Revisionist History - the rehabilitation of Joseph McCarthy

We’re not talking about security clearances. We’re talking about unlawful spying on entertainers, educators and union supporters, public interrogations, blacklistings, and imprisonment of ordinary citizens who had no interest in serving in the government or accessing “sensitive info.” We’re talking folk singers, musicians, actors and the like.

Who gives a shit? They had every right to speak favorably of the Soviet Union or join the Communist Party or support migrant workers or criticize lynchings of blacks. Ever heard of hte First Amendment?

Dammit Fred, you just don’t understand, do you. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE VICTIMS HAD NO INTEREST IN HIGH-SECURITY POSITIONS. They were just a bunch of banjo pickers and the like.

Well, you’re welcome to believe that if you wish, but you’re clearly wrong as any real historian (not Ann Coulter) will tell you.

Yes, I get that but. . . [/quote]

Should’ve just stopped there Fred.

Mother Theresa:

Again, I am NOT defending McCarthy.

But for those in high-security positions, these kinds of checks are understandable. I fully appreciate that those in entertainment should not have been given such shabby treatment but… this is another finding…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Most of those imprisoned were heads of various Communist Party organizations in the US. Note that I have included the potential for harm and the nature of their communist affiliation was tenuous.

Again, I do not sympathize with McCarthy’s methods but I do think that the problem of communist infiltration was a serious one and while the left likes to use the excesses of McCarthy to dismiss ANY and ALL of the concern into the communist affiliation, I think that is also an overreach.

Again, though, we have up to 12,000 losing their jobs. Many DID have communist affiliations. You state that this should not have mattered and I would agree for the most part unless it involved sensitive government jobs BUT I find it curious. How do you justify your outrage in this matter with your almost dismissive lack of concern when similar victims (and these died or were tortured) suffered at the hands of Che? No, in that case you are not merely understanding but keen to point to his good points. Why are you not now calling for us to “understand” McCarthy? I am not interested in doing so in the least and I do not agree with his methods or like or admire him as a person. How many people did Che and the Communists kill in Latin America alone? torture? How many lost their jobs or fled for their lives in Cuba alone? and for that you are all over yourself to understand. Please explain yourself.

Finally, you are talking pretty tough here but what makes you think that I approve of Joe McCarthy or his methods? Again, I am merely stating that security clearances are the norm. And during war time, we need to keep an eye on those who might be fifth columnists. Surely that is not unreasonable. Do you think that organizations within the US right now should be allowed to have First Amendment rights to disseminate support for Osama bin Laden or the Taliban? or does that fall under the category of treason and sedition? And if that is the case, why previously for the supporters of Communism when we were at war with communist nations? What about support of Nazism during World War II? Explain yourself.

:roflmao:




:roflmao:

Elequa -
Great avatar!
You have some very good ones.

Thanks…I pick them with care.

I also hope that the emoticons translate as …“you gotta be completely fucking me”

[quote=“fred smith”]

Finally, you are talking pretty tough here but what makes you think that I approve of Joe McCarthy or his methods? Again, I am merely stating that security clearances are the norm. And during war time, we need to keep an eye on those who might be fifth columnists. Surely that is not unreasonable. Do you think that organizations within the US right now should be allowed to have First Amendment rights to disseminate support for Osama bin Laden or the Taliban? or does that fall under the category of treason and sedition? And if that is the case, why previously for the supporters of Communism when we were at war with communist nations? What about support of Nazism during World War II? Explain yourself.[/quote]

The name Prescott Bush comes to mind. He, through UBC, continued to deal with the Nazi’s until Oct/Nov 1942. If the US govt hadn’t ordered the assets seized, the dealings probably would have continued. And then, 5 years after millions of US soldiers died fighting the Nazi’s, Prescott became a senator.

Sorry, this thread went from crickets chirping to three pages overnight! I’m gonna skip the interceding 2 pages, and respond to this:

AMEN!!! Both KPBS (San Diego public radio) and NPR gave this pretty decent reviews, but what a crap bland-ass movie! When it was over, I was like…uh…uh…I just spent two hours for…what?

Like this bit of fluff was the hi-lite of Murrow’s career in any case!

