The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right – Reviewed by Edwin A. Schwisow
by Barbara Gohl
The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right
By Arthur Goldwag
Hardback: 400 pages
Publisher: Pantheon (appearing in paperback September 4, 2012)
ISBN-10: 0307742512
Price: $27.95 (available at discount for about $11, plus postage and handling)
Reviewed by Edwin A. Schwisow
Submitted August 23, 2012
“The people have been continually agitated by false alarms and without even the apparition of a foe. They have been made to believe that their government and their religion were upon the eve of annihilation. The ridiculous fabrications of plots, which have been crushed out of being by the weight of their own absurdity…have been artfully employed to excite an indignation which might be played off for the purposes of party….”(Diatribe in the early 1800s against Thomas Jefferson who is accused of being a member of the Illuminati)
Sound familiar? Sound like 2012? Think again. Hate-speak and conspiracy mongering are part of the political and religious fabric of an America that has also given birth to three of the world’s prime apocalyptic religions: Latter-day Saints, Adventism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right,” by Arthur Goldwag, is certainly one of the first books dedicated to a long and careful analysis of the long-term historical joust in the United States between the traditionalist religious and the more experimental “liberals” who identify with Enlightenment thought.
The book analyzes the psychology and development of the typically American partisan tough-talk among religious sects and political parties—rhetoric that not only said Abraham Lincoln was wrong, but asserted that he was actually a natural product of an ape and a human.
Clearly, the imprecations against one’s political foes is nothing new in the United States, and the current Internet-driven tirades and radio’s Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have nothing over the highly editorialized yellow journalism prevalent in the early days of the American republic. Nor is the mixture of religious and political malediction anything new in an America that has at times prematurely boasted of its successful separation of church and state.
The author believes that the struggle by Enlightenment thinking against the strong populist conservatism (once endemic to the Democratic Party, but which has now transferred residence to the GOP) explains, in large part, the prevalence of “conspiracy thinking” among Americans through the centuries, and even today, and dire fears of Catholics, Masons, Communists, Atheists, Socialists, Non-heterosexuals, Spiritualists, Satanists, Jews, Humanists, and Muslims, to name but a few prominent examples.
Though the book betrays no strong bias toward the right or the left, it will be appreciated more by the progressive reader who seeks to understand the historical underpinnings of today’s ungloved political speech—an environment in which Ellen White grew up and from which the Adventist denomination emerged, trailing sulfuric plumes of apocalyptic.
While the book contains an abundance (400 pages) of new and useful content regarding the long and intense history of political and religious disagreement, the manuscript itself suffers from overall disorganization that a good editor could have resolved. But Goldwag clearly has a first-rate mind, and his writing is capable and at times nearly poetic.
This is a fine book to read as longer evenings beckon Americans to meditate by the fireside about the outrageously expensive, gloves-off, below-the-belt Democracy that we still pretend is part of our “exceptionalism” and religious heritage as a “light on a hill.”
"Abraham Lincoln . . . . . . was actually a natural product of an ape and a human." Very interesting! Where does this come from?
From the same place that has continued to discredit Obama's birthplace. and are
"certain" he is really a Muslim. Today's populists are not quite so crass but the intent and idea is the same. It is the same as two folks who threw nuts at a black cameraman at the Repub convention yesterday, saying "Here's some nuts, go feed the animals." A large group still exists who are incensed that we have a black president.
There are no intellectual qualifications for citizenship for the native-born. The naturalized must take tests in the U.S. government.
Where does this come from, meaning, where
is this information promoting Lincoln as an amalgam to
be found?
I am surprised and disappointed that AToday sees this book as worthy of a review. Who is Arthur Goldwag? Has this book gained any credibility in any "intellectual" circles beyond Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and Salon? Does the fact that it is coming out in paperback less than five months after publication perhaps suggest that autographed copies may very soon find a home on the 99 cent counter at book stores?
