1. Richard Hofstadter: Transcending Consensus
Patrick Sobkowski
Historiography – Fall 2016
Dr. Noer
October 31, 2016

2. 1
The academic study of History has fielded many different ideologies and methods as the
discipline has evolved throughout time, with many of these ideologies conflicting with one
another. When discussing the ideologies of the twentieth century, the two most significant
schools of thought are most certainly the progressive and consensus schools. The progressive
school was popular in the early twentieth century, placing emphasis on class conflict as the
driving force in historical events. Beginning in the 1940s, the consensus school of history rose to
prominence behind the leadership of Richard Hofstadter. The consensus historians rejected the
progressive idea that class conflict lay at the center of American history. They preferred the idea
that conflict was superficial and most often trivial, and that American values were basically
homogenous in nature.1 Hofstadter transcended the basic definition of the consensus school of
thought in that he took the ideology a step further and many of his works challenged the idea of a
consensus in history. He not only placed emphasis on changing American values, but he also
further emphasized social psychology in historical context. Hofstadter believed that there was a
strong relationship between politics and ideas in America, or “political culture”, indeed
Hofstadter told a reporter in 1960 “Call me a political historian mainly interested in the role of
ideas in politics, an historian of political culture rather than of parties or institutions”.2
Hofstadter coupled this idea of political culture with the psychoanalysis of American society to
transcend and expand the consensus school of history, and become the most prominent historian
and public intellectual of the twentieth century.
Richard Hofstadter was born in Buffalo, New York in 1916 to a Polish Jewish father and
a mother of Lutheran denomination. Buffalo was a city with a strong European immigrant
1 Daniel Joseph Singal, “Beyond Consensus: Richard Hofstadter and American Historiography,”
The American Historical Review Vol. 89, No. 4 (1984): 977.
2 Ibid., 978.

3. 2
population, and growing up in the 1920s and 1930s, Hofstadter had a front row seat to the
growing progress and industrialization of America. Buffalo’s reputation as a rapidly
industrializing city attracted the fancy of countless European immigrants in the early twentieth
century as America was making the rapid shift from a predominantly rural agrarian society, to an
industrialized urban one. The rise of corporate leviathans such as Carnegie Steel and Standard
Oil gave way to a vast increase in immigration and jobs.3 This paved the way for Hofstadter as a
commentator on the new idea of “cosmopolitanism” and its strength and weaknesses, as well as
the rapid progress created by it. Hofstadter quickly distinguished himself as an outstanding
scholar, collecting accolades such as class president, valedictorian and the Dartmouth Award for
outstanding scholarship, character and achievement.4 Hofstadter’s education came as a result of
the educational freedom that was so apparent in his home city of Buffalo coupled with the
prominent middle class standing enjoyed by the Hofstadter family.
Following his thoroughly successful high school career, Hofstadter enrolled at the
University of Buffalo in the autumn of 1933 to complete undergraduate degrees in philosophy
and history. The Great Depression gave way to several socialist and Communist student
organizations, due in part to the disillusionment that followed the stock market crash of 1929.
To young American thinkers, capitalism was identified as the enemy and this facilitated a
gravitation by Hofstadter toward Marxist politics in his youth. Brown writes; “As both the
resident of a city overwhelmed by industrial layoffs and a student receptive to the fresh social
and intellectual opportunities encouraged by university life, it is not surprising that Hofstadter
3 David S. Brown, Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2006), 4.
4 Ibid., 10.

