Hofstadter's Critical Writing Approach example essay topic

Richard Hofstadter's The American Political Tradition, like all his other writings, was greatly influenced by the ideology of the time period in which he wrote. The book was written at a time when progressive ideas were the most prevalent school of thought. Hofstadter was part of a growing number of writers who challenged these self-glorifying ideas. In the mid-thirties America had lost practically all critical content in favor of a "resurgence of American cultural chauvinism, a tiresome celebration of the American past". This mentality was partially fueled by the New Deal, where the government helped pull the country out of The Depression. The emergence of Communism also played a big role.

There was a strong reaction to those who believed that communism should become the new Americanism. Suddenly anti-American thought and critical writing gave way to a "literature of hero worship" and "national self- congratulation". This reaction to communism caused many Americans to rally behind democracy, becoming more patriotic and less critical of American history, its heroes and their flaws. Going against the fashion, Hofstadter wrote true to his own philosophy that "American political heroes are not saints in plaster but live and vulnerable figures of controversy". Much of Hofstadter's early writing was influenced by Marxism as an intellectual alternative to capitalism. Although not a supporter of Stalin, he did agree with the Marxist economic interpretation of history.

He did not, however, buy into the whole cultural transformation. It is these early roots in Marxist ideology that also contribute to Hofstadter's critical eye on America history. These Marxist ideas inspired a desire to find flaws in the American political system and its key figures. "The Partisan Review" was one such magazine which expressed this ideology. Although Marxist in intellectual approach, "The Partisan Review" was anti-Stalinist in its politics. This magazine most efficiently criticized the new "American Renaissance", as they called it.

Both The American Political Tradition and the "Partisan review" focus on American traditions, but instead of praising them, they criticized their inadequacies. Hofstadter's critical approach to writing affected practically everything he wrote. Hofstadter is almost always writing to criticize the progressive Historians as much as or more than the subject matter he is writing about. In The American Political Tradition, every chapter is filled with his criticism. In the case of Wendell Phillips the criticism is not so much directed at Phillips, but actually aimed towards the progressive historian's negative opinion of him. Hofstadter's anti- progressive ideology and cynical approach is evident in his writings on Abraham Lincoln, Wendell Phillips, and the spoilsmen.

Abraham Lincoln, despite the fact that he is considered to have been one of the greatest, if not the greatest president of The United State, was not free of Hofstadter's critique. This is evident right in the beginning of the chapter, when looking at the chapter title", Abraham Lincoln and the Self- Made Myth". A myth implies something false. For America, the legends of Abe Lincoln's humble beginnings and rail splitting are all part of his hero status. Hofstadter's tone in his writing as well as his words reveal Lincoln the politician, using his past for political gain. Hofstadter also points out, how brief these humble beginnings were, and how rapidly Lincoln actually rose.

Hofstadter by no means believed that Lincoln was a bad president, he just felt that Lincoln's sparkling clean hero image was a little extreme. Because of the fact that to many Americans Lincoln personified the American dream, progressive historians overlooked Lincoln's flaws and exaggerated his good qualities. Hofstadter sensed this and therefore he made sure he included every minor shortcoming that was ignored by others in an effort to polish Lincoln's heroic status. Throughout the chapter one can find Lincoln's character flaws such as his physical laziness and his political obsession.

Hofstadter is quick to display insults, quoting William Herndon when he states, "How are you going to make a great lawyer out of Lincoln His soul was afire with its own ambition and that was not law". By being so critical Hofstadter was not trying to be cruel but rather he was attempting to show America the reality that even the distinguished figures in American history are human and therefore imperfect. The chapter on Wendell Phillips is another chapter that demonstrates Hofstadter's critical writing approach. The difference is that in this chapter, Hofstadter is praising the subject and criticizing Phillip's critics. This chapter, entitled "Wendell Phillips: The Patrician as an Agitator", is unique in that it is the only chapter which is written about a non-politician.

Phillips was an agitator but never ran for any office. This raises two important questions: Why then does Hofstadter included Wendell Phillips in his book on American politics Also, why does Hofstadter praise Phillips instead of criticize The answer lies in the fact that Phillips was a key subject of negative criticism by progressives. Hofstadter, in regard to progressive Historians' opinion of Phillips, states, "Finding him useful chiefly as a foil to Abraham Lincoln, historians have stereotyped him as the wrongheaded radical of the Civil War crisis". 2 Hofstadter disagreed completely with their opinion of Phillips.

Hofstadter states that these historians " who have been indulgent with men who exaggerated because they wanted to be elected have been extremely severe with men who exaggerated because they wanted to free slaves". 2 The general historical opinion of Phillips angered Hofstadter enough to include a chapter in a book on politics on a non-politician. In order to defend Phillips and insult his critics Hofstadter aggressively states, "Phillips was in some ways more sophisticated than those who condemn him. Certainly he had attained a higher level of intellectual self-awareness". 2 This chapter on Wendell Phillips, while not critical to his study of American politics, is very important in that it demonstrates that Hofstadter's purpose in writing The American Political Tradition was more to denounce the progressive ideology and less to criticize the actual figures and systems in American political history.

Hofstadter's cynical and anti-progressive approach is also evident when he writes his chapter entitled, "The Spoilsmen: An Age of Cynicism". When most historians of Hofstadter's times were praising the wealthy entrepreneurs for demonstrating how great the American economic system was, Hofstadter went the other direction. He pointed out the corruption which filled the Nation when economical powerhouses take control of politics. Hofstadter believed that this is truly what had happened and was very critical of a time period which some historians see as a great time in American past. Hofstadter emphasizes the corruption when he states, "In business and in politics the captains of industry did their work boldly, blandly, and cynically. Exploiting workers and milking farmers, bribing Congressmen, buying legislatures, spying upon competitors, hiring armed guards. they made a mockery of the simple gentry who imagined that the nation's development could place dignity and restraint under the regime of laissez-faire".

2 Hofstadter writes this way in order to show the dark side of the American industrial revolution. He made sure it was known that this time period politically and economically was certainly not as glamorous as many historians made it out to be. Throughout his book, The American Political tradition, Richard Hofstadter is constantly being cynical and critical. Critical, that is, not necessarily of the subject matter he is writing about, but of the progressive ideology. Hofstadter was in disagreement with the what most historians at the time were writing about. Hofstadter would criticize when other historians would praise and vice versa.

Hofstadter would realistically write about history even if it meant tarnishing the reputation of American historical heroes. His basis for this thinking was greatly influenced by Marxism and other factors. Hofstadter's anti-progressive approach was clearly demonstrated in his chapter's on Abraham Lincoln, where he pointed out that the American hero was not without flaws, Wendell Phillips, where he criticized Phillip's critics, and The Spoilsmen, in which he revealed the harsh reality of industrialization and its effect on politics and the economy. Hofstadter was part of a cynical undertow in a wave of progressive writing.

The American Political Tradition is a very satisfying contradiction to all the hero praising, progressive historical writings of its time. 372.