Hofstadter reflects on the ideological foundations of the United States of America by analyzing the presidency, since the election serves as a real example of what the people chose. Very quickly, Hofstadter notices that a trend arises: throughout the entire history of America, the people elect presidents who hold a high value for individuality, fair property ownership, and finally, capitalism. He notices that American presidents tend to be avid capitalists with very few exceptions.
Although many people have historically tried to define American politics by highlighting the rift between political conservatives and political liberals, Hofstadter argues that a better way of summarizing American politicals more objectively would be to say that the idea that a person can make a better life for themselves has typically defined American politique. This is true both in personal self-help and small business entrepreneurship. Hofstadter says that this idea was one of the few ideas that was shared among the ruling class and the working class.
One of Hofstadter's central theses is that American political thought has often been influenced by a paradoxical blend of individualism and elitism. He contends that while Americans have championed the individual and valued personal liberty, they have also deferred to a privileged elite in shaping policies and institutions. This tension between individualism and elitism, according to Hofstadter, has characterized American political tradition.
Hofstadter then defends his approach to historical criticism, arguing that as participants in the American political system, we get a subjective opinion of our own history which is a reflection of our tribal conflicts and political disagreements. However, Hofstadter vehemently rejects this narrative, saying that with more objectivity, the truth is obviously more neutral than it feels to us. In other words, we have so much in common as Americans that doesn't go away just because we disagree about policy. He supplies commentary on important presidents to buffer this point, showing that all important voices seemed to defend social mobility among the classes.
