Talk:Seymour Martin Lipset

Untitled
I'm not a member, but I noticed a mistake at the very end of this article: it says that Lipset is most famous for making the distinction that democracy has a better chance of surviving in wealthy states. In fact, he makes the argument that for democracy to even really be viable a state has to have reached a certain economic level. The first person I can think of to make the argument that democracy was possible at any economic level, and only more stable at higher levels (though it levels off at a certain point) is Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi in their 1997 article, "Modernization, Theories and Facts."

I hope somebody can clear this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.43.32 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute; January 2019
While Lipset is characterized as a neoconservative, the article does not cite a proper source. Indeed, one of Lipset's articles ''Lipset, S. M. (1988). Neoconservatism: Myth and reality. Society, 25(5), 29–37. doi:10.1007/bf02695739'' talks about the issue of the term neoconservatism, which he would no doubt be interested to find ascribed to him. Here's a quote from the article: "Neoconservative views remain difficult to locate ideologically precisely because this 'ism' was invented in aneffort to label a diverse group of political opponents. No one created a doctrine and called himself a neoconservative." [p.36] --Proleosophy (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the missing cite. Lipset associated with necons, and was often called one, but did not call himself one. Biographer David Smith says, "he figured prominently among neo-conservative intellectuals....[but he] never went all the way." --see essay by John Richards in   22:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)