The Life of the Mind: An Intellectual Biography of Richard Hofstadter Andrew Ronald Snodgrass Jesus College This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy November 2018 Abstract The Life of the Mind: An Intellectual Biography of Richard Hofstadter Andrew Ronald Snodgrass Despite his death in 1970, Richard Hofstadter’s work continues to have an enduring influence in American political culture. Yet despite the continued and frequent use of his interpretations in public discourse, his reputation within historical scholarship remains, to a large degree, shaped by perceptions that were formed towards the end of his career. The narrative pervades of Hofstadter as the archetypal New York intellectual who rejected his youthful radicalism for political conservatism which, in turn, shaped his consensus vision of the past. These assessments reflect the biographical tendency to read a life and career backwards. From such a vantage point, Hofstadter’s work is viewed through the prism of his perceived final position. My dissertation challenges the accepted narrative by considering his writing in the context of the period of time in which it was written. In doing so, it is evident that his work belies attempts to reduce his scholarship to reflections of a shifting political standpoint. Whilst it is undoubted that Hofstadter’s historical and political view changed through time, there was a remarkable consistency to his thought. Throughout his career, his writing and lectures were suffused with a sense of the contingency of truth. It was the search for new uncertainties rather than the capture of truth which was central to his work. It was also fundamental to his politics. The sense of ambiguity and complexity that pervaded Hofstadter’s writing and informed his political viewpoints was, I argue, a reflection of personal temperament. Naturally shy, his early correspondence shows a marked diffidence and ambivalence in the face of personal and political choice. The writing of history not only reflected this ambivalence but provided a means of working though it and of determining his own intellectual and political position. In this respect, Hofstadter provides his own self-narrative within his work. It is Hofstadter’s own voice that provides the direction for my study. Perhaps more importantly, it is a voice that continues to provide instruction for those who would seek a role for the historian at the centre of the intellectual and political life of the nation. Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to the financial support that I have received from a number of sources since the commencement of my studies. I thank The Worshipful Company of Cutlers for the award of a Craythorne Scholarship and the Stapley Educational Trust for the provision of a grant. My archival research was made possible by the generous support of the History Faculty and the award of several Trust Fund grants. In addition, I have been fortunate to receive assistance from the Access to Learning Fund and Jesus College. In the absence of funding, this support has been essential to my progress. Above all, my thesis is heavily indebted to the honesty, integrity, and continual encouragement of Michael O’Brien and Andrew Preston. I thank Michael for his initial support of my project and for the wise guidance he provided throughout his time as supervisor. It is impossible to express the impact that he has had on both my writing and my thought. I thank Andrew for stepping in at a difficult time and steering me through the final years of my study. I could not wish for a more dedicated and attentive supervisor. During stressful times, he has brought a sense of calm reassurance. Furthermore, the thesis owes much to his perceptive reading and insightful comments. I should also like to thank Michael Heale and Richard King, who have provided support and guidance over many years. It was Michael who first sparked my interest in American history, and Richard who directed me towards intellectual history. More importantly, their support and encouragement gave me the confidence to pursue my studies. The completion of a PhD can be a lonely process, all the more so when studying part- time, and there have been many times when it seemed like an impossible task. In these times the unceasing support and love of friends and family have been essential. For this, I am greatly indebted. In particular, I must thank Jill Walker without whom it is unlikely that I would have made it to the end. Her encouragement and positivity, at the darkest times, gave me the needed courage to continue. The completion of my thesis owes a great deal to her unfaltering confidence and belief. Lastly, this thesis is dedicated to the memory of Michael O’Brien. The world is an immeasurably poorer place for his absence. Contents Acknowledgments vii Introduction 1 1. No Place To Go: The Student Years 16 2. Truth Happens: Social Darwinism in American Thought 44 3. Shifting Ground: The American Political Tradition 75 4. Chastened by Adversity – The Age of Reform 107 5. In Defence of Intellect: Anti-Intellectualism in American Life 140 6. A Nation Slouching Onwards: The Turbulent Sixties 175 Conclusion 209 Bibliography 215 1 Introduction Richard Hofstadter occupied a prominent position within the intellectual life of mid- twentieth century America. As De Witt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University, and the author of two Pulitzer Prize winning works of history, he was considered one of the nation’s preeminent historians. Yet his influence extended well beyond the narrow confines of the academy. Throughout his career he had managed simultaneously to engage a scholarly and a public audience, his work garnering praise in academic journals and the popular press alike. During his lifetime, his ability to combine critical and commercial success had been unrivalled. Nevertheless, his death came at a point when a younger generation of historians had commenced the work of revising his key assumptions and conclusions. These challenges to Hofstadter’s historical interpretations set the terms of debate and coloured impressions of his work which have largely prevailed. Hofstadter would have been unsurprised by the failure of his conclusions to stand the test of time. He had always viewed his works as provisional, aware that any explanation of the past is necessarily limited and contingent. His historical works were conceived as contributions to the contemporary debate, spurs to discussion, rather than the final word on the historical record. It was this desire to write history of relevance to the present, and to challenge long held beliefs, that ensured his was an important voice at a critical time in the history of American liberalism. It also meant that, as the political culture changed, his interpretations appeared to lose their sense of urgency and relevance. As Michael Kazin suggests, Hofstadter came to be viewed as ‘an elegant ruin from a benighted age, an intellectual temple constructed from old- fashioned materials.’ Nevertheless, almost thirty years after Hofstadter’s death, Kazin’s title confidently declared, “Hofstadter Lives”.1 1 Michael Kazin, “Hofstadter Lives: Political Culture and Temperament in the Work of an American Historian,” Reviews in American History, 27, (1999), 335. 2 Despite the passing decades and altered political landscape, Hofstadter’s concepts have always retained a certain cultural currency within public political discourse. The pertinacious appeal, to significant sections of American society, of right-wing ideology and rhetoric continues to bemuse journalists and popular commentators on the left. Hofstadter provided a pre-packaged formula for analysis of the phenomenon. Terms such as ‘paranoid style’, ‘pseudo-conservatism’, ‘status politics’, and ‘anti- intellectualism’ swiftly entered the nation’s vernacular and continue to be used in discussions of the allure of right-wing politics in America.2 Until recently the persistence of these phrases in public discourse owed as much to the failure of political analysts to break free from mid-century interpretations of conservative thought as to Hofstadter’s epigrammatic style. However, the shifting of the political environment has, once again, brought a renewed relevance to his analysis. Within academic circles, Hofstadter’s interpretations are cited with less frequency and rarely without challenge. Nevertheless, the widespread attention received by David Brown’s 2006 biography of Hofstadter was indicative of, and indeed owed much to, the enduring interest of Hofstadter amongst historians and general readers alike.3 The publication offered a welcome opportunity for those within the historical profession to reconsider both his work and legacy.4 Whilst subsequent historical assessments of 2 Since the beginning of the 2016 election campaign, there has been a remarkable increase in references to Hofstadter’s work. Some examples include, Max Boot, “How the ‘Stupid Party’ Created Donald Trump,” The New York Times, July 31, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/how-the-stupid-party-created-donald- trump.html; Paul Musgrove, “Donald Trump is Normalizing Paranoia and Conspiracy Thinking in U.S. Politics,” The Washington Post, January 12, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/12/donald-trump-has- brought-us-the-american-style-in-paranoid-politics/?utm_term=.8a8f6cdca6cb; Bret Stephens, “The g.O.P. Bonfire of the Sanities,” The New York Times, January 26, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/opinion/republicans-paranoia-mueller-trump.html