearly permeated throughout the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security. When American began their infamous “War on Terror”, they seemed to use that as a justification for any decision making that they deemed necessary to help them eradicate the enemy. By utilizing the attacks of 9/11 as a rallying point, politicians were able to help pass legislation such as the Patriot Act, to monitor the people within their country. The establishment of the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security was primarily taken as an action to make sure any type of act like 9/11 was not repeated. America was paranoid that something like that would happen again, and felt that monitoring the individuals and citizens of the country was the best method of action. These actions were hardly, if at all effective. In the frontline report titled Are We Safer? by Dana Priest, Priest investigates the legitimacy and importance of the Department of Homeland security. During this investigation, she finds out that the Department of Homeland security has created fusion centers, that collect data from cameras that read license plates and are on street corners to help report so called “suspicious activity” to local police and the federal government. Eleven years since the attacks, the states with this technology have yet to capture any so-called “terrorists”, but has built a huge database that analyzes information on a large amount of residents who haven’t even done anything wrong.
I believe the current political concern about Iran’s development of nuclear capability falls under the type of paranoia described in Hofstedter’s essay. If find it especially interesting that the paranoid rhetoric has been used by both Iran and western allies, including the United States. The western perspective has portrayed Iran as a promoter of terrorist organizations, and the current focus on its development of nuclear capability helps clarify them as an evil empire to be feared. Western countries believe that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons. They insist that much of the current concern would be alleviated if Ahmadinejad would agree to United Nations demands for inspection of their nuclear development operations.
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, conversely, has portrayed the United States as the axis of evil. For example, a March 26th story by Akbar Borisov on Yahoo! News reported that Ahmadinehjad claimed that the U.S. used the war on terror as a pretext to encircle the entire strategic region from Russia to South Asia. He blamed US presence on Afghanistan’s soil for all of the problems in that country. As for the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad maintains that Iran’s nuclear program is for research and peaceful energy. He insists that the UN can no longer dictate policy to the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, Israel is reported to be very close to declaring war against Iran, and the United States has not ruled out that option. Therefore, I expect the paranoid rhetoric from both sides to increase.
Richard Hofstadter clearly defines the idea of paranoid conspiracy. His argument, conspiracies can be found throughout history, and paranoid conspiracy comes from the idea that history itself is the conspiracy. The push of events towards a single conclusion by an all powerful group, Illuminati, Catholics, or Communists, are what defines the paranoid conspiracy. There is paranoia everywhere, especially now that we have tweeter, facebook, even you newspapers gone viral. One major paranoia that always comes to mind, especially since most of my family live in mexico. THe drug cartel that are ruining american soil. Its been an ongoing war with the boarders of mexico, and Americans are beginning to feel hopeless, especially since it's only gotten worse. They the was mexico has been portrayed is this "evil" country that can not be trust or ignored. They've convince americans that even the President of Mexico - Felipe Calderón must be in on the Drug war. Which bring more of a paranoia not only to all the Americans but to the citizens of Mexico as well. I feel that with more and more time the paranoia will only continue to escalate in this country.
The fear appeal that is most apparent to me, maybe due to my Pauline political viewpoints, but nonetheless being salient, is the fear appeal that all the other GOP candidates perpetrated that Ron Paul's foreign policy was a death wish for Americans. The candidates, namely, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Bachman presented Paul's foreign policy plan as absurdly dangerous and an evil entity in itself. They claimed that is Paul was to be elected that terrorists would be free to attack as they pleased and many times said explicitly that an attack would happen is Paul was elected. They presented countries like Iran as an evil superpower who could never be reasoned with and who would attack, without a shadow of a doubt, if they ever got the chance. Paul's plan was easily attainable but fear appeals took heart in the American public and America's "duty" as the world's police is still seen as a necessity to sustain freedom not just in the world but in order to sustain the freedom in our own country. If the U.S. doesn't intervene whenever freedom is threatened, their freedom is threatened seems to be a main idea. Hofstedter points out all of those factors as aspect of the paranoid sense of politics. The binary nature of the right and wrong foreign policy as well as the apocalyptic nature of describing Paul's foreign policy made the GOP's fear striking rhetoric a prime example of Hofstedter's paranoid politics.
Richards Hofstadter describes the paranoid style as modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant. I think one issue that is been constant ever since 911 is the safety of our country. In the article it goes through history and reveals the times where we didnt know if our country was safe and it still is happening today. With the war going on, who is not allowed to be paranoid for their safety? Today's society has calmed down on the paranoid state since 911 but it hasnt completely gone away.
