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.
David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a non-proliferation think tank focusing mainly on the Iranian nuclear program whose objectivity has been called into question by observers. Albright, the “news media’s ‘favorite’ expert” on Iranian nuclear issues, argued in a recent panel discussion hosted by the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Foreign Policy Initiative that Congress should intervene in the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts if a “good deal” is not reached. According to one journalist, Albright has “left a trail of evidence indicating that he has embraced the Iran alarmist line coming from the United States, Israel, and the IAEA.”
Michele Flournoy, co-founder of the “liberal hawk” Center for a New American Security, has been widely mentioned as a possible successor to Pentagon chief Chuck Hagel, despite her at times militaristic policy positions. “Rather than proposing a different course for the administration’s foreign policy,” quipped one conservative writer, Flournoy “appears to possibly be the person to entrench it for rest of Obama’s term.”
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neoconservative think tank and advocacy group based in Washington, has endeavored to undermine the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran. FDD executive director Mark Dubowitz recently voiced support for measures by hawkish members of Congress that seek to give Congress a greater role in the negotiations, such as getting an “up or down vote on” any deal. Dubowitz has also suggested that Congress “defend the sanctions architecture” on Iran even if an agreement is reached.
The Center for Security Policy (CSP), run by notorious Islamophobe Frank Gaffney, has rabidly opposed negotiating with Iran over its country’s nuclear program. With the deadline to reach an agreement fast approaching, CSP fellows have argued that it would pose “an existential threat to Israel” and a “deadly threat to U.S. national security.” They have also urged Congress to “repudiate the nuclear talks and any agreement resulting from them.”
AIPAC, “America’s pro-Israel lobby,” has attempted to influence the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 by supporting hawkish congressional measures that many analysts say could derail the diplomatic process. The lobby has strongly endorsed a letter from Reps. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY) pressuring Secretary of State John Kerry to broaden the scope of demands in a potential agreement, which many observers have criticized as containing “distortions of the truth.”
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
November 24, 2014
With talks between Iran and the P5+1 extended by seven months, “pro-Israel” and Republican hawks have ramped up their rhetoric, calling for Congress to be given a veto over any final deal.
November 24, 2014
Negotiators in Vienna failed to reach an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program and extended the deadline to July 1, 2015.
November 19, 2014
The Bipartisan Policy Center, which claims to support “reasoned negotiation and respectful dialogue,” has firmly aligned itself with neoconservatives on Iran.
November 18, 2014
Israel’s chief fear in a possible nuclear deal with Iran is that it will lose an enemy that it shares in common with the United States, and thus Washington’s commitment to its security.
November 17, 2014
A Republican-controlled Senate could leave a huge imprint on President Obama’s foreign policy agenda during his last two years in office.
November 11, 2014
George W. Bush and Barack Obama both sought to convince former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s to keep U.S. troops being in Iraq. Both failed.
November 08, 2014
As the November 24 deadline for reaching a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran approaches, the different sides are scrambling to ensure all bases are covered before the official resumption of talks in Vienna on November 18.