4. 3
gravitated to Marxist politics in his youth”.5 Growing up in such a vastly urban setting and
culture that emphasized capitalism, blame for such a horrendous economic downturn was easily
placed on the dominant economic ideology of the time. Hofstadter was by no means a
passionate socialist revolutionary, but to deny the influence of Marxist ideology early in his
career would be a mistake.6 Indeed Hofstadter’s education found its roots in radical left wing
ideology, not in the sense that Hofstadter himself was radical, but rather his involvement with
socialist and Communist ideologies helped shape him as an intellectual; it introduced him to his
theory of “anti-intellectualism” and formed the basis for his ever famous skepticism of political
ideas in American society. These influences on his views would lead to Hofstadter’s eventual
association with the consensus school.
The consensus school of history rejected the progressive view of history that was so
dominant in the early twentieth century. Consensus historians surmised that American society as
a whole was basically uniform and homogenous in its values and ideals, whereas the progressive
historians of the earlier twentieth century placed emphasis on class conflicts. The consensus
school described America as “a happy land, adventurous in manner but conservative in
substance, and-above all-remarkably homogenous”.7 The central belief was that Americans were
in agreement in their ideologies, and thus, this agreement created a climate of political and social
stability while downplaying conflicts as superficial. Despite often being labeled as the leading
historian of the consensus school, Hofstadter deplored the label, and, in reading his work, one
might often find that Hofstadter disagreed with the idea that there was an ideological consensus
5 Ibid., 11.
6 Singal, “Beyond Consensus”, 981.
7 Ibid., 977.

5. 4
in American society. Hofstadter’s association with consensus history is apparent, though limited
in that he could scarcely narrow history down to a single consensus, he could not place blame
nor credit with a single idea. There is no doubt that Hofstadter was liberal in his political beliefs,
his early academic career as well as his work, The American Political Tradition demonstrate the
disillusionment with the American political system that came as a product of the Depression and
Marxist ideology in his university years.
Published in 1948, The American Political Tradition provides a pessimistic view of
American political history from the Founding Fathers up to and including, Franklin Roosevelt
and the New Deal. In his first major publication since his doctoral dissertation, Hofstadter is
critical of the Founding Fathers, progressivism and the New Deal. The work deviated from
Hofstadter’s dissertation in that it was written for the public, rather than almost exclusively for
scholars and those with doctorates in the field of History. Hofstadter asserts that the American
people have become too passive and spectatorial in their state of mind, and that “the American
past is carried on in a spirit of sentimental appreciation rather than of critical analysis”.8 Rather
than conform to the oft glorified political icons of American history, Hofstadter writes scathing
reviews of men from Thomas Jefferson to Franklin Roosevelt. The American Political Tradition
is Hofstadter’s first work of consensus history. Hofstadter finds in his analysis a common theme
of “unremitting opportunism”, a consistent goal to “bolster bourgeois capitalism-to allow the
middle classes to gorge themselves at the trough”.9 He finds that many of the political idols of
American history did not have the common good of the people in mind, but rather, their own
personal welfare.
8 Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition. (New York: Random House, 1948), v.
9 Singal, “Beyond Consensus”, 983.

6. 5
In the chapter concerning Thomas Jefferson, duly entitled “the Aristocrat as Democrat”,
discusses not the ideals of Jefferson as a selfless man of the people, but rather as a pragmatic
politician who was disgusted by conflict.10 For instance, Hofstadter discusses the romanticizing
by biographers of Jefferson’s seeming efforts to abolish slavery, yet “during most of his mature
life [Jefferson] owned about 10,000 acres and from one to two hundred Negroes”.11 Hofstadter
is especially critical of Jefferson’s extensive involvement in partisan politics. Hofstadter sternly
admonishes Jefferson for his supposed commitment to the welfare of the people by exposing his
unwillingness to accept the Hamiltonian system, even with the ongoing success of the American
economy. Jefferson’s love affair with partisan politics disproved his image as a crusading
democrat, his obsession with the Federalists and dismantling the work of Hamilton out of spite
clouded his image beyond clarification.
Hofstadter labels Franklin Roosevelt; “the patrician as opportunist”. Indeed, Hofstadter
discusses Roosevelt’s childhood battle with polio as a major contributing factor to his political
appeal. “Now a heroic struggle against the cruelest kind of adversity made a more poignant
success story than the usual rags-to-riches theme” Hofstadter continues; “it was also far better
adapted to a democratic leadership in a period when people were tired of self-made men and
their management affairs”.12 Hofstadter cites Roosevelt’s taking advantage of his illness as a
form of genius. The infantile bout with polio opened Roosevelt’s eyes, he felt connected with
people in need and he exploited this almost excessively. “His [Roosevelt’s] mind, as exhibited
in writings and speeches of the twenties, was generous and sensible, but also superficial and
10 Ibid., 983.
11 Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition, 19.
12 Ibid., 323.

