I came across this recently, but honestly I forget where (sorry for the consequent linkopenia!).

This comes from a 1963 speech by left-winger Richard Hofstadter, and was directed against the paranoids of the American “right” at the time: the anti-communists, the McCarthyites, etc. In its analysis of the paranoid mind, it appears more applicable (in my opinion, at any rate) to the current Left. Part of the appeal of his analysis I think is that both sides of the present ideological divide will think it accurately describes The Enemy.

Of course, my side is right.

Heh

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. 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 theatre 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. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind [...]; he has a special technique for seduction [...].

The closest parallel for Canadian politics is the spittle-flecked eruptions from the Liberals about the Reform Party in the 1990s. Or Vancouver Liberal MP Hedy Fry accusing residents of Prince George, BC, of having burning crosses on their lawns. After all, if They are evil, any lie and any calumny is justified if it leads to the Victory of Good. There is a faint taste of this in Paul Wells’ comments about AdScam a couple of weeks ago: It Was All To Save The Country! The BQ Were Winning! We Had To Do Something! In American terms, it seems the current left’s obsession with Israel is pretty much the same thing: they control the neo-cons! The neo-cons control Bush! Bush controls the oil! Argghhhhhhh!!!!

For the paranoid mind, the ends always–always–justify the means. Thomas Sowell made something of the same point a few years ago in his great book The Vision Of The Anointed (Self-Congratulation As A Basis For Social Policy). The Left has “special powers of perception”, you see, which makes them much more able than you and I to perceive the real wrongs in society, and also grants to them the special responsibility of addressing those wrongs–by force if necessary. And force is always necessary. The poor little b*st*rds can’t be expected to do it right on their own, now, can they? Poor little dears.

…

Of course, as I noted above, the description of the paranoid mind above will also be applied by Lefties to leaders on the right. But they’re wrong. I’m right. I can tell. I can perceive their conspiracy and their malice! Can’t you?