His wit is sometimes Swiftian: "A plausible case can be made that social censorship is good for art. Since most people have little or no talent, a general climate of contempt for creativity will discourage all but the truly driven. Philistinism drives the Joyces into exile, but at least only the Joyces will be writing."

And, after all, he is grappling with something so difficult to define that any discussion is bound to invite caricature. We all know what he's talking about; there have been changes in the character of this country over the course of its history. Yet to write about it in anything less than the most formal academic language is bound to raise a reader's hackles.

Still, there are ways in which Mr. Brookhiser's analysis invites distorted summary. His text is full of non sequiturs and omissions. What, one wonders, is the point of his chapter on New Paltz, N.Y., Mohonk Mountain House and Ocean Grove, N.J. ("Three Places in the Middle Atlantic States")? What is he illustrating: the fragility or the persistence of the WASP ethos?

If John Updike is the premier WASP writer, where does that leave John Cheever, whom Mr. Brookhiser neglects even to mention? What does he mean when he writes, "WASPs, despite their aversion to sensuality, do not have what Mencken called a 'libido for the ugly' "? Is this his cute way of saying that Protestantism is not entirely opposed to art?

So, given its vulnerabilities, perhaps it's just as well that the main argument of "The Way of the WASP" can easily be refuted, if the reader wishes. In fact, Mr. Brookhiser himself supplies the language for such a rejection. "If the way of the WASP is so good, why is it in trouble?" he asks. "Why would people defect from something that was self-evidently superior?" Exactly.

And having raised those questions, he also asks: "What, then, would be better?" "If the way we once lived was wrong, what are the alternatives?" "Does the rest of the world live better?" His answer to these is no, although he neglects to point out that such a response applies as emphatically to contemporary America, where the WASP has presumably declined, as it does to a time when the WASP way still prevailed.

Whether one agrees with Mr. Brookhiser that the traits he connects with white Anglo-Saxon Protestantism are what made this country great, or even that they are necessary for a revival of America's fortunes, the fact remains that such a WASP renaissance is not going to happen. Given the present trends of immigration, our future lies with whatever character cultural pluralism lends the country. Any resemblance that bears to the way of the WASP will be largely coincidental.

Maybe all Mr. Brookhiser is saying is that such a coincidence would be a happy one. But then again, considering the many joking ways he has tried to remove the sting from his WASPishness, maybe Mr. Brookhiser is basically just kidding -- or wishes he were.