7. 6
complacent”.13 Hofstadter links this description to Roosevelt’s policy-making as president,
criticizing Roosevelt’s political career as little more than a stepping stool for his own personal
benefit, again referencing the consensus of “unremitting opportunism”. The American Political
Tradition is one of the first prominent works of consensus history, and Hofstadter took a new
view of the traditional heroes of American politics. Yet, his next work The Age of Reform would
not only discuss consensus in American political culture, but Hofstadter focused for the first
time, on the psychoanalysis of American society.
Published in 1955, The Age of Reform is a sweeping analysis of the Progressive and
Populist movements, as well as other reform movements of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. Hofstadter places emphasis on his idea of “symbolic analysis” to try and explain
Progressivism and Populism. The book begins with discussion of what Hofstadter calls “the
agrarian myth”; that traditional American society was formed upon agrarian values, the ideal
man being the yeoman farmer who was self-sufficient, non-commercial and bereft of attachment
to money.14 Hofstadter explains that the agrarian myth cannot be explained in a simple phrase,
but rather the myth is a complex of ideas. The yeoman farmer took on the role of the ideal man
and citizen in American society, and worked an honest tract of land with the aid of his family.
They worked the land not with the intention of commercial benefit, but rather as a way of “living
off the land” so to speak. The agrarian myth, according to Hofstadter, stemmed from a
psychological phobia of the rapid urbanization of America that occurred in the early twentieth
century. The yeoman farmer lived in close communion with nature, and thus he acquired a
“wholesomeness and integrity impossible for the depraved populations of cities”.15 Hofstadter
13 Ibid., 324.
14 Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform. (New York: Random House, 1955), 23.
15 Ibid., 24.

8. 7
asserts that the agrarian myth became a symbol which served as a construct to provide psychic
comfort in the midst of rapid social and economic change. The yeoman was believed to be the
most honest and happy citizen, and since he had a stake in society in the form of land, he was
also seen as the most reliable citizen, as surmised by Jefferson; “The small land holders are the
most precious part of a state”.16
From his dismissal of the agrarian myth as a type of psychological safety net, Hofstadter
turned his sights on Populism and Progressivism. For Hofstadter, Populism came as a result of
the evolving ideas based on the agrarian myth.
Populism was the first modern political movement of practical importance in the United
States to insist that the federal government has some responsibility for the common weal;
indeed, it was the first such movement to attack seriously the problems created by
industrialism.17
Populism launched an all-out assault on both industrialization and government, it found its
solutions in “radical” reforms which Hofstadter says were either harmless or useful. But
Hofstadter is extremely dismissive of Populism; the Populist ideology was a utopia of the past
rather than the future. The Populists’ lingering attachment to agrarianism caused a backwardness
in their psyche; an inability to accept the inevitable urbanization of American society. To
Hofstadter, “the Populists were men who looked primarily backwards, clinging to a mythical
view of themselves as self-sufficient yeomen, although they had long since entered the modern
world of capitalist competition”.18 The Populists were thus subject to constant racism, bigotry
and paranoia.
16 Ibid., 25.
17 Ibid., 61.
18 Singal, “Beyond Consensus”, 989.

