This blog closed.

Birds of prey

Hastings: More pity that the eagles should be mewed,

Whiles kites and buzzards prey at liberty.

Richard: The world is grown so bad

That wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch.

Shakespeare, Richard III

Limits of scientific scopophilia

In medical training you are accustomed to see things. You see an anatomical preparation, the precipitate of a chemical reaction, the shortening of a muscle as a result of the stimulation of its nerves. . . . In psycho-analysis, alas, everything is different. Nothing takes place in a psycho-analytic treatment but  an interchange of words between the patient and the analyst. The patient talks, tells of his past experiences and his present impressions, complains, confesses to his wishes and his emotional impulses. The doctor listens, tries to direct the patient’s processes of thought, exhorts, forces his attention in certain directions, gives him explanations and observes the reactions of understanding or rejection which he in this way provokes in him.

Freud, Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, Lecture I.

Sophocles

Alas, how terrible is wisdom when
it brings no profit to the man that's wise! -- Teiresias

Sophocles, Oedipus the King

independent media and the occupy movement

What place does “indie media” such as The Occupied Wall Street Journal hold in the larger media universe? What is its function with respect to the present Occupy Movement? How are the collective representations, imagery, and ideological frames of the Occupy Movement, as publicized by indie media, communicated to the so-called mainstream media?

*

To answer these questions, one must clear away the underbrush of popular terminology used to talk about the media. It is common to hear a distinction raised between the mainstream media (MSM) and indie media. What counts as the MSM is not the product of any ideological consensus, since the boundaries of such an entity are largely defined by the viewer’s ideological standpoint. For example, conservatives consider Fox News to stand in opposition to the MSM, understood to be the major networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), cable networks (MSNBC and CNN), public media (NPR and CPB), and newspapers such as the NY Times and Washington Post. From a structural perspective, however, Fox News occupies a place within the field of the MSM. Hence, to avoid analytical confusion, it makes sense to dispense with the term MSM; what one is confronted with is not a situation of mainstream versus marginal but rather a single media field in which different journalistic entities can be identified as dominant or dominated within the field itself.+ The dominant and dominated positions in the field are determined by the economic and symbolic capital attributes of a particular media concern. In this case, what Fox News may lack in symbolic capital (i.e. it represents points of view that are, for the journalistic tastes of MSNBC, the NY Times and the Washington Post, “outside the mainstream” of “legitimate” public opinion), it more than compensates for with its economic capital, which it uses to transform the field itself, primarily by incorporating Republican politicians, strategists, and pundits as experts and paid analysts (e.g. Palin, Rove, Huckabee, etc.), or by acquiring a dominant “mainstream” newspaper like the WSJ and reshaping its editorial outlook. In other words, Fox News’s media strategy has largely succeeded in moving formerly marginal political perspectives into the mainstream of public debates.

**

Hence, with their vast economic resources “liberal” and “conservative” media wage a struggle over symbolic capital in the media field, a struggle which also depends on accruing economic capital. The former wage a preservationist strategy (to preserve its dominant position as the legitimate definition of journalistic taste, as “objective”) against the transformative strategy of the latter (which claims for itself the legitimate definition of journalistic taste, as “fair and balanced”). In this competitive struggle, representations of the Occupy Movement by the dominant and dominated media concerns are skewed towards the spectacular, the shocking, and the outrageous, since such representations are proven to hold an audience’s attention, which drives ratings and, thus, advertising revenue. (This is verified, for example, by perusing the reportage of “embedded” journalists from the NY Times). The moralizing attitude expressed by pundits towards the movement — either advocating for or admonishing it — is less significant than the structural tendency to present provocative images of movement actions and participants as provocative.

***

Indie media’s relationship to the media field as just described is best understood as an externality: it is outside the field at present. However, this means that its structural exclusion or positioning outside the media field, its position outside the game, renders it powerless to transform the media field. Thus, its representations of the Occupy Movement make little impact on the field itself. Whereas one can find presentations of the mundane and the ordinary in indie media journalism (discussions of consensus building as a political strategy, the organization of the provision of food, clothing, and books for demonstrators at Zuccotti Park, and the like) along side the shocking (typically, instances of police violence against demonstrators), when indie media interfaces with the media field, or rather when the media field incorporates the products of indie media, there is a tendency to emphasize representations of shocking rather than the mundane, which only legitimates the journalistic gaze of the dominant and dominated media within the field. Consequently, the relationship of indie media to the movement is actually fraught with political risk.