I scanned the book, and note that it has no bibliography and no references to any authoritative sources. At least Ann Coulter's book "Demonic", which makes a much more persuasive case for the reality of Leftist populism, is well-documented. Populist appeals are no more unique to either political party than is the robust political debate that Ed Schwisow's Leftist leanings lead him to characterize, without reference, as the below-the-belt democracy that "we" (code for conservatives) pretend is part of our "exceptionalism" and religious heritage as "a light on a hill." Is below-the-belt politcal rhetoric really more prevalent in the more religious and conservative Christian America than it is in "secular" Europe?
What we ironically see generated, by popcorn and peanuts choir appeals, like Goldwag's book, is knee jerk, hateful reactions by folks like Elaine, whose puerile attempts to create guilt by association are the height of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Do you think it would be difficult for me to come up with dozens of examples of hateful, nutty behavior and statements from the Left?
That Schwisow would consider Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage to be cut from the same cloth, yet fail to mention Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow (need I go on?) demonstrates a transparent politcal bias that he tries to conceal under a patina of objectivity. That he would articulate a lengthy laundry list of victims of phobias and hate, without including pro-lifers, the wealthy, and Conservatives, perennial objects of Left wing populist hatred (Remember Hillary Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy?"), only serves to underscore the bias underlying this review.
For the reviewer to suggest that the book betrays no strong bias toward the left or right indicates that he is, to put it charitably, directionally challenged. Even Arthur Goldwag would be slack-jawed to learn that Mr. Schwisow is oblivious to the enterprise revealed in the book's subtitle – "The History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right."
If AToday sees the promotion of divisive political works as part of its mission, it would be nice to at least see something with a bit more scholarly, intellectual heft than this book and this review.
“Is below-the-belt politcal rhetoric really more prevalent in the more religious and conservative Christian America than it is in ‘secular’ Europe?”
Is it then assumed that those who claim to be “more religious and conservative” are less prone to “below-the-belt political rhetoric”?
If yes, why is this assumed so?
Is there any available evidence of this?
No, Stephen. It is neither assumed, nor provable. Schisow began with the conclusion that Goldwag's book might have special relevance for Adventists because Adventists, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses were uniquely birthed in the fabric of conspiracy mongering and hatred that is the life blood of populism. I believe that is a preposterous conclusion which could easily be dismantled by a high school student. I think you know very well that I am too intelligent to assume that because a given proposition is unproven, its inverse is therefore true.
It is much more accurate to say that conspiracy mongering and hatred are characteristic of fundamentalists who make a mission of expanding control over others through their truth claims. It doesn't matter if they are liberal or conservative. Thus, Marxists and Muslims, neither of which are populist movements, have been at the forefront of conspiracy and hate mongering in recent history. Naziism, also at the forefront of hate, began very much as a populist movement, but was definitely not religious.
Certainly, a definition of "populism" is required before one can examine Goldwag's hypothesis. The hateful rhetoric from the Left, that divides Americans by race, ethnicity, gender, and wealth, does not so much indicate a rise in populism as a rise in ideological warfare. The same can be said of the rhetoric on the right, dividing America according to traditional family values, hard work, and distrust of strong centralized government (distrust strongly shared, by the way, by founders like Thomas Jefferson).
Of course populism still exists. But the prime example in the recent past is the hate-filled, destructive Occupy Wall Street Movement, which was endorsed by the "peace-loving" Left, not the "hateful" Right. By contrast, Glenn Beck conflabs in Washington, D.C. and Dallas have been models of decorum and civility. This is not to suggest that Glenn Beck's appeal is populist, unless one uses "populist" to denigrate a popular movement, with common sense appeal, that one opposes. Glenn Beck is really quite ideological and does not take his cues from the polls.
Most folks who decry incivility and hate speech only seem to notice it when they believe the other side has done it. Witness Elaine's silly, and unreferenced, observation that many Americans' opposition to President Obama is race-based. She completely ignores the reality that many Americans' support for President Obama is likewise race-based. She also takes an isolated event at the Republican convention, about which little investigative information has been released, and hatefully smears the Republican convention with complicity in what appears to be racist hooliganism. She is oblivious to the reality that she is doing precisely what Goldwag and Schwisow seem to think is uniquely characteristic of right-wing populism.
The "New Hate" is neither new, unique to the Right, nor unique to populism. But, there is no better time than election season for those on the Left to nurse the illusion that, win or lose, whether their ideas work or fail, they are morally superior to those hate-filled conservatives.