9. 8
Progressivism, as opposed to Populism, was predominantly urban, middle-class, and
nationwide.19 Progressivism placed its emphasis on reform for urban problems such as labor and
social welfare and the interest of the consumer as opposed to that of the wealthy business
interests that sprouted up as a result of industrialization. Indeed, Populism and Progressivism
were similar in their calls for reform in favor of the middle-classes, however, Progressivism to
Hofstadter, was much more sufficient than the backwardness of Populist thought. He credits
“the growth of middle-class reform sentiment” and “the contributions of professionals and
educated men” as factors that “made Progressive thought more informed, more moderate, more
complex than Populist thought had been”.20 In analyzing Hofstadter’s views of the Populists and
Progressives, one finds an unrelenting favorability towards the latter, for he finds that the
Progressives were much more capable in their efforts, far less paranoid, and did not use their
cause as a psychological amnesty as the Populists did. The Progressives had competent leaders
such as Theodore Roosevelt, and a growing consensus of Progressive ideology that became
“nationwide and bipartisan, encompassing Democrats and Republicans, country and city, East,
West, and South”.21 In a striking re-evaluation, Hofstadter praises Theodore Roosevelt; “TR
now became ‘the first major political leader’ to respond effectively to the plight of the
Progressive constituency”.22 Hofstadter displays an extremely obvious bias towards the
Progressives, and an equally vehement dismissal of the Populist cause, no doubt as a result of his
exclusively urban upbringing as well as the lingering scent of McCarthyism. McCarthyism
represented everything that threatened Hofstadter’s beliefs, Hofstadter saw the Populists as a
19 Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, 131.
20 Ibid., 133.
21 Ibid., 133.
22 Singal, “Beyond Consensus”, 988.

10. 9
threat to intellectualism not because of the reforms per say, but because they represented the old,
backwards values of village America. The Age of Reform also introduces a new idea of paranoia
in American society. He dismisses the Populists as hopelessly paranoid, holding a “common
feeling that farmers and workers were not simply oppressed but oppressed deliberately,
consciously, continuously, and with wanton malice by “the interests”.23 The theme of paranoia
in American society would serve as a basis for his next work, an essay describing the vast
climate of paranoia which he saw as pervading American politics.
The Paranoid Style in American Politics is an essay that was published in 1964 which
discusses the influence of conspiracy theory in American politics. A full-fledged application of
psychoanalysis to American History and political culture, the essay discusses political paranoia
against subversions culminating in McCarthyism and the John Birch Society. The essay
maintains the steady barrage of attacks against myth and paranoia that is so prominent in his
prior works. Hofstadter dismisses the paranoia in American politics as “exaggeration,
suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy”.24 The “paranoid style” is the idea by a politician that
conspiracy is being directed towards a nation, a culture which affects millions of people.
Hofstadter describes a bill sponsored by Senator Thomas E. Dodd that proposed tighter
regulations concerning the sale of firearms through the mail in the wake of President John
Kennedy’s assassination, a perfectly logical precaution as Kennedy’s assassin had purchased his
weapon through the mail. However, one Arizona Senator opposed it with the argument that it
was “a further attempt by a subversive power to make us part of one world socialistic
23 Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, 70.
24 Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. (New York: Random House,
1964), 3.

11. 10
government”.25 A classic example of illogical and anti-intellectual paranoia in American
politics. Hofstadter then asserts that the paranoid style is not simply a one-time thing, but rather
a recurring phenomenon which often pervades American political culture. He provides
numerous examples, including a speech by Senator Joe McCarthy, in which he insists that “men
high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster”.26 Hofstadter’s main assault
comes against McCarthy and the obsession with communism pervading America. The
motivations for his assault on McCarthyism may be traced back to his dismissal of Populism in
The Age of Reform as McCarthyism represented everything that Hofstadter feared as an
intellectual. He vehemently dismissed McCarthy as an anti-intellectual, a man pervaded by the
paranoid style. He was disgusted by the fact that the paranoid style place conspiracy as the
driving force in historical events.27 To the paranoid spokesman, History is one gargantuan
conspiracy aimed at the American people to bring down political orders, whole worlds or
systems of human values. The paranoid style to Hofstadter was a part of the human psyche
which he felt constantly dismantled American politics and clouded judgement of the politicians
involved. Even in contemporary politics, The Paranoid Style receives attention concerning
Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election. One might go so far as to equate Trump with
McCarthy in his extensive paranoia. Trump is constantly paranoid of the media, foreign nations
and even his own political party, fearing that they have a vendetta against him and his campaign.
Trump’s paranoia is the textbook definition of Hofstadter’s paranoid spokesman, with theories
such as the Chinese inventing the concept of climate change as a hoax.
25 Ibid., 5.
26 Ibid., 7.
27 Ibid., 29.