****

Indie media has been referred to as a people’s media, indigenous media, insurgent media, counter-publics, and wild publics. However, its self-defined oppositional position with respect to the “mainstream” is undermined by being outside the media field: because it is outside the game, it is not a player in its own right. Indie media’s lack of economic capital means it must rely on the dominant and dominated media concerns to present its collective representations as it wishes them to be understood. Lacking the capacity to impose its weak symbolic capital on the media field, indie media is also unable to impose its journalistic taste or perception, which brings together the mundane with the extraordinary, on the producers and consumers of the products of the media field. This does not mean that it serves no positive function for the Occupy Movement; such a positive function is its role in representing the movement to itself, of digesting and reflecting back to the movement its own, diverse understandings. As such, indie media serves as a repository of social knowledge and collective memory for the movement, reminding it where it came from, why it came into existence, and what it is doing.

*****

In order to bring the fully rounded representations of the indie media covering the Occupy Movement into the media field itself, the movement must generate its own representatives, who can articulate the complexity of the movement to the media field without falling into the trap of highlighting the strange, the different, the radical, and the revolutionary. Social movements are ordinary occurrences in much of the world, which have always co-existed with the institutionalized political process. In my view, what the Occupy Movement should avoid at all costs is allowing itself to be represented to the media field by philosopher-journalists (e.g. Noam Chomsky and Cornell West), writer-journalists (e.g. Naomi Klein), all-purpose, intellectual-journalists (e.g. Noam Chomsky), activist-journalists (e.g. Al Sharpton), who are reflective of already existing structural positions in the media field and who play scripted roles in this field for the dominant and dominated media concerns.

+my discussion is indebted to Pierre Bourdieu, On Television (1998)

political romanticism

In The Guardian David Graeber has extolled the Occupy movement. However, it is worth noting that public demonstrations still seem to have an effect in nations where civil society is restricted or non-existent (see the “Arab Spring”) and in France (in the form of the general strike), but this political style is pretty much exhausted in the USA, almost to the point of becoming a cliche. The declining significance of street protests is made worse when organizers (if any exist) promise more than they can deliver. Occupy Wall Street… until what happens? The closing of the DJIA? What Graeber purports to be one of the signs of the fall of the American Empire, the tribal drumbeats echoing through the canyons of lower Manhattan, is a spectacle; meanwhile, for criminal banksters and feral traders (like the USB thug Kweku Adoboli) it’s business as usual.

*

The anarchist vision apparent in Graeber’s commentary (“This is why protesters are often hesitant even to issue formal demands, since that might imply recognising the legitimacy of the politicians against whom they are ranged”) is no substitute for a real political theory of how the widespread change its author envisions might be actualized. Hardt and Negri suffice for the sound bit imagination of well-meaning demonstrators; the rest of us can still hope for something more profound.

the poverty of a political culture

Unless one were to change "Americans", little can be changed about US politics. Ill informed, lacking an education in political theory and history, suspicious, covetous, and displaying symptoms of the narcissism of small differences towards any group that appears to be making social and/or economic progress (first Catholics, then Irish, then Jews, then Blacks, then Women, then Gays, then Mexicans, etc.), Americans are a sorry lot. Claiming practical knowledge bred of healthy exposure to the "real world", they are as gullible as the most benighted country bumpkin: ready to believe the worst and fear the best, they sell short when they should hold out for long. In the defense of "Americanness", they act "un-American". In the defense of liberty, they act illiberally. Worse yet, the American electorate has given rise to a political class that is scandalously inept. The carnival barker, the circus impresario, the sales huckster, and the soap box demagogue are still models of political comportment and representation, which is why money and policy are interchangeable entities in American politics. Unfortunately, the difficulty of the task the 99% demonstrators have set for themselves is daunting: it is not simply to change a banking system or create a chimerical people's capitalism but rather to change an entire form of subjectivity.

99%

It is an empirical question whether the marriage partners of capitalism (in its totally mythical form as "self-regulating market") and representative democracy (in its totally mythical form as "popular sovereignty") are fully compatible, and practically functional, in conditions of emergency such as an economic crisis (particularly a crisis that is global). In the present situation, the finance banking system, which is not subject to the controls of any particular "government," contributed to a crisis; whether "the People" (Tea Party or #OWS) can do anything about it using the instruments available to the American government is an open question, particularly when the ideal of a self-regulating international market holds sway in public opinion and in practice.

