302
GEORGE LlCHTHEIM
hold upon the historical categories he employs, or rather brandishes,
with such an air of authority.
It
is possible-although one doubts
it-that there were as many shopkeepers among Senator Mc–
Carthy's followers as there were among those of M. Poujade; it is
likewise arguable that keeping shop has the effect of predisposing a
man against trade unions as well as against taxes; at a pinch it
could also be argued that there were sizeable numbers of shop–
keepers and small manufacturers among those who in the nine–
teenth century voted for liberal parties. But even if all these asser–
tions are allowed to pass, the statement remains what it was before:
a self-evident absurdity. For the whole point about "nineteenth
century liberalism" is that it acted in total and unbridgeable op–
position to everything that Poujadism, McCarthyism, or any other
form of reactionary populism stands for. In short, the examples
cited by Mr. Lipset are radically incomparable; or at least they
have in common no more than a single feature which, taken by
itself, explains nothing. Rebellious shopkeepers, or even small
farmers (another group greatly favored by Mr. Lipset as potential
carriers of fascism), do not by themselves add up to a political
movement, or determine the character thereof, though they may
provide its mass support.
It
depends entirely on the situation what
sort of movement-democratic or anti-democratic-they attach
themselves to, and the "situation" is invariably an
historical
one;
that is to say, it is determined by an irreversible constellation of
unique circumstances. Thus the fact that Poujadism was a ludicrous
failure, even as a protest movement, was determined by the dis–
credit thrown upon this particular type of reactionary rebellion by
the antecedent failure of the Vichy regime. Or again, the fact that
Hitler-who was utterly unlike either Poujade or McCarthy, al–
though part of his clientele came from the same strata-was able
to impose himself upon Germany, clearly had a great deal to do
with German nationalist reaction to the loss of the first World War.
In short, what counts is the exact moment on the time-curve, and
the total historical situation of which such moments are part.
Now it is improbable that Mr. Lipset would dispute this. On
the contrary, it is more than likely that if the point were put to him
he would fervently agree, and then cite half a dozen far-fetched
examples to illustrate it. For the trouble is that he seems genuinely
