Seymour Martin Lipset (1922–2006)

This is an interesting look at the differences between the political cultures of Canada and the US. It was published in 1990, so there are parts of it that are somewhat out-dated, but I think a lot of it still stands.

Lipset's main argument is that the American Revolution created two countries: the US and Canada. The US was born out of revolution, but Canada was born of counter-revolution. The US was founded on ideas of freedom and individual liberty, but Canada was founded on ideas of order show more and respect for government authority. Ironically, Canada's respect for government authority has in many ways allowed them to be more liberal than the US: Canadians trust their government to administer socialism, but Americans do not.

In many ways, Canada's culture is defined as "not US." The US can pretty much ignore Canada, and when Americans do think of Canadians, they tend to think of them as just quieter, politer Americans. Canadians, on the other hand, have to be constantly aware of the superpower next door, and often define their culture and values in contrast to the US.

The US has a founding mythology and doctrine, and a lot of political heroes. Canada's history is more subdued, and has no founding doctrine. It is possible to be un-American, by not believing in the doctrines of individual freedom and American greatness. It is not possible to be un-Canadian, because Canada has no doctrines.

Frontier culture and the cowboy myth are a huge part of the US's culture and ideology (even more so now than when this book was written). Canada never had a frontier culture, and has no cowboy mythology. The Canadian approach to western expansion was to send in the RMCP and government first to make way for settlers, instead of the other way around. That makes for a drastic difference in cultural attitudes.

Protestantism is deeply ingrained in US culture, even in our secular culture (and again, this has only gotten more prominent since this book was written). American Protestantism emphasizes individualism and moral duty. Canada, on the other hand, has a strong Catholic and Anglican (state church) tradition, with very little conflict between the Protestant denominations.

The US is a melting pot, where cultural assimilation is encouraged. Canada is a mosaic, where multiculturalism is valued. This is exemplified by Quebec, where a French culture has persisted for all of Canada's history.

For his evidence, Lipset relies on surveys, political writings, and literature. I think it's interesting that television, movies, and music are not part of his study, although those media were probably easier to ignore in 1990 than they would be now. Lipset also repeatedly reminds readers that although he is writing about the differences between the two countries, they are actually quite similar, especially if you compare them both to European countries. Despite those similarities, there is a lot to be gained from understanding the differences. show less

Lipset’s generalizations about “political man” use historical examples in a non-historical way. For example, he maintains that McCarthyism, nineteenth century liberalism and Poujadism are primarily the reactions of the small businessman. In fact, nineteenth century liberalism was against reactionary populism of the kind represented later by McCarthyism and Poujadism. He seems incapable of seeing the difference between historical and sociological thinking. He sees historical facts as show more just another measurement to throw into a formula. But repeating factoids does not grasp overarching developments that play a crucial role in political life. For example, the fact that Hitler was able to impose himself upon Germany clearly had a great deal to do with German nationalist reaction to the losses of World War I. In short, what counts is the exact moment on the time curve, and the historical situation of which such moments are part. As a result, Lipset’s conceptual apparatus is not really attuned to the serious business of generalizing about politics. [1960] show less

Wow! This book was remarkable in that it was probably the dullest book I've ever read. I am a Socialist and I was very interested in the information these authors had to share, but it was so god damn academic and dry that I couldn't read it for more than 10 minutes at a time.

I'm not sure who the audience is supposed to be for this book. "Beginners" to the themes within (Socialism, labor unions, the electoral college, immigration etc.) would be completely overwhelmed and confused, because the show more authors make no attempt to clarify background information. That would be fine if the book was geared towards people who already have a solid foundation of these issues, but the reasons the authors come up with are nothing new to those of us who have studied the Socialist party in this country.

On the upside, I will say that this book was extensively researched. For every point they made, they had pages and pages and pages (and pages!) of graphs and studies and examples to back up their assertions. I can see this being a useful resource for someone writing a paper, but it was definitely way too academic and zzzzzzzz for anyone who's simply interested in the subject. show less

Good comparative study of the intellectual, historical and philosophical underpinning of U.S. society as seen through the lens of American ideas of U.S. exceptionalism or difference. Comparison with Japanese cultural attitudes is particularly useful. Generally well-written, though plagued by clumsy passages at times. A good source book, a good general intro to the subject.

Perhaps especially interesting for brief sections that explore the thinking of some advisors and public figures, like show more Richard Perleman, who later (well after the 1997 publication of this book) turned out to play important roles in defining the foreign policy of the G.W. Bush administration, particularly in respect to the war in Iraq. show less