Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

KOPEL: Columnist has his own paranoid style

By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

It's difficult to top the unintentional self-parody of Rocky Mountain News columnist Paul Campos last Wednesday citing Richard Hofstadter's famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." The great historian Hofstadter explained that "the paranoid style," including "the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy," had at various times been found in both the left wing and the right wing of American politics.

Campos wrote: "McCain-Palin campaign rallies have featured shouts of 'Terrorist!' and 'Kill him!' . . . " Supposedly, "Kill him" was shouted by somebody at a rally in Scranton, Pa., according to a reporter for the Scranton Times-Tribune. The Secret Service investigated, and stated that the allegation was unfounded. The Secret Service report was announced the day that Campos' column was published, but even before the story was debunked, Campos' phrasing made the lone act appear to be commonplace.

Campos asserts that National Review called Obama a "Maoist." Not exactly. An Oct. 8 post by Andy McCarthy on National Review Online's "The Corner" weblog wrote that Barack Obama "fits comfortably with Ayers, who (especially now) is more Maoist than Stalinist." You can be friends with a terrorist without yourself being a terrorist, and likewise you can fit comfortably with a Maoist without being one yourself.

McCarthy did call Obama a "radical." According to Campos, McCarthy "brushes aside any objections that there's no actual evidence for any of his claims." To the contrary, McCarthy pointed to specific evidence, starting with Obama's community-organizing work.

Obama was trained in organizing by the Industrial Areas Foundation, a group founded by Saul Alinsky; Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, urged radicals to conceal their radicalism in order to infiltrate established power structures. (Investor's Business Daily, Aug. 14, 2008.) Obama then was hired by an organization The Washington Post described as "a group of his [Alinsky's] disciples." After law school, Obama "continued to teach the Alinsky philosophy." (The Washington Post, March 25, 2007.)

The thread of the National Review Online discussion leads to an earlier post that same day in which McCarthy wrote, "Why would anyone think this guy is a left-wing radical? Just because he sought (and got) an endorsement from the Chicago branch of the Socialist International . . . " (McCarthy was referring the role of the "New Party" in Obama's 1996 state Senate race.)

Further, Obama "fought a law prohibiting infanticide." (Referring to state Sen. Obama's opposition to a bill requiring medical care for babies who survive an abortion.) McCarthy wrote that Obama "praises Bill Ayers' views on . . . the criminal justice system." (As The New York Times had noted on May 11, Obama gave "a rave review" to Ayers's 1997 book criticizing American criminal justice.)

One can argue over whether these facts prove that Obama is a radical. Indeed, the blog posts were part of a debate on National Review Online in which NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru contended that even if Obama were once a radical, he was not one now, for most of his 2008 positions are not radical. To which McCarthy replied that a dedicated radical would hide his true positions in order to gain power. (Disclosure: I write occasionally for NRO, most recently in October 2007.)

It is not paranoid, by the way, to be aware that some presidential aspirants may have more radical intentions than they reveal during a campaign. In 1960, presidential hopeful Lyndon Johnson told Arthur Schlesinger: "Have a revolution all right, but don't say anything about it until you are entrenched in office. That's the way Roosevelt did it."

According to Campos, "a Fox News anchor speculated that Obama and his wife might be engaging in a 'terrorist fist-bump.' " Campos derided anyone who might "believe something like that appears on Fox News by accident."

In previewing a body-language segment, Fox anchor E.D. Hill had said: "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently." (The idiotic "terrorist" theory had been started by a commenter on a Web site, and was getting lots of media attention.) As reported by The New York Times (June 11; "The Caucus" weblog), the anchor apologized four days later in part because she was "facing anger from the Fox News executive suite."

Hofstadter observed that one characteristic of "conspiratorial fantasy" is rejecting "accident or incompetence" as possible explanations for bad things. So a stupid comment from a TV host, which angered her corporate bosses, must be part of a corporate conspiracy.

It takes the paranoid style to so vehemently and inaccurately mischaracterize ideological opponents, and to find conspiracies where none exist.

Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 10 books. He can be reached at kopeld@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • October 18, 2008

    4 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Derge writes:

    Mr Kopel,

    You saved me much time.

    Thank you!

  • October 18, 2008

    7:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LetsThink writes:

    A big thanks to Dave Kopel for exposing the extreme liberalism of Paul Campos.

    We need to hear more truth from our newspapers, like this.

  • October 18, 2008

    11:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Romulus writes:

    A feeble attempt to gloss over the hate-filled slimeball tactics of the McCain-Palin campaign.

  • October 18, 2008

    10:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    taoistblockhead writes:

    Dave - You forgot to mention Paul's excellent column laying out the case for Henry Kissinger as a terrorist. At least Bill Ayers had the stones to stand up for the Republic, as opposed to Kissinger killing millions of innocent Vietnamese in the name of Empire. Talk about an inconvenient truth. McCain and Palin are inciting bigoted racists and fueling the fires of hatred via the Karl "Axis of Weasels" Rove school of slimeball gutter politics.

    Landslide victories on November 4th for Obama and Udall. Time to clean house and vote the Fascist Neocon(victs) out of office.

  • October 19, 2008

    10:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    why do they have a columnists who appears to have a full time position commenting on another columnists. Can't this guy think of a topic? Reminds me of the McKenzie brothers

  • October 20, 2008

    7:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    You're swinging at the wind, man. The presidential race has become an undamped feedback loop of anger. One bad president leads to an angry reaction further in the opposite direction, which leads to an even more angry reaction opposite to that, such that soon there will be nothing left of the country you remember. The US is going to be torn apart by general apathy and the inability of the public to forget their emotions and vote on logic. McCain is probably the most moderate cantidate nominated in 20 years, and nothing can be done to stop his loss due to the actions of W. Fasten your seatbelt, it's going to be a very bumpy 4 years.