12. 11
When he died in 1970, Richard Hofstadter left behind many questions which not even his
most comprehensive works could answer. Indeed, he was one of the first historians to uncover a
consensus in The American Political Tradition, but his work did not stop at the beliefs of the
consensus school of history, rather his works transcended them. Hofstadter did not simply find
the existence of a consensus, no he delved into the psyche of American society to try and
uncover why that consensus existed in the first place. He was the first historian to utilize
psychology in his historiography, indeed his works are filled with words such as “paradox”,
“paranoid”, “identity”, and “anxiety”.28 Hofstadter sought to not only diagnose the illusions and
myths of American political culture, but also to discover what gave rise to those illusions and
myths. Howe and Finn describe Hofstadter as a “psychiatrist for American society”29 in that he
attempted and often succeeded in discovering the inner parts of the human psyche that gave way
to the sometimes anti-intellectual and often paranoid illusions of American society as a whole.
Not only did Richard Hofstadter transcend consensus history, but he was among the first
historians to be labeled a “public intellectual”. Hofstadter did not simply sit in his office at
Columbia University researching, but he often partook in talk shows and news networks
applying his historical findings to contemporary issues. He blazed a trail for contemporary
public intellectuals such as David McCullough and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Hofstadter was the
first to make History accessible to the general public rather than exclusively for academics and
scholars; “What is more, Hofstadter wrote for a wider audience than most historians and couched
his ideas in vigorous, epigrammatic prose”.30 His publications were readable to the common
28 Daniel Walker Howe and Peter Elliott Finn, “Richard Hofstadter: The Ironies of an American
Historian,” Pacific Historical Review Vol. 89, No. 4 (1974): 3.
29 Ibid., 7.
30 Ibid., 2.

13. 12
person, and perhaps more importantly, easy to understand. Perhaps the most fascinating thing
about Hofstadter’s work is that he left in his wake a wide range of historical interpretations that
did not conform to a single idea. For instance, his writing in Social Darwinism in American
Thought is quite different in nature and substance than that of The Age of Reform. His ever
changing views and ideologies created a bibliography of work still unmatched in diversity.
The rise of the consensus school in the 1940s led by Richard Hofstadter provided a new
view of history. Consensus historians downplayed conflict in American society and emphasized
the roll of ideas and values as the driving force in historical events. The schools’ leader, Richard
Hofstadter not only provided a discovery of a consensus, but he also transcended it, applying
psychoanalysis to the field of history, something that had never been done so effectively before.
Indeed, some of Hofstadter’s ideologies are now outdated and disproved, but to dismiss
Hofstadter for this would be a grave misstep. What distinguishes Hofstadter from his peers is his
outstanding commitment to constant innovation. His historiography is not one of concrete and
irrefutable conclusions for himself, but rather as a trail blazer for later historians. Hofstadter’s
transcendence of the consensus school established him as a historian, public intellectual and
psychoanalyst seldom found in contemporary society.

14. 13
Bibliography
Daniel Joseph Singal, “Beyond Consensus: Richard Hofstadter and American Historiography,”
The American Historical Review Vol. 89, No. 4 (1984).
Daniel Walker Howe and Peter Elliott Finn, “Richard Hofstadter: The Ironies of an American
Historian,” Pacific Historical Review Vol. 89, No. 4 (1974).
David S. Brown, Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2006).
Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform. (New York: Random House, 1955).
Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition. (New York: Random House, 1948).
Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. (New York: Random House,
1964).