>>>>dhenwood at panix.com 03/10/06 6:47 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Seth Ackerman wrote:
>
>
>>In any case, I gather there are relatively few historians under 60
>>who have strong opinions about Hofstadter since political history
>>almost doesn't exist anymore, so he's just not in their sub-field.
>>
>>
>
>What do you mean by that? Isn't political history pretty important?
>Doug
><<<<<>>>>>
>
>in poli sci, hofstadter is read/noted by folks in american political
>development (sub-field that emerged in late 70s/early 80s),
>common to assign his _idea of a party system_ to grad students,
>and to have undergrad majors in political parties course be at least
>familiar with the book, apd bibliographies will often include his
>stuff on populism and progressivism era as well... mh
>
>
>
>
Yup, what used to be political history has been in large part exported to the poli-sci department under the rubric of APD - which has produced some great stuff.
Seth