  • October 20, 2008

    1:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Derge writes:

    Romulus writes: "A feeble attempt to gloss over the hate-filled slimeball tactics of the McCain-Palin campaign."
    You should look at those Obamabot supports. Vitriol to the extreme (with a touch of lies).

    Conservativeslayer writes: "Kopel must think we are all stupid and don't know the history of right-wing bias at Fox Noise channel."

    Oh how cute. Calling it Fox Noise. OH HOW CLEVER. For an infant.
    CBS/NBC/WashingtonPost/Times/Newsweek/NewYorkTime/ MSNBC/CNN are all liberal biased. Even the ACLU had a study proving liberal bias in the media http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/...

    Yet ONE conservative news channel incites rages and anger from the left. You guys are seriously wacko.

  • October 21, 2008

    11:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    The study you cite, which is not from the ACLU, but from a political scientist at UCLA, doesn't *prove* jack sh__. Among other things, it doesn't cover the gamut of media, apparently selecting only a certain portion of the media to study. Moreover, its methodology is questionable.

  • October 23, 2008

    6:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    spencerr writes:

    Come on, Anderson,

    He got the letters right, just not in the right order. Give him a little credit.

  • October 23, 2008

    6:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    spencerr writes:

    And I think the UCLA study was quite good considering there is no real way to do that study using strict scientific method.

    Draw a line down the middle of America's opinion, and have people subjectively decide whether an issue is on the right side or the left for any given channel. Compile, and waaala!

    Anyway, just giving my two cents, but it is quite obvious that Fox News is a righty channel, and CNN and New York Times are lefty channels. As for the rest of 'em, ABC, NBC, and CBS, not to mention PBS (understandably), AP, and many other mainstream media sources are biased left.

    Look, for a true conservative and even most people on the Right (as arbitrarily defined, just for you Anderson), Global Warming is not a fact. Its causes and even its existance are still in debate. So when a station starts talking about global warming as if it is fact, that is a left/left-center bias. Likewise, the fact that the media covered Iraq right up until the situation started getting better shows a left-leaning bias.

    In their defense, "issues" seem to appeal to the masses when they are negative...when something is against the status quo. One might actually claim that mainstream media takes up left/left-center issues because they sell better. It is not purely political.

  • October 23, 2008

    5:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jeff writes:

    Mr. Kopel,
    To address just a small part of your column (I didn’t read the Campos one, incidentally), bringing up the E.D. Hill “terrorist fist-jab” comment not only shows that the Fox News network will go to jaw-dropping lengths to make a certain presidential candidate look bad, but also the fraudulent state of so-called news analysis in the Internet age.

    Take this hypothetical example in which the tables are turned: I go onto a Web site, maybe this one here, and post a comment: “John McCain tortures puppies.” Now, I don’t provide any proof for my “theory,” I’m just some idiot who makes an inflammatory comment on a message board (something that can be done anonymously, no less … and while drunk). Say during an editorial meeting at CNN or some other network, they bring up, “Hey, did you see people are saying on the Internet that McCain tortures puppies?” Again, there’s no proof of the accusation or even who made it, but journalists and talking heads detect a “narrative” developing, which by the new rules makes it all fair game for coverage. So, that night, Anderson Cooper or whoever goes on the air, shows a picture of John McCain and says something like, “John McCain. Maverick … or puppy-killer? People have a hard time agreeing.”
    Note the tease of the story stated as a question (as was Hill’s). This gives the newscaster an out in that he/she can claim, “I’m not saying he’s a puppy killer. I was just pointing out what other people are saying. I don’t claim to judge the validity of the accusation one way or the other.”

    What’s wrong with this picture?

    That’s my analogy. The sad thing is, the scenario I just made up seems less ridiculous than what actually happened with E.D. Hill’s segment. I mean, “body language segment!?” What the hell is that? I wonder if they did a “body language analysis” of that infamous photo of McCain sticking his tongue out as he (appears to) stares at Obama’s posterior. Somehow I doubt it.

    Oh, and P.S., Hill’s “apology” was one of the most smirked-through gestures I’ve ever seen by a newscaster. It looked like she was trying to keep from laughing. I don’t consider it sincere. And for the record, I don’t think Fox News is engaging in a conspiracy to make Obama look bad. Nothing this overt and out-in-the-open could be called a conspiracy.

  • October 23, 2008

    10:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Derge writes:

    anderson writes: "The study you cite, which is not from the ACLU"

    Touche'.

    I do give you credit for being right for the very first time ever posting on RMN. Of course, this is no honor you. A simple mistake on my part typing.

  • October 25, 2008

    8:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    spencerr: "And I think the UCLA study was quite good considering there is no real way to do that study using strict scientific method."

    Ah, thank you for acknowledging the scientific shortcoming of the study, and further concluding that it this is largely a subjective question.

    Here are my short complaints about all the complaints of media bias, most of which you've heard before:

    The media is commonly referred to as a monolithic thing. Of course it is anything but.

    The political world is not a binary (liberal and conservative).

    Can't be objectively proven. Most don't even try. The terms liberal and conservative for example can mean different things to different people. You can argue bias by consensus and most people would probably go along with that, but then that consensus has to be shown in some way other than "I said so".

    All too often, the charge of media bias is leveled by those engaged in propaganda, or in marketing books or media that play on this idea, i.e., their purpose is making the claim is not sincere.