--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Except that he doesn't define a unitary national
> character - he
> describes a significant tendency in American
> politics over the long
> sweep. And it's amazing how much examples from 50
> and 80 years ago
> sound like today.
Right. Hofstadter argument re. paranoid style is not that much different form the Authoritarian Personality approach, but far less "psychological" - at least the Harper's Magazine version (I did not read the collection of essays under the same title).
However, it is easy to extend this argument by adding a structural dimension to it. Historically, the US has been a far more open society than its European counterparts. It has always been in a continuous flux - more so than Europe. Furthermore, it was much more affluent society than Europe where even ordinary people had better access to resources (such is mass communication). As a result, paranoid moral entrepreneurs had a much greater chance of being taken seriously by more people and becoming national figures than in Europe. In Europe such entrepreneurs seldom rose above the level of cranks and rabble rousers that might have some local following, but were generally kept at two arms length from any halls of power.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com