SOCIOLOGIST IN THE HOUSE
301
turns with some relief to Lipset's commonsensible discussion of
German history, French politics, English social life, the genesis of
McCarthyism, and other topical matters of concern to the intel–
ligent citizen.
It
is only as one delves deeper into these brisk, chatty,
well-informed essays that one discovers the flaw in the performance.
It
is not that the author does not know his subjects well
enough--on the contrary, he has read practically everything and in
addition drawn on the combined services of research institutes in
a dozen countries, not to mention a staggering list of eminent people
who have given him the benefit of their individual and collective
help and advice. The trouble is that all this frantic cerebration has
been sieved through a conceptual apparatus which is not really at–
tuned to the serious business of generalizing about politics. Not, at
any rate, European politics.
It
may be that Mr. Lipset is sound on
the history and the institutions of his native country: it is not for a
mere European to say, though this reviewer experienced a slight
twinge of disbelief on being informed (p. 169) that the late Senator
McCarthy drew his principal support from people classified as
"nineteenth century liberals" (quaintly defined by the author as
"those who were opposed to trade unions and to the large corpora–
tions"). Perhaps he did; and then again, perhaps not.
It
is at any
rate an arguable proposition (though one would have thought that,
on ordinary methodological grounds, it was dangerous to draw such
far-reaching conclusions from an opinion survey limited to "re–
spondents from a small New England city"). What cannot be
argued-what indeed stands out like the proverbial sore thumb–
is that when he comes to areas outside the United States, Mr. Lipset
simply does not know what he is talking about.
Of this lamentable circumstance, many examples could be
given, but only a few can be mentioned in this space.
In
connection
with the passage just quoted, the author-after some parade of
opinion-poll figures designed to lend a spurious air of profundity
and scientific rigor to the proceedings--advances to a general his–
torical summation, and what is it that he tells his readers? "Like
Poujadism, MoCarthyism and nineteenth century liberalism are
primarily the reactions of the small businessmen." Now I submit
that this statement-taken alone and without any corroborating
evidence--is sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Lipset has no real
