Anders Behring Breivik’s hateful rhetoric is part of a larger right-wing trend demonizing Islam. This kind of discourse, as Richard Hofstadter pointed out in his classic The Paranoid Style in American Politics, views the purported enemy as “being totally evil and totally unappeasable,” thus requiring its utter elimination, “if not from the world, at least from the theater of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention.” America has seen this kind of phenomenon before, with McCarthyism and the Ku Klux Klan, both of which emerged at times during which the United States was confronted with the limits of its power. To understand the likes of Anders Breivik, we must look beyond the American anti-Muslim bloggers who schooled him, and begin to ask what in U.S. politics and society has nurtured these purveyors of hate and paranoia in the first place.
Jack Ross, last updated: August 02, 2011
The mass killings in Norway have caused recriminations on both sides of the U.S. ideological divide. Some observers have highlighted Anders Behring Breivik’s keen interest in American anti-Muslim bloggers like Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, and Andrew McCarthy. These writers and other purveyors of anti-Muslim paranoia are scrambling to deny or minimize their culpability. Most notably, the Rupert Murdoch papers in Britain have insisted on labeling Breivik a neo-Nazi, in spite of his avowed identification with the militarist Israeli right.
But the blame game seriously misses the point. There is no denying that Breivik’s manifesto and beliefs are rooted in a distinctly post-9/11 ideology of anti-Islamism. This relatively new ideology of anti-Islamism reveals much about the deeper pathologies in current U.S. politics.
Critics have also lambasted efforts by some U.S. media outlets to label Breivik a “Christian fundamentalist.” This is a vitally important point to understanding the larger pathology of anti-Islamism. Whereas those who traditionally speak of a “clash of civilizations” refer to a struggle between the “Judeo-Christian West” and “Islam,” the anti-Islamism circulating through the “West” is neither historically Jewish nor Christian. Rather, it is best understood as what the neocon propagandist David Gelernter calls “Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion,” with the other three being Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism—pointedly excluding Islam.
Nearly fifty years ago Richard Hofstadter published his classic The Paranoid Style in American Politics, which provides a wealth of insights for understanding anti-Islamism today. One of Hofstadter’s brilliant insights was what we might term his “projection principle”:
“It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self, both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated the Catholic Church by donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through front groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy.”
The episode that revealed the new anti-Islamism in all its ugliness was last year’s chorus of opposition to the construction of a Muslim community center two blocks from the World Trade Center site. Notorious right-winger Pamela Geller’s crusade against the center was a clarion call for anti-Islamism—indeed, Geller pervasively influenced Anders Breivik’s screeds. Opponents of the proposed Muslim center claimed the site is “sacred ground,” revealing again the paranoid style of anti-Islamism. This is a direct analogy to the Klan’s priestly vestments—“Ground Zero” is the holiest site in Gelernter’s “fourth great western religion,” which non-believers are not fit to desecrate by their presence.
More broadly, this belief in “Americanism”—or, as it is most often called by the right today, “American exceptionalism”—is the militant worldview composed of pathologies its adherents have projected on to their Muslim “enemies” for the last decade. Hofstadter would have recognized all too clearly the paranoid style animating the belief that the better part of the Islamic world does not hold legitimate grievances against the United States over its foreign policies, but rather that “they hate us for our freedom.” Thus the basis of the utterly preposterous belief that there is a threat of the imposition of “sharia law” on Western societies or that the non-violent activism of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood poses a more dangerous threat than al-Qaeda. Indeed, Hofstadter wrote:
“Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theater of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration.”
For media liberals and others to smugly ascribe this paranoid style as the province of the nationalist right is therefore dubious at best, and arguably a deliberate avoidance of the more disturbing questions it raises. The U.S. media is complicit in the belief that “the world” is “at war” with some kind of global Islamist conspiracy against all that is right and true. Coverage of the Norway attacks proved the media’s inherent bias—witness the conflation of the word “terrorism” with an Islamic conspiracy.
Probably no author has more elaborately theorized a great cosmic struggle straight out of Hofstadter’s Paranoid Style between the enlightened West and “Islamofascism” than the self-styled “democrat of the left” Paul Berman. Berman, most recently in the news because of his obsession with the Oxford-based Muslim philosopher Tariq Ramadan, expressed his thesis in The Flight of the Intellectuals, a rambling treatise of which reviewer Lee Siegel wrote, “He argues his weirdly outdated concepts with such fury because he is really trying to make a case for his own importance.” The explicitly stated premise of these writings—that western liberals refuse to confront the malevolent presence of “Islamist ideas” in their societies—is indistinguishable from the hard-right screeds of Andrew McCarthy or Daniel Pipes warning of the threat of a non-violent “creeping shariah.”
There is one commonality in the paranoid style that Hofstadter’s theory misses, but which Peter Beinart prominently recognized during last year’s Manhattan mosque controversy. Beinart observed that both McCarthyism and the 1920s Klan emerged at times when the United States was confronted with the limits of its power in the world—during the Korean War and the aftermath of World War I, respectively. Moreover, both emerged when the problems they were ostensibly addressing were already largely resolved: the 1920s Klan emerged as Catholic and Jewish immigration was slowing down and the immigrant communities were integrating into U.S. society, and McCarthy only emerged on the national stage when the U.S. Communist Party had already entered irreversible decline.
