ings of the Frankfurt School in Germany.nThe exile of Theodor Adomo, HerbertnMarcuse, and Erich Fromm in the UnitednStates symbolized the modernization ofnAmerican radicalism as well, for herenwas a new literature for the making of annascent counterculture. But Rothmannand lichter also insist that American Jewsnhad already contributed heavily to annadversary culture in this country. Theynmade up a quarter of the rank-and-filenmembership of the Communist Party innthe 1920’s, even more of it in the 30’s.nAlso, as academics at influential universities,nas literary and social commentatorsnfor Partisan Review and the New YorknReview of Books, as powerful shapers ofnthe television mediimi (estimated 58%nof television news producers and editors,naccording to the authors), Jews preparednthe way for the discrediting of the traditionalistnAmerica. They triumphed inn”radical chic” New York, but they wouldngain in Peoria, too.nThe authors oi Roots of Radicalismnaccept the concept of marginality as thenmost useful explanation for the Jewishnradical stance. Liberation from the gjiettonby no means meant fuU assimilation intonthe other society. Existing in that societynand outside of it, thejewwho senses thisntension seeks also its resolution. Hencenthe appeal of Marxism. That ideologynfiimishes the means of transcending thenChristian-Jewish schism by shifting thenlocus of struggle into the arena of classnwarfare; the shift, of course, essentiallyninvalidates the ethnic division. Butnanother motivation prevails also: “Thenaim of the Jewish radical,” say Rothmannand Lichter, “is to estrange the Christiannfrom society as he feels estranged fromnit.” So the whole society itself must benexposed for the evil it is, and a literaturenof renunciation, attack, and vilificationnclears the path for revolution.nJL he modem literature of revolutionnbears another theme, that of the authoritariannpersonality, a contribution of thenFrankfurt group especially. The classicnauthoritarian is a conservative, or, in annextreme form, a fascist. He defends him­nself against his underlying conflicts andninsecurity by turning his hidden hostilitiesnonto outsiders and out-groups, attributingnto them the source of his Muresnand the vulnerability of his world. Rothmannand Lichter, however, explore in anvery suggestive way an opposing model,nthe “inverse authoritarian,” as a more appropriatendescription of the AmericannNew Left radical. It is a model, moreover,nthat they find especially appropriate fornthe non-Jewish radical. The inverse authoritariannunleashes his anger againstnthe powers that be while taking an affectionatenand partisan stance with the victimsnand out-groups of the dominant society.nBut the dilemma for the inversenauthoritarian is never easily resolved; itnis rooted in ambiguous attitudes towardnpower and in attending Oedipal complexesnthat defy easy reconciliation. Thenauthoritarian personality of this kind,ncombating both masochistic and sadisticntendencies, believes he deserves punishmentnfor his evil desfres, including thendesire for power. He may reconcilenthese tensions by losing himself in angreater power, especially one chargednby a charismatic leader. He submits tonthe will of the leader, but gains superioritynover others by involvement with thengroup.nThe manifestation of these characteristicsnassumes a marked political form atnthose critical times when the establishmentnis imder attack and appears weakened.nRothman and lichter emphasizenthe Oedipal factor at this point. “Thenrigid rebel acts out [his] hostility againstnsocial authorities that ftinction, in part,nas parental surrogates. He seeks to attacknand destroy a weakened establishment,nwhich he despises precisely for its weak­nnnness and lack of ‘toughness.”‘ He wouldnreplace this “paper tiger” by a newpoliticalnhierarchy, of which an authoritariannsocialist regime is the ideal type. This individualnis always susceptible to the appealnof perceived strength. His attitudentoward leaders like Fidel Castro is worshipful;nhe finds in Third World peoplesna hardiness and vigor that he contrastsnto the effete decadence of overstuffedncapitalist societies. And ultimately henmay not be able to resist violence itselfnagainst the surfeited enemy. The authorsnmake use of these personality types inntheir review of the leftist movement.nThe days of Berkeley protest and thenearly SDS established the heavily Jewishnorigins of the New Left, while the otherngroup gave it its later, more violent,ncharacter.nThat distinctions within the leftistnmovement can be made on ethnic-rdigiousngrounds is a feet that Rothman and Lichterndemonstrate quite persuasively. I wondernwhether they might have gone evennfurther in this direction. For althoughnthe authors make a few references to then”Portnoy syndrome” of Jewish self-hatred,nthis trait appears distinctive in characternand manifestation from the recurringnfeelings of guilt that they find among thennon-Jewish radicals. They find also amongnthis group both a marked quality of “revolutionarynasceticism” and the compulsionnfor a kind of inner remaking of thenpersonality. It would be instructive, I believe,nto study further whether thesenmanifestations are not, to some extent,nthe products of a traditional Protestantnculture and the personality traits thatnhave survived in a secular manner fromnthat religious tradition. Rothman andnLichter find that the inverse authoritariannis “tormented by residual masochismnstemming from his punitive super-ego.”nHe has an inner sense of evil and can onlynalleviate a feeling that he should surrendernto authority and submit obediendy byngiving himself up to a superior power andnby imposing on himself a rigid pattern ofnself-controL “He must,” the authors say,n”create a ‘new man’ within himself by annact of self-will and self-controL” The needni31nOctober 1983n