Hofstadter emphasizes that his description of the paranoid style is use more for bad purposes than good purposes. An example of this that we would see in contemporary American politics would be how seemingly every piece of legislation is a life or death situation. If the healthcare bill didn't pass many people would die. The so called death-panels it created would "sentence" people to death by refusing to pay medical bills. I would doubt that either of those statements were true. The fact of the matter is, using that type of discourse in politics only serves the purpose of creating fear and using it to pass agendas that otherwise might not. While we should be passing legislation based on its merits and how it can improve the lives of the American people, we're debating/passing legislation based on how terrified we are that we'll die without it.
Richard Hofstadter’s essay entails his own views and perceptions on the concept of the paranoid style of rhetoric. He describes the paranoid style as the “sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy. “”By more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.” The Hoff describes paranoid images as being much more vivid than that of their past paranoid predecessors. One issue in modern politics that could fall under the type of paranoia described in the essay could be the debate of whether or not the United States should legalize marijuana. Critics relate the consumption of marijuana to the continued curiosity and urge to explore the realms of additional harmful drugs. The heightened state of paranoia resides from the possibility that legalization could potentially make the herb more accessible to young children, therefore setting them up for a life of drug abuse. Although the herb has been scientifically proven to have medicinal benefits, critics find themselves reprimanded by The Hoff’s paranoid style. History’s revelations to the issue also contribute to the grouping with the paranoid style. Past conspiracies have been embedded in the minds of older generations, which seem to have formed an inaccurate cultural belief of harm that relates to paranoid misunderstanding. The Hoff’s paranoid style also “sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms.” Which is ultimately how the government views the decision of the legalization of marijuana.
The paranoid style of rhetoric described by Richard Hofstadter is best exemplified in recent American politics by the corn/ethanol debate. On either side of the argument there is paranoia aplenty. Environmentally, ethanol was introduced as a gasoline substitute to help minimize the American dependency on crude oil as well as reduce green house emissions. The level of concern the U.S. gives environmental issues is uncertain at best we care but usually not enough to change our easy lifestyles. A paranoia about our continual destruction of the environment without really ever changing our methods--this is the definition of insanity. Ethanol is comparable to the obesity problem in America; everyone wants to be skinnier but would rather buy a pill that supposedly will miraculously initiate weight loss instead of quit eating junk everyday and getting off the couch. America cares enough to buy ethanol, get paranoid about the environment and then not give up the SUV trip across the country. After Americans’ mild hysteria over the greatness of ethanol reality sets in, paranoia ensues in the opposite direction. Suddenly everyone realizes that ethanol takes the same amount of energy to produce as oil (tractors run on diesel) and spreads out the environmental impacts, not minimizing them at all. Consequently ethanol creates a false demand for corn, forcing prices to more than double in recent years. This alone forces farmers out of business and drives food prices through the roof in an already starving world. Now the same people who were paranoid about the environment are concerned about starvation because corn is America’s largest legal cash crop. Doubling the price has a profound impact around the globe, especially in starving societies.
The paranoid style that Hofstadters describes is prevalent in American politics. Our leaders and politicians have tended to use exaggerated rhetoric to describe situations in a drastic manner to gain the publics attention. A great issue that was highlighted by the media for a while (and is currently still a hot issue) is Iran’s actions on developing their nuclear program. President Obama’s rhetoric and our governments new sanctions and exemptions with Iran have shown the seriousness of the situation. Newt Gingrich is very critical of President Obama and his actions against Iran. The rhetoric that Gingrich uses shows a classic example of exaggerated rhetoric to gain the publics attention about an issue that he wishes to shed light on. He said “In a Gingrich administration we would not keep talking while the Iranians keep building. We would indicate clearly that their failure to stop their program is in fact crossing a red line. The red line is not the morning a bomb goes off. The red line is not the morning our intelligence community tells us they have failed once again. The red line is now because the Iranians now are deepening their fortifications, deepening their underground laboratories, deepening their commitment to nuclear weapons while we talk”.
According to Hofstadter’s article, he describes many different cases in the history of American politics that show a certain style. I believe that this certain style, “paranoid” style, is a great term for what the reality truly is behind all of these arguments, issues, and conspiracies within modern day society. According to many people, after 9/11 occurred there were many conspiracies about how it occurred, who knew about it, and who was truly in charge of such sick acts on American soil. Although conspiracies like this one have been going on for many years behind the eyes of American politics, I believe that this one is a great example. I have personally followed many blogs and conspiracy posts on 9/11, not that I agree with them, but I am interested in the American people’s thoughts on the disaster and why they think such a certain way. People have claimed that George Bush, the president of the United States, was in charge of 9/11. I personally believe that people who believe that are completely outrageous and are looking for something to make up and let others feed off of it. With that being said, the conspiracies that have been spread about 9/11, whatever the case might be have been spread more and more in this day in age due to technology and the internet. People who have responded to these conspiracies show this “fear” that I believe would be what Hofstadter calls “paranoid” style. I feel that they get a sense of doubt in America’s security system and a doubt in America’s government in general. 9/11 conspiracies, to me show some of the best examples of the “paranoid” style of contemporary issues in modern day politics.