*

The problem is that since the 1930s and 40s (and Taft-Hartley), there's no political language for talking about class directly in American politics. After all, Americans are all middle class by definition, up to a yearly income of $250K. There's no accounting for class differences between the owner of a small business, a well paid freelancer, a plumber, and person who works two jobs: they are all middle class. Hence, class distinctions are recognized as distinctions in culture (e.g. educational attainment, prestige of educational institution, patterns of consumption including books, religion or lack thereof, neighborhood, region, linguistic fluency, prestige of occupation, home-ownership, etc.).

#TeaParty v. #OWS: a tale of two movements

The Tea Party is a new iteration of a long-standing political tradition, classically defined as the "paranoid style" by historian Richard Hofstadter: a pot of conspiracy thinking leavened with a healthy dollop of nativism and covered with a poujadist lid. Far from being an independent political movement, the Tea Party is a creature of the Republican Party and has always sought its nirvana on the happy hunting grounds of right-wing conservative fears: fear of government, fear of a black President, fear of gays, fear of Mexicans, fear of Muslims. Establishment Republicans love the energy but loathe the substance of the Tea Party, just as level headed Republicans sought distance from the mania of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.

*

The #OWS crowd is the typical mix of left-wing and progressive causes one finds at any large demo. The symbolism of the mass gathering is, however, losing its efficacy as a carrier of political meaning. It is telling that only confrontations with baton-wielding and mace-spraying police (as opposed to Blackberry-wielding and derivatives-spraying financiers) have brought it wider attention: alas, the police don't run "Wall Street" or crash the Lehmann Brothers of the world. At some point, enlightened elements of the #OWS will figure out that engagement with the Democrats is the only means to bring about practical reforms. Clever Democratic politicians would be wise to leverage this left-wing angst. But short of an actual revolution, no new form of people's capitalism is likely to emerge and the youth of the nation must grow accustomed to conditions of scarcity that have beset most people at most times in history. The golden years of the housing and credit bubbles are gone forever.

*

Life in a declining empire: get acclimated

the profits of character assassination

Republicans, and certain Tea Party leaders, who use words and images irresponsibly, know exactly what they're doing when they walk along the thin line demarcating civility and barbarism. They intend to incite passions and to demonize opponents, and they have been fairly successful on both accounts. The question that should be put to them, after the carnage in Tucson, is this: was it worth it?

contradictions of the insanity defense

The Tea Party and its fellow travelers will hit the “mental illness” explanation as hard as the alleged shooter’s likely legal defense team; which will be curious, since law and order Republicans will likely decry such a defense. Hence, we could witness the following display of doublespeak from Republicans and Tea Party extremists: the alleged shooter is insane, he is not part of the anti-government movement; but the alleged shooter is sane enough to face trial and, potentially, capital punishment. It will be interesting to see how these two opposed claims will be reconciled.

Sarah Palin's chickens...

have come home to roost. It comes as no surprise that reckless, anti-government rhetoric has inspired violent action.

“We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” Ms. Giffords said last March. “But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that.”

I suspect Palin will turn this shooting into a political advantage. She'll make herself out as the victim of the "liberal media" for associating her with the attack on the Congressperson. She'll play the liberal media card while serving as a paid Fox News analyst, probably on Sean Hannity's program.

Meanwhile, Eric Cantor (the Republican House Majority leader) has wisely postponed debate on the proposed total repeal of “Obamacare,” which was the object of most of the Tea Party's symbolic violence. He's likely aware the extremist rhetoric that House Republicans -- newly infused by Tea Party supported members -- deployed last year would not play well with the American public under the circumstances. Who knows how the rhetoric will be reshaped.

isn't it ironic

that Assange’s lawyer is complaining about a leak of information.

Incriminating police files were published in the British newspaper that has used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.

In a move that surprised many of Mr Assange's closest supporters on Saturday, The Guardian newspaper published previously unseen police documents that accused Mr Assange in graphic detail of sexually assaulting two Swedish women. One witness is said to have stated: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

Bjorn Hurtig, Mr Assange's Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain.

seeking 'good government' republicans

What is striking to me about politics from the conservative side of things (conservative understood quite broadly) is that no claims have been made that conservatives would be more "competent" governors. This might be because the rhetorical emphasis on the shibboleth of "small government" gets in the way of an interest in "good government." Or I suppose "good government" is construed narrowly as "good for business" or "creating jobs in the private sector." Political Republicans (i.e. the governing group of Republicans, not the Rogueistas) appear to see no positive role for government other than playing the role of matador, getting out of the way of the charging bull of liberty and entrepreneurial initiative. However, if the conservative side were to turn from the mantra of reducing government to that of a "government that works" (i.e., one in which the trains run on time, not simply "balancing the budget"), then candidates like Romney or even Bloomberg would make sense. But since government by definition means incompetence for the Right, these possible candidates don't seem viable at the moment. (Another possibility, Petraeus, has wisely demurred). Thus a motley crue of Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty, and Jindal must suffice for a Republican Party geared more towards hair band aesthetics than substantive politics.