McCarthy was a slimebag, but let’s not forget who contributed the most to stopping him. The first people to go after him were a number of Republican senators such as John Sherman Cooper from Kentucky. Next, it was a number of Southern Democrats (who disliked McCarthy’s personality and style). A lot of liberal Democrats remained quiet or were even friendly with McCarthy (McCarthy dated Eunice Kennedy, was bankrolled by Joe Sr., JFK refused to censure him in the Senate, and RFK started his career working wth McCarthy and Cohn and attended his funeral in the late 50s.)

In any case, a lot of the allegations were true. Despite the liberal establishment’s love of people such as Alger Hiss, recently released KGB archives leave no room for debate–he was working for the Russians. Ditto for a lot of the people in the list above.

Ok, now it appears that everyone who has participated in this discussion agrees with that point, including you and Fred Smith. So can we please change the title of the thread to something more accurate such as, say, “Everyone agrees Joe McCarthy was a Slimebag.”

So you say, but I believe reasonable minds still differ on that. In any event, one thing’s for sure: we’d likely have a clearer answer of his guilt or innocence if the government had not intentionally committed perjury and other misconduct at his trial.

Here we go again. Alger Hiss is the only person named in this entire thread so far who actually was a government employee with potential access to sensitive info. Please tell us what threat was posed to national security by musicians such as Artie Shaw, Aaron Copeland, Leonard Bernstein, Pete Seeger, actors such as Paul Robeson, Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles, authors such as Arthur Miller, Langston Hughes and Dashniell Hammett, civil rights leaders such as WEB Dubois, and the like.

Oh yeah, one other thing. . .

finfacts.com/news/senatorjosephmccarthy.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn

The above statements are widely agreed to be true. Please tell us how it is that homosexuality posed a security threat to the US.

Please stop posting this as if it means something. I believe that at the time, one of Prescott’s many investments included a holding in a bank (less than 1 percent I believe) and that bank or investment house in question was in fact loaning money to Nazi Germany during the 1930s. I also believe that once the war started, it was not a question of continuing to loan the money but that the loan itself was for a set period, say 7 years and that would have ended in 1942. So saying that Bush was “doing business with the Nazis” is highly dishonest and really I think that like the Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand photo, we really need to retire this little chestnut. Oh yes, and can we also get the “and the government flew out the entire bin Laden family to Saudi Arabia the day after 911 thing too?”

Thanks.

Mr. Smith -
Have patience with them…they’re working from a list.

Interesting to see Fred, because I think your point is pertinent. As in your defence of Prescott, most of the commies fingered by McCarthy were “commies” back in a day when the Soviet Union was either a firm ally - up to the end of WWII - or indeed “socialists” that were bitterly opposed to Leninism. Alternatively, many more were mere advocates of labour rights (the wobblies) in a time where such a cause was badly needed and in that struggle at times meant hopping into bed with some strange bedfellows.

To be damned for this, as you suggest in the case of Prescott, is to be taken completely out of context. Careers dried up, people inprisoned, all for what exactly?

HG

Fred, read what HGC just wrote. That’s the point I was making.

And, FWIW, Prescott Bush owned 1 share in the bank. He was paid $1.5million for that share, but it was only 1 share.

Personally, I’m not one of the conspiracy theorists who believes PB was a Nazi.

[quote]Interesting to see Fred, because I think your point is pertinent. As in your defence of Prescott, most of the commies fingered by McCarthy were “commies” back in a day when the Soviet Union was either a firm ally - up to the end of WWII - or indeed “socialists” that were bitterly opposed to Leninism. Alternatively, many more were mere advocates of labour rights (the wobblies) in a time where such a cause was badly needed and in that struggle at times meant hopping into bed with some strange bedfellows.

To be damned for this, as you suggest in the case of Prescott, is to be taken completely out of context. Careers dried up, people inprisoned, all for what exactly? [/quote]

Interesting point but to the two cases that I have provided, both refused to cooperate with investigations to determine just what the extent of their relationship with the Communist Part was. Chaplin was not a citizen. He was obligated to give an account of just what his Communist Party status was. He refused. He can hardly therefore be viewed as a victim of a witch hunt. Likewise, Seeger played for and participated in Communist Party activities in the 1950s not in some previous period. He refused to answer to the committee to state just what his current relationship with the Communist Party was.

