There seems to be no escape from what Hofstadter calls “the paranoid style” of politics. And why there should be? After all it is a “style of mind”, and a “way of seeing the world and of expressing oneself.” It is universal and not limited to American politics. It is a feeling of suspicion, a feeling that can happen to anyone, anywhere on this planet, irrespective of their political leaning or ideological background. I am not even sure if we could call it a “distorted style”, because as a belief system it has had rational and historical basis for those who believed and continue to believe in it. Otherwise it is difficult to suggest reasons for the continued recurrence of this paranoia over time. The Mosanic movement of 14 or 15th century, the Bavarian Illuminati of 1776, McCarthyism of 1940s and 1950s, the Arizonian Senator Barry Morris Goldwater’s antagonism towards soviets, labor unions and welfare state leading to the Goldwater Movement of 1960s or the Patriotic Act of 2001 as an aftermath of the 9/11 attacks are a few examples, and the list continues.
To talk of one example, McCarthyism was based on fear and suspicion; a well founded fear though I think. The Communist Manifesto was not wrong; the “specter of Communism” was haunting the capitalist world. Fear driven policies were a logical outcome considering the then circumstances. Fear however was a mutual feeling, thus paranoid style of mind too. Soviets were equally in fear of imperialist forces, a fear which was demonstrated in their policies and actions in countries such as Afghanistan. Well trained by Soviets, Afghan government and its KGB modeled KHAD adopted the same style of mind from late 1970s to early 1990s. There were so many informants recruited that it was hard to even trust one’s own family members. They were everywhere, in your office, in your school, in your college, in your home, in your cultural ceremonies, even in public bathhouses, reporting on your words and actions. I have no memory of this, yet family stories have fed my imagination overtime, a somewhat close depiction of which I saw in “The Lives of Others.” However, as I said, it was mutual. CIA backed religious fundamentalist parties who controlled most of the rural areas had a similar behavior pattern. Anyone with an urban look was a suspicious character and thus there was reason to believe that he could be a Soviet spy. The anti-Soviet anti-Mujahideen pro-Mao apparently genuine left movement was not different either. Out of fear, they not only used a network of informants but also targeted possible Soviet or religious fundamentalist parties’ spies in Pakistan and even in Europe; they continue to consider themselves a target of imperialism which is how they justify their clandestine style of political activism. The funny part is that they operate -secretly of course- in the form of non-governmental development organizations, receive funds from donors -imperialists- but continue to be suspicious of their infiltration within their ranks.
None of these groups were wrong though. There were Soviet, Mujahideen and left movement spies doing all sorts of things. Ellen Schrecker rightly points towards McCarthyism as “no aberration” but a protective “reaction” of a nation in the face of enemies at home. What strikes me though is the biased analysis of paranoid style of mind depending on which side it is coming from; when governments are paranoid we call it homeland security, but when opposition groups are suspicious and fearful of government, we call it outdated conspiracy theory and immediately discard it.