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 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]