Why has the American polity been largely unreceptive to the radical ideologies of both left and right that have aroused such enthusiasm elsewhere? Why, for example, have Communists and fascists not been able to attract a significant following or secure electoral support in the United States? There are, I believe, seven factors that together have formed a mosaic of resistance to sundry radicalisms. These factors might now be in a state of decline.

First and obviously, the British legacy has had considerable influence on the American approach to radicalism. Like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the United States inherited much of its culture from Britain. The language, political system, legal network, religious life, and literature built on the British experience. A high percentage of the populace traced its origin to the British Isles, while later immigrants ordinarily assimilated to the Anglo-Saxon value system. The members of the ruling elites have almost without exception been anglophiles.

There are two major triangular relationships in contemporary world politics: Washington-Moscow-Peking, and USA-European Economic Community (EEC)-Japan. The first, the two superpowers and the emerging superpower of China (PRC), is characterized by a lack of mutual trust, ideological affinity, or common interests in global security or economic matters. The USA-EEC-Japan relationship, on the other hand, is based on common trust, common security and economic interests, common ideological factors, and on cultural affinities between the U.S. and the EEC.

It is the great powers triangle of Washington- Moscow-Peking that has the greater importance and significance for global peace and for the avoidance of any nuclear war. Its impact is considerable in such parts of the Third Wbrld as the Middle East, East Asia, South and Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, and in many other regions.