strawberry fields forever

Death is the great equalizer. Only the most horrific character is not mourned in some small way. Indeed, this may be bourgeois sentimentalism, but in contemporary society any sense of loss in the face of brutality is truly more radical than the self-righteous detachment of the politics of objectivity. In fact, detachment admits to a compliance with, and affirmation of, that brutality against which another brutality is being waged in the name of peace and freedom. John Lennon has become a victim of that brutality which announces itself in objective newscasts on the one hand, and in the overt pseudo-emotionalism of intervening advertisements on the other. John apparently saw things-as-they-will-always-be all to clearly in the late sixties. “Give peace a chance” itself pays witness to the formidable odds against realization of peace. A symptom of the culture industry, he attempted to turn his master against itself. But selling peace only turned into a repressive desublimation, just as today the selling of war becomes repressive resublimation. Peace cannot be realized in the market place of Ideas. Yet, on the other hand, John found no identification with the orthodox dreams, if even for unconscious reasons. One sentence from many in his music is crucial: “you say that its an institution [the constitution], you better free your mind instead.” The freeing of the individual from instrumentalized rationality was not overcome by the music of John Lennon. Ironically, his last work saw a return to the family and love, the possible haven in a heartless world and that radical moment of resistance, the vindication of the irrational, Eros. John lost his heart tonight, as did much of what survives of humanity.

Written December 8, 1980

wikileaks once more

It does seem hypocritical, if not cynical, that wikileaks itself lacks transparency. It would be nice to know the structure of the organization, the salaries of its employees, their training and expertise in the field of transparency. At this point, it is seems to be nothing more than the righteous, self-appointed guardian of full disclosure and insists on the same privacy privileges that nation states do with respect to "sensitive information." And like nation states, wikileaks positions itself outside the law when convenient, for Raison d'wikileaks. Who will hold wikileaks accountable? Where is the means for public oversight?

*

Wikileaks is like a surrealist manifestation: stir up and offend the bourgeois sensibility just to see what happens. After the initial shock effect of the initial manifestation wears off, predictable reactions ensue. With the issue of the second word salad leak there occurs, first, a faux shock effect ("omigod can you believe THAT! The Queen hates X, Y, and Z, Blah, Blah, Blah"); then stern but weary tut-tuting from Secretaries of State and Defense; then a noble defense of the Dick Cheney Principle (adopted from Malcolm X) on the part of the Merry Leaksters: "by any means necessary we will expose (X, Y, and Z, Blah, Blah, Blah), because this is the most outrageous lie, the most horrible offense, the absolute total crime against human decency committed by (X, Y, and Z, Blah, Blah, Blah). Any questioning of our methods or our motives is unacceptable, is simply the doublespeak of power, and aren't you all just Agents/Borg after all." Finally, after a few days, silence settles over the global village. Then, once a considered amount of time has passed, calculated according to sound market research findings, another manifestation is exploded. "1 trillion super-secret cables released!" Repeat ad nauseum the faux shock, the enervated scolding, the impassioned self-defense. If an artist were to draw a mustache on a print of the Mona Lisa today, it would elicit the same yawn that our contemporary, naive political surrealists will incur over time.

wikileaks oresteia

Like Orestes, Mr Assange is now fated to be hunted by the modern day Erinyes – i.e. the maleficent agents of various governments, and family members of people whose names were left unredacted. Unlike Orestes, there is no Athene who can save him. It will no doubt be surprising to Assange, in all of his grandiose naïveté, that his efforts have not (and will not) change the behavior of nation states, which exist in a state of nature.

limited government, American style

What is striking to me about contemporary economic doomsday prognostication is how much it echoes the hoary old Marxist theory of crisis, of the inevitable collapse brought on by the inexorable falling rate of profit. What both these crisis theories evidence is, however, a falling rate of political intelligence.

