<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1543" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- <BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=4>Good, Jerry. I must have missed Doug's postings on this, but it sounds all wrong. And yr message below reminds me of the involvement of European emigres in this stuff, seeing the New Left as Germany in 1933. At our anti-draft sit-in at the U of Chicago in 1966, a noted anthropologist called us "storm troopers," and that was common.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=4>Jesse Lemisch</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=monacojerry@gmail.com href="mailto:monacojerry@gmail.com">Jerry Monaco</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=utopia1@attglobal.net href="mailto:utopia1@attglobal.net">utopia1@attglobal.net</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:25 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Fwd: [lbo-talk] Why Richard Hofstadter Is Still Worth Reading but Notfor the Reasons the Critics Have in Mind</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>Jesse<BR><BR>I think the book was called <SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">The intellectuals and McCarthy: the radical specter </SPAN>.  Just a minor correction.<BR><BR>I read that book and Hofstadter more than 30 years ago when I was still in high school.  <BR><BR>Please correct me Doug.<BR><BR>I accept Doug's defense of Hofstadter but I have to say in my memory Hofstadter did not even try to comprehend the Populist movement in the U.S.  He was looking at Populism for roots of intellectual-cultural trends.  <BR><BR>I think that the aftermath of fascism, the rise of the second Red Scare, and the currency of popular racism brought Hofstadter to emphasize mos forcely only one side of the Populists, the side that helped to explain current treds.  It seems to me that the thesis of the time was that Populism led to the popular racism of the Dixiecrats and Hofstadter accepted that thesis..  Doug am I wrong that Hof simply accepted this?  I think that this thesis is one sided to say the least.  <BR><BR>And wasn't there a collective side to the Populists?  At least in their beliefs about how finance capital should be regulated and in how there should be cooperative wholesale and retail distribution?  <BR><BR>I don't remember Rogin's book concentrating on Hofstadter but I do remember the thesis that the post World War II red scare was driven by elites and that McCarthy was a late comer who only picked things up when he knew it could make his name. <BR><BR>My memory of both Hofstadter and Rogin could be completely wrong.  My memory is often wrong.  <BR><BR>Jerry<SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN><BR><BR>---------- Forwarded message ----------<BR><SPAN class=gmail_quote>From: <B class=gmail_sendername>Jesse Lemisch</B> <<A href="mailto:utopia1@attglobal.net">utopia1@attglobal.net</A>><BR>Date: Oct 10, 2006 3:32 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Why Richard Hofstadter Is Still Worth Reading but Notfor the Reasons the Critics Have in Mind <BR>To: <A href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</A><BR><BR></SPAN>Has anyone on this thread cited Michael Rogin's McCarthy and the<BR>Intellectuals, a rigorous study by an unfortunately prematurely dead <BR>Berkeley political scientist. This takes apart Hofstadter et al and shows<BR>that McCarthyism commenced in elites rather than from the grass roots. And<BR>James Weinstein and a collaborator had a classic article on how slow <BR>McCarthy was to pick up anti-Communism, becoming alerted to the issue in<BR>part by Norman Thomas.<BR><BR>Jesse Lemisch<BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: "Doug Henwood" <<A href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com"> dhenwood@panix.com</A>><BR><BR>> He points out that American populism is a political ideology of petty<BR>> producers - and rightly, I think, underscores the radical departure<BR>> of the New Deal from the individualist roots of American radicalism <BR>> for something much more collective. That kind of collectivism, which<BR>> lasted into the 1970s, is exactly what the New Right has been trying<BR>> to reverse all along, and they've accomplished a good bit of the <BR>> task. Hof's emphasis on the individualism of American white<BR>> protestantism is highly relevant now - it illuminates what's the<BR>> matter with Kansas, since American white protestants love The Market<BR>> as an instrument of reward and discipline. That love is not some<BR>> recent confidence trick perpetrated by Karl Rove, but has deep roots.<BR>><BR>> Doug<BR>><BR>><BR>> ___________________________________ <BR>> <A href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</A><BR><BR>___________________________________<BR><A href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</A><BR><BR clear=all><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>