Understanding what they have
in common prompts a new look at a social philosopher whose work was
praised by one Republican, Eisenhower in the 1950s, and rewarded with a
Presidential Medal of Freedom by another, Reagan, just before Eric Hoffer’s
death in 1983.
His central theme was the anatomy
of what Hoffer called “The True Believer”—-the unthinking adherent of mass movements
from Communism and Fascism to Christianity and Islam.
"Passionate hatred,"
he wrote, "can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people
haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not
only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical
grievance."
In those days, such true
believers were limited to the fringes of post-World War II America in the ranks
of dwindling Communist faithful and their Joe McCarthy enemies. In a prosperous
and optimistic time, their ideas did not take root. But now that the political soil is far different, Hoffer’s description has more relevance:
“All mass movements generate
in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all
of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project,
breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them
are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of
life; all of them demand blind faith and single-hearted allegiance.”
Hoffer’s true believer” is
“without wonder and hesitation.” Losing independence in a mass movement, the follower
gains “a freedom to hate, bully, lie, torture, murder and betray without shame
and remorse.”
As the 2012 election heats up
with a 24/7 stream of invective on both sides, a new look at Hoffer could help
understanding of where we are and where we are heading.
“There is no greater threat to
sanity,” he wrote, “than the taking of one’s life too seriously. No one will
miss us long when we are gone. No one will lose his appetite because we are no
more.”
Americans could do much worse now
than revisit the work of the fabled “Longshoreman Philosopher” who is no more
but whose ideas might help those who remain.
5 comments:
Both sides? Really? That sure seems like a copout.
Well done, sir! Thanks so much for reminding us of Hoffer's excellent and most insightful work.
Anonymous, "Both Sides" ... that's Hoffer's point, actually. All sides in more complicated cases like Egypt or Syria. It's about each and every one of us, independent of "side."
According to a recent study, Liberals believe pretty much today what they did years ago. Conservatives, however, have moved further to the extreme right.
Anonymous is correct.
All the invective is on the R side. The Ds never run negative ads.
Note: By negative ad, I mean an ad that contains (literally) nothing but lies and that is a personal attack on the other party's candidates or voters.
The Rs flood the airways with those kinds of negative ads. The Ds never run them. No one can find an example of a negative ad by a D. There aren't any.
It's like the current R war on voters. No R can find an example of an illegal voter. Maybe there's been one or even two during the last two decades, but that's it. So for the Rs to say that there is a lot of illegal voting is definitely a negative ad. Every word in the ad is a lie. The ad very strongly implies (that the people voting for Ds are criminals..
Post a Comment