*

It is difficult to get outside the cognitive constraints of the ideological image of liberals versus conservatives, and to think "institutionally." What might it mean to think institutionally about capitalism and about the State (government). Regarding the former, it is always oriented to the short term: today's profits matter more than some future event that might never happen. The next quarterly report is the extent of the attention span of the hypothetical self-interested entrepreneur. What might this mean in practice? It may mean, for example, that environmental degradation matters only if it cuts into profitability (who cares if there’s one less spotted owl as long as I make a buck selling timber). This is short-term thinking par excellence and it is perfectly rational if one assumes that people are driven by self-interest and that it would be irrational to pursue strategies that undermine self-interest. What does this mean for the predicted, impending bankruptcy of the contemporary crisis theory? It means that as long as current profits can be maintained at a reasonable level, the long-term possible bankruptcy doesn't matter.

*

What both contemporary and old-fashioned orthodox Marxist crisis theory conveniently ignores is the truly inconvenient fact that "crisis management" forestalls such cataclysmic crises, delays them, pushes them off to some future date. Crisis management is the art of softening the blows of short-term thinking, of the supply and demand cycle, and the social and political dislocation that both entail. Crisis management is neither a liberal nor conservative phenomena, it is a function of institutions, in particular State and quasi-State institutions (see the coordinated actions of Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner in the aftermath of the demise of Lehmann Brothers). The art of crisis management assumes the irrationality of individuals acting on short-term interest in immediate profitability. Crisis management is also a high-wire act: it must find the right balance between the necessary degree of management and the necessary degree of short-term thinking. A crisis of crisis management (Claus Offe) arises when crisis management encroaches too much on the short-term rationality of the market (which is irrational); in other words, it must manage the consequences of market irrationality without undermining this irrationality entirely. (N.B. I'm using the term"irrational" in a non-pejorative, and purely descriptive, sense: short-term thinking and behavior that ignores long-term consequences is irrational in a restricted sense and from a certain point of view).

*

To be sure, there is dim recognition of the implications of crisis management among those politicians today, who admonish -- in Matherian tones -- that "we are burdening our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren with debt." Of course we are! As rational economic actors, our only interest is in the now, not the 50 or 70 or 100 years from now. Our contemporary crisis managers push off the cataclysmic crisis onto future generations, who will have their own crisis managers to push off the crisis onto even more future generations, or until the last ton of fossilized coal has been burnt. Such crisis management is short-term thinking that attenuates the consequences of short-term thinking. Is this wrong or immoral? It is neither, if we accept short-term, self-interested behavior on the part of individuals (persons or firms) as normal and inevitable, which is precisely what these Chicken Little politicians assume.

*

What about long-term thinking and long-term survival: who does that and how is it accomplished? Typically State institutions (i.e. government) have the task of maintaining the integrity of the socio-economic system over the longue duree. What are those institutions? The internal and external security institutions; and the social security institutions. Both of these long-term oriented institution forms must be maintained, i.e. financed; and hence we have taxation, and it is only a pipe dream to wish taxation away. Moreover, there is no choice to be made by those who seek “limited government” to get rid of one (social security institutions). Both internal/external security and social security are always already, necessarily interdependent. And while it would be nice to return to the seventeenth-century system of mutual aid, it is simply unrealistic (and hence irrational) to assume -- as a form of “tax relief” and “deficit reduction” -- that this is a practical alternative to State institutions. From the standpoint of the short-term, self-interest of the rational actor, time spent tending to ailing Aunt Jenny is time and money taken away from earning more money, starting a business, or pursuing a professional degree. And while this hypothetical rational actor might want to tend to Aunt Jenny, she realizes that she lacks the skill set to cope with her Aunt’s problems and is quite happy to be unburdened of this task by a government agency (Medicare/Medicaid), and by health care and social work professionals who are trained to take care of such ailing Aunts. Two pennies on the dollar of taxation that goes to this purpose is well worth it to this profit-seeking person, who can use the money saved on buying medicine for the aunt to purchase a larger HD television; and the byproduct of this consumption (or, rather, the “pursuit of happiness”) is that another rational actor remains employed at Best Buy.

*

Quite contrary to their intentions, the limited government chorus may well create a new economic crisis if their goal of slashing the long-term social security institutions were achieved (for which new institutions of crisis management will evolve and the whole thing starts over once again). Truly limited government would likely be worse than no government at all, because such a limited government would lose political legitimacy, and would be unable to attenuate political and social disorder that comes from the loss of legitimacy.

panzer

panzer

on the tracks

east heading

--her face windcold

against the stonegrey of her eyes--

after the wende

hope exchanging hearts

on the glienicke brücke

the paranoid style: Glenn Beck

Recently, Glenn Beck cast his watery gaze upon George Soros. Beck is simply appealing to the anti-semitic segment of his viewing audience. His conspiratorial thinking regarding Soros, reflecting unconsciously the model of the distant past that evoked fear and condemnation of the "Golden International", comports well with the level at which his usual pseudo-intellectual punditry resides: character assassination. I heard Soros talk at an APSA meeting, during which he spoke at length of the deep impact Karl Popper made on his general vision of the social world. I look forward to Beck's future blackboard diagram of the hidden totalitarian kernel lodged in The Open Society and Its Enemies.