Likewise, as the United States is just beginning to confront the abject failure of its so called “war on terrorism,” a large section of the U.S. public is overwhelmed with anxiety over the fact that September 11, 2001 was not, after all, the day that “changed everything.” Indeed, the most often heard grievance of the Tea Party movement is that there is a war on their sacred shibboleth of “American exceptionalism,” and this rather than either racism or concern about the national debt, is what is at the core of the movement. The Tea Party and anti-Islamists draw on the narratives of fear and conceit fostered by the U.S. media. If we want to know what created Anders Breivik, we must look beyond the anti-Muslim bloggers who schooled him, and begin to ask what in U.S. politics and society has enabled those purveyors of hate and paranoia in the first place.
Jack Ross, a contributor to Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/), is the author of Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism and presently at work on a complete history of the Socialist Party of America.
 Eleanor Kilroy, “Right wing seeks to paint Breivik as neo-Nazi so as to disguise the truth, of shared beliefs” http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/right-wing-seeks-to-paint-breivik-as-neo-nazi-so-as-to-disguise-the-truth-of-shared-beliefs.html.
 Massimo Introvigne, “Norway's Anders Breivik is not a Christian fundamentalist” http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=57706.
 David Gordon, “Are Americans the Chosen People?” http://mises.org/daily/2659/Are-Americans-the-Chosen-Peopleu.
 Glenn Greenwald, “The Omnipotence of Al Qaeda and the meaninglessness of ‘Terrorism’”, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/23/nyt/index.html.
 Lee Siegel, “Who’s Left? Who’s Right? Who Cares?”, http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2010w19/msg00188.html.
 Peter Beinart, “The New McCarthyism”, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/09/12/new-mccarthyism-palin-gingrich-and-us-paranoid-politics.html.
Max Boot, a neoconservative military historian based at the Council on Foreign Relations, has urged the United States “unambiguously to embrace its imperial role” and asserted that “America should be the world’s policeman.” Boot, who is also a veteran of the Project for the New American Century and a lifelong Republican, is among a small group of neoconservatives—many of whom are concerned about the rise of an anti-interventionist faction in the GOP—to express tentative support for a potential presidential candidacy by Hillary Clinton, whom Boot has credited as “a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya.”
Despite Robert Kagan's deep ties to the neoconservative movement, the Brookings Institution historian has carefully sought to frame his work in a bipartisan manner. Kagan's efforts have earned him an audience in the Obama White House, where he has had the opportunity to exchange views with the president. Now, with a resurgent anti-interventionist wing challenging the neoconservatives for dominance in the GOP, Kagan has hinted that he would consider backing a presidential bid by Hillary Clinton, who has frequently expressed hawkish views. "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," said Kagan, a lifelong apologist for U.S. "superpower."
Ahmed Chalabi, the onetime Iraqi exile who aggressively courted neoconservative support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq by spreading falsehoods about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, long ago fell out of favor in Washington and has never enjoyed much popular support in Iraq, where he currently serves in parliament. But amid Iraq's current political crisis, Chalabi has been floated as a possible compromise candidate to replace Nouri al-Maliki as the prime minister of Iraq—and some of his old neoconservative allies, especially Richard Perle, have expressed joy at the possibility. Concluded a writer for the Washington Post, "It seems a sad indication of the absurdity of the past 11 years of Iraqi history that the man who helped dupe U.S. officials into that invasion should now be backed in his bid for leadership by those very same people."
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has advocated bombing Iran for years, once admitting that even his mom thought he’d “gone too far.” He recently wrote that U.S. credibility "is overwhelmingly built on Washington’s willingness to use force" and lamented that the Obama administration's reluctance to intervene in Syria's civil war amounts to "retreat" from the region. Dismissing the supposed moderation of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Gerecht has also advised U.S. policymakers to "forget diplomacy" with Iran and instead bolster sanctions and military threats.
Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney and an avid foreign policy hawk in her own right, is slowly returning to the spotlight after her disastrous primary challenge to Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) last year. In addition to penning hawkish screeds against the Obama administration’s policies in Iraq and cofounding a hardline new 501(c)4 group with her father Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney is reportedly seeking to mend ties with the Republican establishment she alienated during her Senate bid, possibly in preparation for another run for office.
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
July, 21 2014
Although Iran hawks have sought to portray the recent extension of talks over the country's nuclear enrichment program as evidence that they are faltering, the highly technical negotiations have achieved a tremendous amount in the last year.
July, 18 2014
China and Russia have staunchly resisted Western-backed UN resolutions against the Syrian regime, but they have proven unwilling to challenge the West directly by introducing their own resolution against Israel's latest incursion into Gaza.
July, 08 2014
Across the globe, nonviolent movements for peace and demilitarization are showing results.
June, 30 2014
As it did in Vietnam, the United States has strenuously sought to blame others for the mess it created by invading Iraq.
June, 28 2014
While many realists in Washington support U.S. cooperation with Iran and even Syria to roll back gains made by ISIS in Iraq, neoconservatives and Washington's Gulf allies are rallying against any normalization of U.S. relations with Iran.
June, 26 2014
While opposition to the U.S. Export-Import bank, which financially incentivizes the purchase of U.S. exports, previously came from the left, the House Tea Party faction has launched a revolt against the bank and its backers in the business community and the GOP establishment.
June, 21 2014
Despite their ubiquity on television talk shows and newspaper op-ed pages, the hawks who propelled the U.S. into war in Iraq 11 years ago appear to be falling short in their efforts to persuade the public and Congress that Washington needs to return.