The Manic-Depressive Style in American Politics

[struggle4progress]

Many years ago, Richard Hofstadter wrote famously of The Paranoid Style in American Politics: American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wind. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant

Hofstadter is still worth reading today. But as long as we are borrowing clinical terms to describe political culture, we might want to consider (beside the paranoid style) a Manic-Depressive style of political conversation, in which there are only two possible emotional states, which one might call "Pollyanna" and "Eeyore." Tied to the railroad track with the train rushing towards her, Pollyanna is simply delighted to be outside on such a very nice summer day; Eeyore, on the other hand, is certain that it will rain. Pollyanna is quite sure anyone who sees anything negative has created it through downer vibes, whereas Eeyore is quite sure that anyone who sees anything positive is a nitwit doomed shortly to a rude awakening. Thus Pollyanna thinks anyone who disagrees with her must be under the malevolent influence of Eeyore, whereas Eeyore thinks anyone who disagrees with him must be under the malevolent influence of Pollyanna. This makes conversation with either tedious, because neither listens. In fact, they are almost interchangeable: Pollyanna, if once disillusioned, transforms rather easily into Eeyore, who in turn really cannot imagine any worldview beyond his own, except that of Pollyanna. The metamorphosis from Eeyore to Pollyanna and back to Eeyore has occurred among many of us, who spent the Bush years under a glum cloud, briefly saw only visions of sugarplums after the November 2008 elections, but then quickly ducked back under the comfortable cloud that we were as accustomed to wear as Joe Btfsplk

http://s3.amazonaws.com.nyud.net:8090/mmc-beta-production/assets/6818/lil_abner_article.jpg