*

Beck once devoted a program to his view that G.W. F. Hegel's thought lies at the root of what plagues America. I return to Hofstadter frequently for insight into his brand of conspiratorial theory.

"The final aspect of the paranoid style is related to the quality of pedantry to which I have already referred. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is precisely the elaborate concern with demonstration it almost invariably shows. One should not be misled by the fantastic conclusions that are so characteristic of this political style into imagining that it is not, so to speak, argued out along factual lines. The very fantastic character of its conclusions leads to heroic striving for 'evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency, and paranoid movements from the Middle Ages onward have had a magnetic attraction for demi-intellectuals . . . The typical procedure of the higher paranoid scholarship is to start with such defensible assumptions and with a careful accumulation of facts, or at least of what appear to be facts, and to marshal these facts toward an overwhelming 'proof' of the particular conspiracy that is to be established. It is nothing if not coherent -- in fact, the paranoid mentality is far more coherent than the real world, since it leaves no room for mistakes, failures, or ambiguities. It is, if not wholly rational, at least intensely rationalistic; it believes it is up against an enemy who is infallibly rational as he is totally evil, and it seeks to match his imputed total competence with its own, leaving nothing unexplained and comprehending all of reality in one overreachiing, consistent theory. It is nothing if not 'scholarly' in technique. . . What distinguishes the paranoid style is not, then the absence of verifiable facts (though it is occasionally true that in his extravagant passion for facts the paranoid occasionally manufactures them), but rather in the curious leap in imagination that is always made at some critical point in the recital of events. . . The plausibility the paranoid style has for those who find it plausible lies, in good measure, in this appearance of the most careful, conscientious, and seemingly coherent application to detail, the laborious accumulation of what can be taken as convincing evidence for the most fantastic conclusions, the careful preparation for the big leap from the undeniable to the unbelievable. The singular thing about all this laborious work is that the passion for factual evidence does not, as in most intellectual exchanges, have the effect of putting the paranoid spokesman into effective two-way communication with the world outside his group -- least of all with those who doubt his views. He has little real hope that his evidence will convince a hostile world. His effort to amass it has rather the quality of a defensive act which shuts off his receptive apparatus and protects him from having to attend to disturbing considerations that do not fortify his ideas. He has all the evidence he needs; he is not a receiver, he is a transmitter." The Paranoid Style in American Politics, pp. 35-38

*

It's worth noting that the program during which Beck uttered the statement that became the target of controversy is entitled "The Puppet Master: How much does George Soros control?" Also interesting, in light of Hofstadter's diagnosis, is the fact that Beck (or his producers) invites his followers to participate in his paranoid style: "For months, Glenn has been pulling back the structure progressives have worked decades to put in place. Beneath every layer lies one common thread: George Soros. Tonight on TV, Glenn presents an in-depth look at the Puppet Master, billionaire financier George Soros, one of the most powerful forces in the Progressive Movement. But don’t just take Glenn’s word for it. Read. Analyze. Do your own homework and come to your own conclusions - read below to fact check all the sources used on tonight's show." (emphasis added)

*

One notices in Beck’s paranoid style a monotheistic vision of evil in it. In the particular case of Soros, he is the singular puppet master behind all that is wrong, the First Mover of the "Progressive movement" that is destroying America. The "Jewish" angle Beck explicitly evokes (N.B. it is certainly the case that one could criticize Soros' politics without referencing his religious/ethnic background) works in both the secular and religious registers of the manipulative "Jewish Bankers" and the biblical "Christ Killers" (which no doubts adds to the cathexis between Beck's audience and the subject matter).

In contrast, a polytheistic vision might entail recognition of, and openness to, complexity. On this account, good and evil -- for those who traffic in such a worldview -- would be distributed across a range of gods (i.e. forces, entities, persons, institutions, long and short term historical processes, etc.). This vision may not be as emotionally satisfying for those possessed of the conspiratorial mind, but it would at least bring them in touch with ordinary reality and might take some of the symbolically violent edge off their rhetoric (e.g. the primordialist "Us" versus "Them" imagination).