Again, I am not defending McCarthy but I also want it understood that we were at war with Communism. Entertainers and others who supplied some kind of propaganda value to the enemy should have been investigated. Should they have lost their jobs? No. But I think that much was made of this, when many in fact did have relationships with the Communist Party, many chose to blame already failing careers on the witchhunt and if there were any truly revisionist approach to history, it would be the one whereby these communist sympathizers are treated as heroes rather than the potential traitors that they were. Sorry, but in communist nations all over the world at that time, those who chose to “disagree” with the system did not have any First Amendment rights to do so. Would anyone here suggest that entertainers and teachers and newspaper editors should be allowed free rein to criticize our war efforts while praising Osama bin Laden and the actions of the insurgents? Whoops! That seems to be already taking place. Just what and when do the terms “treason” and “sedition” now apply? This used to be quite clear. Why isn’t this the case anymore? The Constitution always recognized a balance between freedom of speech and actions that constituted treason and sedition. That responsibility is being lost with the focus on only the rights. That was never how this was supposed to be and that is precisely the problem I have with these facile presentations of the McCarthy “witchhunt.”

A note to Mother Theresa:

I am sensing that you view the First Amendment rights to be sacrosanct and inviolable, yes? Well, then if these rights are to be granted no matter whether we are at war and such and no matter how much we may dislike the message entailed, would you then please account for your invective against Falwell, who as you seem to be suggesting, should be allowed to say and do whatever he wants since this is within his First Amendment rights? Or are you saying that people like Falwell should not be allowed their views no matter how strong or unpopular but those of Communists should? Because you are sympathetic to the communist view? but not to the Falwellian one? How exactly do you reconcile these two very different positions on this one right? I am all ears.

Were there or were there not adequate provisions within the US intelligence gathering community to weed out these fifth collumnists? Were these cases not better handled by the FBI and CIA than a crackpot senator and a cabal of ruthless power seeking lawyers? I sense your agreement.

You cite communists rather frequently, Fred, but as you well know not all communists were aligned with Stalinists, or Maoists, for that matter, and certainly fare fewer were even remotely interested in erasing the US.

HG

Of course, I am in agreement. I am merely wondering how and when one is to exhibit outrage since it seems to be a very one-sided, leftwing-friendly approach.

True, but ironically, didn’t these “intellectuals” suffer exactly what they would have had they achieved a communist regime in the US? I mean what exactly did communist regimes in those days entail and by virtue of the fact that at the very least these individuals were sympathetic to those aims, are we then to be horrified or intensely sympathetic that they suffered exactly what they were willing to impose on others? You see the source of my mirth here surely?

[quote=“fred smith”]A note to Mother Theresa:

I am sensing that you view the First Amendment rights to be sacrosanct and inviolable, yes? Well, then if these rights are to be granted no matter whether we are at war and such and no matter how much we may dislike the message entailed, would you then please account for your invective against Falwell, who as you seem to be suggesting, should be allowed to say and do whatever he wants since this is within his First Amendment rights? Or are you saying that people like Falwell should not be allowed their views no matter how strong or unpopular but those of Communists should? Because you are sympathetic to the communist view? but not to the Falwellian one? How exactly do you reconcile these two very different positions on this one right? I am all ears.[/quote]

Mayo wente. No conflict whatsoever.

You’re right that I hold the First Amendment in extremely high regard and have lesser regard for the bigoted hate speach of the late Jerry Falwell. But I have no trouble whatsoever reconciling the two. Falwell had as much right to make his vile statements as the KKK or the American Nazi Party or Ann Coulter do. I may dislike what they say and I may be saddened that people listen to their words and actually believe in them. But I have never suggested that they should be prohibited from voicing their vile opinions (with some exceptions as spelled out in the law, such as actionable defamation, fraud or incitement of imminent violence).

I’m a firm believer in the “marketplace of ideas” – that people should have a right to communicate regarding virtually anything, brilliant or idiotic, bigoted or compassionate, and hopefully in the end most people are bright enough that good and true ideas will prevail. Likewise, in the 50’s I believe everyone should have had every right to praise Stalin, Lenin and Marx, to extoll the virtues of the Soviet system, and to condemn the fascist commie hunters in the US government who were trampling all over the Constitution and the sacred First Amendment, without being persecuted and imprisoned for excercising their constitutional rights.

Agreed but you will no doubt be able to sense my barely controlled smirk that these people, ironically, actually with delicious irony, met the fate that, again, ironically, they were willing to sympathize with when said system was imposed on others. It looks like they got their just desserts, eh?

A show trial without the bang? And you find that amusing? Good for you Fred. Perhaps you and ac_dropout are right, democracy is highly over-rated.

HG