The Originality Trap: Richard Hofstadter on Populism

Abstract

Richard Hofstadter was among the preeminent historians of his generation, one of that small band who function triumphantly as both academics and intellectuals. His work was characterized by breathtaking conceptual innovations and a luminous prose style; his former students Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick have written perceptively of his genius for making all look so easy and exhibiting things as though they ought to have looked that way all along, and allowing us to persuade ourselves that they have.' Hofstadter's essayistic style and conversational tone combined to open up questions in and exciting ways, and he brought to the tasks of analysis and interpretation a literary grace previously associated with narration in the grand manner. His scholarship stressed the critical, rather than merely celebratory, assessment of the continuities and unities in American history, and his concept of cultural politics rescued the study of political history from the straitjacket of absolute rationality. Hofstadter's challenges to the conventional wisdom of his predecessors Frederick Jackson Turner, Vernon L. Parrington, and Charles Beard helped usher in a new, post-Progressive era in American historiography. Hofstadter's The Age of Reform: From Bryan to ED.R. played a significant role in establishing his influence and reputation. The book received critical acclaim when published in 1955 and won the Pulitzer Prize for history the following year. Those who admired The Age of Reform did stint their praise. Reviewers lauded Hofstadter's effort to shift the scholarly focus from the Populists' concrete reform proposals to the ideas, attitudes, and prejudices that lay beneath the surface of their political activity. He had, it was clear, moved from a narrow definition of politics as the calculus of self-interest to a broader conception of a political culture. John D. Hicks, the foremost scholar of Populism, wrote, By concentrating upon what reformers thought rather than upon their political antics Hofstadter has made a unique and valuable contribution. The encomiums of other reviewers highly original, full of interpretations, new insights, not a conventional his-