I don’t know how a response could be more subtly self-serving. It’s hard to know where to start, but a definition of populist/populsim can’t be a bad place.
Before I start specifically criticizing what you’ve said, how about you providing a definition?
Sure Stephen, I'll provide you with a description of what I think populism means. But remember, I think the burden is on Schisow to define it, since he contends it has relocated from the Democrat party to the Republican party, and he associates it with hate.
At its most basic, I view populism as the advancement or adoption of a political policy or belief based upon its appeal to popular sentiment, rather than principled reason or logic. Minimum wage laws are an excellent example of populism. Virtually all studies lead economists to agree about the harmful effects these laws have on their intended beneficiaries. Furthermore, the domino effect of these laws on workers higher up the wage scale inevitably pushes up the cost of goods, creating inflationary pressures that, at a minimum, cancel out the immediate benefits. But minimum wage laws are nevertheless wildly popular, and seen as a cornerstone of fundamental fairness and justice.
As I see it, the most characteristic trait of populism is the willingness to abandon philosphical/political principles to advance a popular cause or to generate the perception that one's policies will benefit the "common man." Bush '43 and Bill Clinton were, to my way of thinking, quite populist in their way of governing. Bill O'Rielly is a good example of a populist pundit. President Obama is populist in his rhetoric, but much less populist in his policies. He is highly ideological.
Conservatives, who sought federal intervention in Terry Schiavo case, surrendered their belief in a limited role for the Federal government in order to achieve a populist end. Liberals, who opposed the Supreme Court weighing in on the Florida ballot count dispute in the 2000 election likewise used populist appeals to argue for state supremacy, a position that is clearly contrary to their fundamental values. Populist appeals tend to be result-oriented, rather than driven by principles.
Mind you, Stephen, I am not suggesting a conservative antistrophe to Schisow's blog. I am simply arguing that his premises and conclusions are highly biased and flawed. Of course, if you disagree with my sense of what populism means, it will probably explain some of our differences about which side of the political spectrum is more prone to populism, though I'm sure we will never agree about which side is more prone to promote hate and mob mindsets.
How can a book have no strong leaning to one side or the other when you expect it will be more appealing to those whose views are more similar to the author's? Goldwag makes no attempt to hide his prejudice against those who ask for evidence instead of demagoguery. I will not be wasting my time or money on his book.
Populism has existed on both the left and the right, however you define these points of reference by era and society; I have noted that the populism of the right tends to be a populism centering on the need for carefulness, and in fact at times deep-set fear; the populism on the left tends to be a populism of sarcasm, even elitism. Both exist in the Adventist church, primarily at the edges, but recently it has appeared to me that those edges have thickened, eaten into the mainstream center somewhat. Is this bad? I find it unappealing, but more about this below. There are indeed overlaps in left- and right-hand populism, but the trend to arrogance on the one hand and careful fear on the other seems to be established as an overall generalization in my experience. I would tend to define populism as any attempt to persuade that relies primarily on strong appeals to emotion (rage, hate, sarcasm, fear and even love and tenderness) rather than substance and reason (syllogisms, science, observable evidence, honest appeals to history).
Perhaps all nations and religions begin with a great deal of emotion, and certainly Mormonism, Adventism, and Pentecostalism did so in America—and I think still do rely on powerful emotions for survival and growth. Many a Mormon missionary in my home has told me that a feeling inside me will vouch for the correctness of the Mormon Truth. Pentecostals tell me that I must allow the Spirit to convict me. My Adventist background tells me that to attain heaven, I must make fearful deductions about the end of time, the cupidity and perfidy of Babylon and the Catholic Church—and express these views openly and often.
