Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: McCarthyism 18

Journal by pudge

George Clooney has a new movie out about Edward R. Murrow, speaking out against Joe McCarthy's hearings in the 50s.

I don't know much about the movie beyond that, except its tagline: "In a nation terrorized by its own government, one man dared to tell the truth."

OK, let's get some things straight. No, the nation was not terrorized by its own government. Some people were terrorized, but to most people, this was something very distant and inconsequential. Hollywood was terrorized, but the nation was not.

That brings us to the blacklist: yes, it existed, but no, it did not ruin lives of innocent people. The people who stopped trying to push Soviet causes -- who in some cases were actually funded and influenced directly by Soviet agents -- largely did not remain on the blacklist. Those who did so work with and for the Soviets: well, I am glad they were blacklisted, as they were part of an active effort to work with the Soviets to undermine the American government during the Cold War.

Yes, McCarthy did a lot of terrible things. But no, he was not wrong about his quest: there were Soviet spies and sympathizers at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

There is one overarching good thing McCarthy did: he was speaking out against existing Soviet infiltration of government and society when pretty much no one else was. The Vice President himself, Henry Wallace, was surrounded by Soviet spies and sympathizers. Alger Hiss, the number three man at State, was a Soviet spy. Then there's the Rosenbergs.

Yes, McCarthy did not expose any of these high-profile spies. But they did exist, and it was a serious national crisis, one that absolutely did threaten to destroy our nation. This does not excuse any of the tactics McCarthy used, in accusing people without cause, and threatening them to name others, and so on. Those were all bad and are not in any way justified.

I am not saying we should say McCarthy was a good guy. I am saying we don't give enough emphasis to the facts of the real danger our country was facing at the time, and recognize that the emphasis McCarthy maintained was a good thing, even if he went about it almost entirely wrongly.

In other words, the narrative should not be "McCarthy was an evil man who subjugated freedoms and ruined lives." The narrative should be, "the United States was at war and the crime of treason reached to the highest levels of the government, and the government was incapable of doing a very good job at taking care of this grave threat, resulting on the one hand with FDR ignoring all the evidence of infiltration, and with McCarthy on the other inventing his own."

Am I glad someone was around to sound the alarm? Absolutely. I am merely dismayed that person happened to be Joe McCarthy.

A better model was Ronald Reagan, who denounced communism and its influence in Hollywood (and government, though he had less knowledge about that at the time), but refused to persecute innocent people, refused to name names.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

McCarthyism More

McCarthyism

Comments Filter:

  • Spin (Score:1)

    by ellem ( 147712 ) *
    One of the things any spinner must do is change the topic. When discussing the era McCarthyism is the thread. However, McCarthy wasn't the thread then. The thread was there were spies among us. McCarthy was right. There WERE spies in high levels of the US Government. (I wonder how many we had in the USSR.)

    The spin obviously must not mention that. The spin becomes an attack on the person. McCarthy isn't a nice guy. He attacked the "Red Menace" with a wide brush and doesn't seem to have had much in t

    • Re:Spin (Score:2, Informative)

      by bryanthompson ( 627923 ) *
      Agree 100%, and proof can be found in the Venona project, which you will never hear about in a public school or University. This stuff should be required reading!
  • So the era of labeling people enemies of the state without having to provide proof, without having to have a trial of the facts, of being able to use the threat of these tactics to bully people into submission was a good thing?!?! You don't agree with McCarthy, but his tactics were what the country needed?!?!

    Now this whole "enemy combatant" thing with "Too Slow" Bush makes a lot of sense.

    Sorry, Pudge... but you're definitely drifting into Winger territory here. Joe McCarthy Bad! But McCarthieism Good! She
    • Wow. Dude, you need to learn to read.

      So the era of labeling people enemies of the state without having to provide proof, without having to have a trial of the facts, of being able to use the threat of these tactics to bully people into submission was a good thing?!?! You don't agree with McCarthy, but his tactics were what the country needed?!?!

      I neither stated nor implied anything like that. I said it was a good thing he was sounding the alarm, not that his tactics were good. In fact, I explicitly stat

  • things straight (Score:1, Insightful)

    by ExMember ( 212079 )

    What Soviet causes did you have to push to end up on the blacklist? Worker-owned industy? State-owned industy? Unioinization? Forced government redistribution of wealth?

    Should government destroy people's lives because they believe any of those things would be in the best interest of the United States? If so, can we do something about Senator Clinton before she brings back her nationalized health care plan?

