Reflections inrnMiniaturernby Paul GottfriedrnHoods and Saints: The Extieme Rightrnin Pennsylvania, 1925-1950rnhy Philip ]enkinsrnChapel Hill: University ofrnNorth Carolina Press;rn323 pp., $29.95rnPhilip Jenkins’ book is a gold mine ofrninformation on pro-fascist and pro-rnNazi groups in Pennsylvania during thern1930’s. Jenkins makes informative distinctionsrnamong the various bearers ofrnCamicie fasciste, differentiating silver,rnkhaki, black, and brown shirts and explainingrnthe significance of each. He isrnalso careful not to exaggerate the importancernof any of the groups he studies—rnincluding the Pennsylvania Ku KluxrnKlan—explaining that these groups,rnsingly or collectively, were never in a positionrnto influence significantly the nationalrngovernment, and that even withinrnPennsylvania, they exercised only limitedrnregional power. What they did do, accordingrnto Jenkins, was to strengthen arnconspiratorial view of political life thatrnRichard Hofstadter called the “paranoidrnstyle” of American politics, beginningrnwith the Populists. According to Jenkins,rnthis same quest for hidden enemies,rnwhich 1 lofstadter identified with ruralrnand small-town America a century ago,rncharacterized the right-wing extremismrnfound in interwar Pennsylvania and supposedlyrnleft its imprint on the anticommunistrnpolitics of the postwar era, wherernJenkins’ study breaks off. “After 1946 fanaticalrnanti-Communism became a sinernqua non of the participation in Americanrnpublic life.” Moreover, “the farrnRight tradition should not be dismissedrntoo lightly, if only because many of itsrnbasic assumptions became political orthodoxyrnafter 1946.” “With the crucialrnexception of anti-Semitism,” these assumptionsrn”were firmly rooted in thernmainstream bv 1956.”rnJenkins offers reasons, however, whyrnthe American interwar right neverrnamounted to much by itself. For onernthing, the pro-fascist right in the UnitedrnStates, as typified by its activities inrnPennsylvania, was divided by religious,rncultural, and political differences.rnWhile its members could agree on dislikingrncommunists and, in some cases,rnblaming Marxism and capitalist greed onrnthe Jews, they also revealed profoundrncleavages: e.g., between Protestant nativistrnanti-Catholic Klansmen and thernpredominantly Catholic National Unionrnfor Social Justice and the Order of thernSons of Italy, or between the anti-NewrnDealers and Christian eorporatist followersrnof Father Chades Coughlin.rnThough such intense differencesrncould be papered over by appeals tornshared European models, or by calls for arnChristian America, Jenkins’ survey of thernfar right in this particular place and timernmakes one wonder how much real unityrnexisted among its components. He suggestsrnthat countervailing forces were alwaysrnstronger than the pro-fascist attitudesrnhe describes, from general supportrnfor the American regime to anti-NazirnCatholic prelates, and in Philadelphia tornthe operations of a conservative, anticommunistrnnewspaper owned by thernJewish Annenberg family. Throughoutrnthe late 1930’s and into the 50’s, The Inquirerrnopposed the anti-Semitic right,rnfrom right of center. Most importantly,rnunlike in Eastern and Central Europe,rnanti-Semitism was never a major culturalrnor political force in the United States,rnand certainly it was not somethingrnaround which a national party could bernbuilt. But even in Europe—and this is arnpoint not noted by Jenkins—what lentrnweight to the anti-Semitic right and thernanti-Semitic left was the rise and expansionrnof Nazi Germany. Latin fascism wasrnnot intrinsically anti-Semitic, and anti-rnSemitism in Eastern Europe would notrnhave become disastrous without Nazirnarmies and Nazi influence. Neither ofrnthese factors counted for much in thernUnited States, despite the FBI-infiltratedrnCerman-American Bund and other pro-rnNazi groups discussed in Jenkins’ book.rnTwo critical points need to be madernabout this work, for a balanced assessment.rnOne, Jenkins does not contextualizernhis subject sufficiently. While hernconsiders historical circumstances bearingrnon the political culture of interwarrnPennsylvania, he does not examine thoserncircumstances closely enough. The anticapitalist,rnanti-Semitic, and anticommunistrnviews that came together on the interwarrnrevolutionary right belong to arnparticular place and epoch. The convergencernof these views was characteristic ofrna certain phase of European politics andrnmarked the struggle between communistsrnand anticommunists from the BolshevikrnRevolution through World War 11.rnAnti-Semitism was a critical aspect ofrnthe antieommunist side, at least in Easternrnand Central Europe. There it wasrnpossible to tap older sources of an alreadyrningrained prejudice by emphasizing thernrole played by Jewish socialists in establishingrnand securing Bolshevik rule. Thernprominence of other Jews in internationalrnfinance and industrialization createdrnthe chance to blame world Jewry for capitalist,rnas well as communist, oppression.rnThis was foundational, as the IsraelirnFrancophone historian Zeev Sternhellernshowed, for forming a right-left coalitionrnbased on dislike for Jewish capitalists andrnJewish communists. It also gave rise tornan anticapitalist and often fervently nationalistrnpolitics that was directed againstrnJews and communists alike. On the otherrnside, there were—and still are—conflictedrnJewish capitalists with leftist sympathiesrnlike Armand Hammer, RobertrnMaxwell, and Felix Rohatyn. This continuedrnpresence of wealthy Jews on thernanticapitalist left may be partly a reactionrnto interwar anti-Semitism, whichrntreated as a single foe Jewish communismrnand Jewish capitalism.rnJenkins should have done more withrnthe interwar political confrontation ofrnwhich the Pennsylvania scene was only arnsmall and passing reflection. And hernmakes too much of the supposed link betweenrninterwar rightist movements andrnpostwar anticommunism. As far as 1 canrntell, this connection was minimal. MostrnAmerican anticommunists of the 50’srnhad never been pro-fascist, and the complaintsrnthey raised about insufficientrnattention being paid to wartime communistrninfiltration of the United States governmentrnhad more than a grain of truth.rnMoreover, Jenkins’ occasional expressionrnof the view of Kenneth Stern andrnRichard Dinnerstein, that Christian anti-rnSemitism has cast a long, ominous shadowrnon American history and the Christianrnright, is incompatible with evidencernthat Jenkins himself presents: thatrnexplicit anti-Semitism after 1945 had becomernlimited to an isolated fringe, howeverrnimportant anticommunism thereafterrnloomed; that by the early 1940’srnmembership in Klan lodges in Pennsylvaniarnhad dwindled to about 250; and thatrnanti-Catholic sentiment was at least asrnstrong as was dislike for Jews on the nativistrnultra-right. (The Klan, by the way,rnsupported the communist-anarchist leftrnJULY 1997/37rnrnrn