American Iconoclast

 Tom Schactman wrote a biography of Eric Hoffer: American Iconoclast: The Life and Times of Eric Hoffer, in 2011.

My sense of the book is that Shactman does not really like Hoffer and does not completely understand him, but it may not be Schactman's fault. Hoffer ancticipated the rise of my Mavellonialist movement, and that is not on the intellectual horizon, so it might explain why Hoffer does not quite seem to make sense for Schactman. He refers to Hoffer as racist against blacks, but in light of the new Candace Owens/Dennis Prager appreciation of conservative loathing of identity politics and collectivist solutions to social problems, I think that Hoffer was pro-individualist, and urged that blacks solve their own problems on an individual basis, and the fabulous freedom of opportunity and potential wealth to be had should one work for it in fabulous America. Socialist excuses, blaming black failure to surmount obstacles as due to obstruction from racist whites, and offering government remedies to young, unwedded black moms have left too many in the black community hurt, unfulfilled, angry and resentful. Hoffer would suggest that as individual Americans each black adult could become quite successful, with few real road blocks in their way in non-racist America, and I agree. Schactman seemed to understand none of this egoist philosophy that guides Hoffer attitude towards blacks and all Americans. He is not racist, but believes in tough love that we each must be responsible and solve our own problems. It will not do to blame society or Whitey for holding blacks back and down.

Shactman is not wowed and impressed by Hoffer's brilliance and originality as did seem to be common  among many intellectual reviewers 40 years ago, and I think Shactman's dismissal of Hoffer's genius is unfortunate and devalues Eric's contribution.

My sense of it is that Hoffer is a profoundly original thinker. He is a conservative thinker in his acceptance of the sovereign individual as the core Western gift to civilization. He is a Mavellonialist moderate. He is pro-democracy, for the common people, pro-capitalist and loves America, the greatest country in the world.

He also does not appreciate what a radical, radical loner that Hoffer is, a great soul whose individual-living is the price to be paid for full-bore self-development. Hoffer almost always is right and loves and speaks the truth. He does not seem to point out that Hoffer is a truly good man, and, at the end of his life, urges compassion or love as the only lasting solution to evil in the world.

On Page 199, Shactman points out Hoffer's tragic sense of life, and that is eerily similar to that shared point of view by Prager, Jordan Peterson and myself. Evil exists in the world, as does suffering tainted by malevolence (thanks Jordan). Humans all share original sin, and that is God's greatest gift to us. Only the one that is born corrupt, but through choice, the gifts of divine grace, forgiveness and love is able with consistent hard work, character training and good habits can be perfected and reborn to become a good citizens, spiritually and morally wholesome.

This tragic sense of life is the purest, conservative outlook.

With some of these inputs, Shactman could have better assessed Hoffer's impact on future generations.