Populism seems to be a natural (if perhaps anguished) form of human expression, but I believe America is at times deluded (as is Adventism) that we have somehow managed to surmount it. I have read that populism is generally a short-lived phenomenon that pops up for awhile, then goes underground for a spell, only to reappear once again every generation or so. The theory is that the emotion of populism is so intense, that it wears out its own practitioners and requires them to recharge their batteries, come up for air, etc. Certainly the hippie movement of the 1960s bore strong elements of leftist populism—but today seems confined to confused hitchhikers over the age of 60. George Wallace's conservative populism nominally from the Democratic Party was equally temporal on the front pages of the nation. Now we seem to be having a renaissance of the phenomenon. I suspect one of the real difficulties with populism in a representative democracy is that it’s difficult to debate classically within that framework. Perhaps populism is ultimately a steam valve we use to vent verbally when we might otherwise come to blows—it’s legal in a free society, and I comfort myself with the thought that it may well be therapeutic in the longer haul and a necessary remedial draught from time to time to keep the tree of freedom growing with its leaves of populism brewed from for the healing of the nation.
By your definition of populism, Ed, virtually all politics is populist, because it relies almost exclusively on appeals to emotion. Emotion is an inescapable part of every life, political community, and religion. It is the "common man," popular aspect of a policy or appeal that makes it populist more than its emotional appeal. I would stick to "popular sentiment" rather than emotion as the hallmark of populism, assuming we need to and can come up with a non-politicized, non- pejorative definition.
I don't see any of the three religions you named as populist at all. The religious movements of The Great Awakening, whether sectarian or not, were all passionate about faith. All religious and political movements rely heavily on emotion and fear to survive and grow. Those features are not unique to the religions you reference. Adventism was quite a rationalistic, doctrinal religion, treating the Bible as a puzzle to be solved, and struggling to find self-vindication after the Great Disappointment. It never sought, nor found, widespread popularity, if for no other reason than that its doctrine of the Sabbath was highly unpopular. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that Adventism is about as far from populist as a religion can be.
I feel sorry, Ed, that you are still held captive to the ghost of Adventism past. To the extent that your negative caricature still exists in certain areas, does it really personally affect you?
I just don't see that we are experiencing a renaissance of populism. I see us experiencing an intensification of ideological warfare in this country. That warfare is waged with populist rhetoric (the "middle class," "working Americans," "wealth sharing"), but the goals are highly ideological – liberty and private property vs. security and communalism.
Of course the real issue I have with this review is the implication that the "new hate" is somehow a phenomenon of the Right, or even an identifying feature of populism more than socialism or libertarianism. Those who insist that it is disdainfully label their opponents "populists" to lend moral and intellectual superiority to their own self-perceived pragmatism and rationalism. The truth is, "populism" itself is little more than an amorphous label of contempt and disdain used by those who want to cloak their emotions in a garb of intellectualism to describe the benighted rubes who have the effrontery to actively oppose what the elite class knows is right.
I appreciate the tremendous investment in time and cogitation some of you have shared in these comments. I must respond with some brevity, as we will be out and about tomorrow as a family, canning peaches for the long Northwestern winter. A good time will be had by all, though some may find such doings simply "the pits." Yes, we will have those too!
Certainly compared to contemporary European nations the level of passion in American politics and religion is very highly keyed. America, let us simply say, is a very dramatically inclined nation, and we frankly entertain the world (pun intended, Hollywood). We're apparently built that way historically, and the denominations that have risen up here are indeed passionate, extroverted, and emotionally charged, as well—and often very confrontational. Adventism has certainly toned that earliest fanaticism considerably, that I will agree. But we remain a product of our roots. I regularly attend services at one of the most conservative congregations (by any count) in the Pacific Northwest where I serve as an elder and have yet to collide verbally with any bitterness with my very conservative brethren in more than 34 years at that congregation, though others have sought to engage me in protracted controversy over this or that issue. I have found myself able to sustain a discussion amicably, and I particularly value the statement by one of our most "historic conservative members" that he values me as a fellow member because I do care for people in a Christian way and do not disagree hurtfully with them when my view collides with theirs. Perhaps Adventism has helped me to some degree hone out those rough edges I so piously exhibited as a young know-it-all in my early days as an Adventist. (Let he who believes he stands, beware lest he fall.)
Life tomorrow will be all peaches and cream. Enjoy the holiday, and let us continue to do what we can to advance the Free Press, needed so much more today as we face immense challenges within our denomination and in a nation that appears, once again, to be bound for an election that could divide the national electorate as perfectly as I will be splitting peaches to the pit tomorrow in the kitchen…..