ReplyDeleteParanoia within the American Political spectrum has been around since the inception of the United States Federal Government. I think a great recent example of this type of ideology is clearly permeated throughout the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security. When American began their infamous “War on Terror”, they seemed to use that as a justification for any decision making that they deemed necessary to help them eradicate the enemy. By utilizing the attacks of 9/11 as a rallying point, politicians were able to help pass legislation such as the Patriot Act, to monitor the people within their country. The establishment of the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security was primarily taken as an action to make sure any type of act like 9/11 was not repeated. America was paranoid that something like that would happen again, and felt that monitoring the individuals and citizens of the country was the best method of action. These actions were hardly, if at all effective. In the frontline report titled Are We Safer? by Dana Priest, Priest investigates the legitimacy and importance of the Department of Homeland security. During this investigation, she finds out that the Department of Homeland security has created fusion centers, that collect data from cameras that read license plates and are on street corners to help report so called “suspicious activity” to local police and the federal government. Eleven years since the attacks, the states with this technology have yet to capture any so-called “terrorists”, but has built a huge database that analyzes information on a large amount of residents who haven’t even done anything wrong.
DeleteI believe the current political concern about Iran’s development of nuclear capability falls under the type of paranoia described in Hofstedter’s essay. If find it especially interesting that the paranoid rhetoric has been used by both Iran and western allies, including the United States. The western perspective has portrayed Iran as a promoter of terrorist organizations, and the current focus on its development of nuclear capability helps clarify them as an evil empire to be feared. Western countries believe that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons. They insist that much of the current concern would be alleviated if Ahmadinejad would agree to United Nations demands for inspection of their nuclear development operations.
ReplyDeleteIran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, conversely, has portrayed the United States as the axis of evil. For example, a March 26th story by Akbar Borisov on Yahoo! News reported that Ahmadinehjad claimed that the U.S. used the war on terror as a pretext to encircle the entire strategic region from Russia to South Asia. He blamed US presence on Afghanistan’s soil for all of the problems in that country. As for the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad maintains that Iran’s nuclear program is for research and peaceful energy. He insists that the UN can no longer dictate policy to the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, Israel is reported to be very close to declaring war against Iran, and the United States has not ruled out that option. Therefore, I expect the paranoid rhetoric from both sides to increase.
Richard Hofstadter clearly defines the idea of paranoid conspiracy. His argument, conspiracies can be found throughout history, and paranoid conspiracy comes from the idea that history itself is the conspiracy. The push of events towards a single conclusion by an all powerful group, Illuminati, Catholics, or Communists, are what defines the paranoid conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteThere is paranoia everywhere, especially now that we have tweeter, facebook, even you newspapers gone viral. One major paranoia that always comes to mind, especially since most of my family live in mexico. THe drug cartel that are ruining american soil. Its been an ongoing war with the boarders of mexico, and Americans are beginning to feel hopeless, especially since it's only gotten worse. They the was mexico has been portrayed is this "evil" country that can not be trust or ignored. They've convince americans that even the President of Mexico - Felipe Calderón must be in on the Drug war. Which bring more of a paranoia not only to all the Americans but to the citizens of Mexico as well. I feel that with more and more time the paranoia will only continue to escalate in this country.
The fear appeal that is most apparent to me, maybe due to my Pauline political viewpoints, but nonetheless being salient, is the fear appeal that all the other GOP candidates perpetrated that Ron Paul's foreign policy was a death wish for Americans. The candidates, namely, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Bachman presented Paul's foreign policy plan as absurdly dangerous and an evil entity in itself. They claimed that is Paul was to be elected that terrorists would be free to attack as they pleased and many times said explicitly that an attack would happen is Paul was elected. They presented countries like Iran as an evil superpower who could never be reasoned with and who would attack, without a shadow of a doubt, if they ever got the chance. Paul's plan was easily attainable but fear appeals took heart in the American public and America's "duty" as the world's police is still seen as a necessity to sustain freedom not just in the world but in order to sustain the freedom in our own country. If the U.S. doesn't intervene whenever freedom is threatened, their freedom is threatened seems to be a main idea. Hofstedter points out all of those factors as aspect of the paranoid sense of politics. The binary nature of the right and wrong foreign policy as well as the apocalyptic nature of describing Paul's foreign policy made the GOP's fear striking rhetoric a prime example of Hofstedter's paranoid politics.
