[lbo-talk] Hofstadter

[Seth Ackerman]

Michael Hoover wrote:

>>>>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