    What McCarthy did was make it difficult for people to hold or discuss certain views and opinio

    • What Soviet causes did you have to push to end up on the blacklist? Worker-owned industy? State-owned industy? Unioinization? Forced government redistribution of wealth?

      Some of that, yes. Look, I am not saying the blacklist was a perfect thing, even if it was a good thing, which I am not saying either. Yes, it was flawed, and yes, some people ended up on it undeservedly. But not nearly to the degree Hollywood likes to think. Read Red Star Over Hollywood for a good, balanced, look back.

      Should government

      • 1:27pm: "Those who did[stay on the blacklist]: well, I am glad they were blacklisted, as they were part of an active effort to work with the Soviets to undermine the American government during the Cold War."

        4:44pm: "some people ended up on it[the blacklist] undeservedly."

        You mentioned sympathizers twice, both time in the phrase "Soviet spies and sympathizers". There is an important distinction there that you pretend doesn't exist when you lump the two together.

        Part of the problem with the current US

        • 1:27pm: "Those who did[stay on the blacklist]: well, I am glad they were blacklisted, as they were part of an active effort to work with the Soviets to undermine the American government during the Cold War."

          4:44pm: "some people ended up on it[the blacklist] undeservedly."

          Your 1:27 p.m. quote is a misquote. I did not say that of "those who did stay on the blacklist." I twice there described the people who "were part of an active effort to work with the Soviets." That is who I am glad remained blacklisted.

          • Yes, I lumped them together, but only in the context of government officials, where being a sympathizer is almost as bad as being a spy.

            Pudge, I think this is really at the heart of the issue, one that may very well be worth exploring in a film (although Clooney's will probably not deal with this directly) -- is somone who agrees with the enemy (in part or in whole ) an enemy himself? When it comes to an ideological battle, which is essentially what communism vs. capitalism was, in some respects it may
            • Pudge, I think this is really at the heart of the issue, one that may very well be worth exploring in a film (although Clooney's will probably not deal with this directly) -- is somone who agrees with the enemy (in part or in whole ) an enemy himself?

              No. But they are -- if essentially in agreement with the enemy -- unqualified to serve in the United States government.

              On the other hand, Edward R. Murrow said "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." which also makes an important point.

              I am not talking

          • Thanks for the clarifications. My point still stands regarding sympathizers.

            Believing that the US should not have a military presence in Saudi Arabia should not automatically and unequivically disqualify one from holding a government post.

            Similarly, believing that workers should own the means of production should not have automatically and unequivically disqualified you from holding a government post in the 50's.

            • My point still stands regarding sympathizers.

              Only if you use the wrong definition.

              Believing that the US should not have a military presence in Saudi Arabia should not automatically and unequivically disqualify one from holding a government post.

              Well, the U.S. does not have a military presence in Saudi Arabia any longer, of course. Apart from that, however, this is irrelevant. We are not talking about agreement on some of the issues, we are talking about overall, bottom-line, essential, agreement. Not mer

              • We are not talking about agreement on some of the issues, we are talking about overall, bottom-line, essential, agreement.

                I am talking about agreement on key issues. You are talking about unconditional agreement with everything. I think the word you are looking for is not sympathizer, but follower.

                it disqualified you then, and it does now, because you believe that the Constitution should be thrown in the trash

                The Constitution can be changed. It was changed to allow Prohibition, it can be change

                • I am talking about agreement on key issues.

                  No, you're not. That the U.S. should not be involved with Israel, or should not have troops in Saudi Arabia, is not what makes Al Qaeda our enemy. Many Arabs, Americans, and others think those things, but they also oppose Al Qaeda. What makes Al Qaeda our enemy, what makes them distinct, is that they want to kill us.

                  That is what "sympathizer" means. That is the reason why the word carried so much force in WWII and the Cold War: these were not merely people who

                  • "When I use a word, It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less." -- Humpty Dumpty

                    It is possible to sympathize with someone in some ways, but not in others. I can sympathize with the idea that the infidels should not be in the Holy Land, without sympathizing with the idea that airliners whould be flown into office buildings.

                    Propagandist during WWII and the Cold War used the term sympathizer to immediately disregard opposing viewpoints. It's must easier to dismiss an idea on the prem

        • Re:things straight (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          I can see how you thought I was talking about people who remained on the blacklist, instead of just the people who were working with and for the Soviets. I modified the journal entry to clarify.

Slashdot Top Deals

Surprise due today. Also the rent.

Close