ReplyDeleteRichards Hofstadter describes the paranoid style as modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant. I think one issue that is been constant ever since 911 is the safety of our country. In the article it goes through history and reveals the times where we didnt know if our country was safe and it still is happening today. With the war going on, who is not allowed to be paranoid for their safety? Today's society has calmed down on the paranoid state since 911 but it hasnt completely gone away.
ReplyDeleteHofstadter emphasizes that his description of the paranoid style is use more for bad purposes than good purposes. An example of this that we would see in contemporary American politics would be how seemingly every piece of legislation is a life or death situation. If the healthcare bill didn't pass many people would die. The so called death-panels it created would "sentence" people to death by refusing to pay medical bills. I would doubt that either of those statements were true. The fact of the matter is, using that type of discourse in politics only serves the purpose of creating fear and using it to pass agendas that otherwise might not. While we should be passing legislation based on its merits and how it can improve the lives of the American people, we're debating/passing legislation based on how terrified we are that we'll die without it.
ReplyDeleteRichard Hofstadter’s essay entails his own views and perceptions on the concept of the paranoid style of rhetoric. He describes the paranoid style as the “sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy. “”By more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.” The Hoff describes paranoid images as being much more vivid than that of their past paranoid predecessors. One issue in modern politics that could fall under the type of paranoia described in the essay could be the debate of whether or not the United States should legalize marijuana. Critics relate the consumption of marijuana to the continued curiosity and urge to explore the realms of additional harmful drugs. The heightened state of paranoia resides from the possibility that legalization could potentially make the herb more accessible to young children, therefore setting them up for a life of drug abuse. Although the herb has been scientifically proven to have medicinal benefits, critics find themselves reprimanded by The Hoff’s paranoid style. History’s revelations to the issue also contribute to the grouping with the paranoid style. Past conspiracies have been embedded in the minds of older generations, which seem to have formed an inaccurate cultural belief of harm that relates to paranoid misunderstanding. The Hoff’s paranoid style also “sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms.” Which is ultimately how the government views the decision of the legalization of marijuana.
ReplyDeleteThe paranoid style of rhetoric described by Richard Hofstadter is best exemplified in recent American politics by the corn/ethanol debate. On either side of the argument there is paranoia aplenty. Environmentally, ethanol was introduced as a gasoline substitute to help minimize the American dependency on crude oil as well as reduce green house emissions. The level of concern the U.S. gives environmental issues is uncertain at best we care but usually not enough to change our easy lifestyles. A paranoia about our continual destruction of the environment without really ever changing our methods--this is the definition of insanity. Ethanol is comparable to the obesity problem in America; everyone wants to be skinnier but would rather buy a pill that supposedly will miraculously initiate weight loss instead of quit eating junk everyday and getting off the couch. America cares enough to buy ethanol, get paranoid about the environment and then not give up the SUV trip across the country.
ReplyDeleteAfter Americans’ mild hysteria over the greatness of ethanol reality sets in, paranoia ensues in the opposite direction. Suddenly everyone realizes that ethanol takes the same amount of energy to produce as oil (tractors run on diesel) and spreads out the environmental impacts, not minimizing them at all. Consequently ethanol creates a false demand for corn, forcing prices to more than double in recent years. This alone forces farmers out of business and drives food prices through the roof in an already starving world. Now the same people who were paranoid about the environment are concerned about starvation because corn is America’s largest legal cash crop. Doubling the price has a profound impact around the globe, especially in starving societies.
The paranoid style that Hofstadters describes is prevalent in American politics. Our leaders and politicians have tended to use exaggerated rhetoric to describe situations in a drastic manner to gain the publics attention. A great issue that was highlighted by the media for a while (and is currently still a hot issue) is Iran’s actions on developing their nuclear program. President Obama’s rhetoric and our governments new sanctions and exemptions with Iran have shown the seriousness of the situation.
ReplyDeleteNewt Gingrich is very critical of President Obama and his actions against Iran. The rhetoric that Gingrich uses shows a classic example of exaggerated rhetoric to gain the publics attention about an issue that he wishes to shed light on. He said “In a Gingrich administration we would not keep talking while the Iranians keep building. We would indicate clearly that their failure to stop their program is in fact crossing a red line. The red line is not the morning a bomb goes off. The red line is not the morning our intelligence community tells us they have failed once again. The red line is now because the Iranians now are deepening their fortifications, deepening their underground laboratories, deepening their commitment to nuclear weapons while we talk”.