The Paranoid Courts and the Paranoid Style in Trump-era Politics

“American politics has often been an arena for angry minds,” wrote historian Richard Hofstadter in Harper’s Magazine in November 1964. His essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”, explored a recurring phenomenon: the tendency to construct paranoid visions, identifying a nefarious enemy plotting to undermine the American ideal. Hofstadter described this as a psychological posture, an exaggerated suspicion and conspiratorial fantasy – not a psychiatric madness, but a way of thinking embraced by otherwise healthy individuals. This paranoid style, visible in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign, has gained renewed relevance in the era of Donald Trump, where political life is again driven by deep-seated fears and extremist rhetoric.

Hofstadter’s insights, initially tied to Goldwater’s inflammatory rhetoric, resonate strongly with today’s political climate. In the 1960s, Goldwater stoked fears of a country in peril, legitimizing extreme measures to preserve freedom. He famously declared, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Fast forward to the Trump era and we find similar rhetoric, framing political opponents not just as rivals, but as existential threats to American values. Trump’s political messaging fueled the notion that the country’s identity and future were at stake, leading to dangerous outcomes, such as the violent insurrection on 6 January 2021.

The Capitol riot was a stark manifestation of the paranoid style in modern American politics. A mob, convinced that the election had been stolen, stormed the Capitol in a violent attempt to overturn the results, threatening the peaceful transition of power – one of the cornerstones of constitutional democracy. This event was a reminder, familiar to Europeans, that political rhetoric can, in fact, lead to real-world violence. These are the circumstances where constitutional structures are truly tested. The existing constitutional and legal safeguards led to the former President being brought to trial by a special prosecutor, and parallel lawsuits brought Trump before the Supreme Court to challenge his right to run in an election. 

However, the Court – as it should in normal circumstances – did not take the extraordinary step of removing a political leader from the political arena during an election year. The fact that the courts could not definitively resolve political tensions is not necessarily a failure of the constitutional system. Rather, it demonstrates that constitutions are called to exercise resilience by ensuring that political processes do not overstep their bounds.

To understand the crucial role of constitutional systems, we must acknowledge that American politics today reflects deep cultural anxiety, amplified by demographic changes and the perception that a once-dominant majority – white, male, and Protestant – no longer entirely controls political discourse, leaving its social and economic position feeling under threat. Identity politics has taken on a new form, where this traditionally powerful group now sees itself as marginalized, fearing displacement by a changing society. This reversal has given rise to a political movement that frames itself as the last defender of traditional American values.

On the other side of the political spectrum, opponents of this identity-based movement are moving away from identity politics to focus on broader issues of inequality and social justice. The challenge for the US is whether it can still chart a path forward based on democratic ideals, or whether anger will continue to escalate and divide the nation further.

A vision grounded in constitutional democracy seeks to address these divisions through the language of peace, compromise and inclusivity. It calls for dialogue, mutual respect and a return to civil political discourse. This approach is not just about moderating rhetoric, but about reaffirming the principles that underpin democratic systems: that compromise is not capitulation, but a normal element of political life.

What Is at Stake for European Democracy

This American crisis has implications beyond US borders, particularly for Europe. Many European nations are facing their own version of social conflict, driven by cultural fragmentation, economic inequality, and populist movements. The tensions seen in the US may well foreshadow challenges that European democracies confront. Social conflict in Europe – fueled by anxieties about immigration, globalization and shifting social norms – echoes many of the same dynamics that have destabilized American politics.

The danger level of these social and political conflicts is alarmingly high, even if not unprecedented. Constitutional democracy thrives on disagreement and debate, but it is built on a foundation of dialogue and compromise. The ability to disagree while maintaining respect for the system itself is essential, as is the existence of robust political processes, participation mechanisms, and the protection of fundamental rights like freedom of speech and the right to vote.

This American election can serve as a wake-up call for Europe to examine its own democratic health. European states, and the European Union as a whole, must focus on strengthening their democratic credentials, ensuring that political systems remain resilient in the face of growing division. The ideal of progress, which has animated the European project since its inception, is not something to be taken for granted. It requires continuous, collective effort and engagement across the political spectrum.

Ultimately, democratic principles cannot rely solely on enlightened leaders; they must be upheld by a broad, inclusive consensus. In an era of heightened political tensions, the success of constitutional democracy depends on a collective understanding that progress is a shared responsibility, and the health of a democracy is measured not just by its institutions, but also by the commitment and participation of its citizens.