Talk:Reactions to McCarthyism

Untitled

Please don't blank this article. It might be improved, probably ought to have been integrated into McCarthyism or Red Scare but the reaction to McCarthyism is real enough as is the polarizing effect (which you are exhibiting). Fred Bauder 06:10, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

This is a hopelessly POV personal screed.

The accusations of McCarthy and his supporters went way beyond saying that (gasp) the Soviets performed espionage in the US (just as we performed it in USSR). The latter was not much of a revelation in itself, I think. The McCarthy-ites argued that there was an insidious Communist organization, pervading all levels of society, that was secretly aimed at subverting our way of life and (ironically) taking away our freedoms. They spread fears that this organization was brainwashing our children (hence loyalty oaths were required for teachers etc), fluoridating our water (gasp), and so on. They didn't merely accuse people (falsely) of espionage...the charge of simply being communist was enough. Many left-wing organizations were labelled "communist front" organizations and their members were considered de facto communists. It goes on. No evidence has surfaced to support the assertion that these claims "had a solid basis in fact".

It sounds so insane now, that some people can hardly believe how bad it was. (Witness movies like The Majestic, in which the hero simply walks out of the McCarthy trials after telling off the committee. My little sister was astonished to learn that this didn't work, that people got arrested and held in jail for years for "contempt of Congress".) I once read a book from the early 1950's by an author who opposed McCarthyism, and even this book takes it for granted that the subversive Communist organization exists.

It is also grossly rewriting history to suggest that, after McCarthy, anti-communists were as stigmatized as communists had been, or even stigmatized at all. Despite a smattering of movies that parodied McCarthy, "commies" remained the staple villains of films and television. (The Manchurian Candidate came out eight years after McCarthy.) Political figures across the spectrum, from Kennedy to Reagan, had to prove their toughness on Communism to get elected, and the need to be tough continued to motivate their actions. How do you think we got into the Vietnam war?

Steven G. Johnson 17:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break.

Soldier: "Why did we really go to Vietnam?" Johnson: "It was that bastard McCarthy. He brainwashed a bunch of Americans and they wouldn't vote for me if I didn't pursue those commie bastards." Trey Stone 08:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

"But the records also show that they under-estimated the ruthlessness and malignity of the Soviet regime, and that many of the paranoid charges leveled by McCarthy and other anti-communists about Soviet infiltration of U.S. institutions were essentially true. Forty years on, it became belatedly clear that the worst Red Scare fears had actually had a solid basis in fact. "

This is just mud-slinging without any examples. Even with examples this would be POV, but it just has statements like "Forty years on, it became belatedly clear that the worst Red Scare fears had actually had a solid basis in fact" as if this were a fact, without need of any examples. This is something that should be in the National Review or New American, not in an encyclopedia.

-- JohnWoolsey 23:43, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have restored material that was removed and added a substantial reference within the text and also tried to add some perspective and also some copyediting. I would appreciate those of you who feel the information restored is unfounded taking a look at the references at the bottom of the page. With the opening of the KGB archives a flood of material has become available. Fred Bauder 06:38, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

This is better than before, but there is still too much vagueness. If "McCarthy was right" as Ann Coulter says, WHAT was he right about? Did the Eastern Bloc spy on the West like the West spied on the East? Of course, and it seems the names of some of those heretofore anonymous spies have come out with the archive leaks. These have not been the major debates though. Probably the major debate is - was Alger Hiss guilty? Certainly the most ink has been spilled over this issue. This leads into the second most important one - were any other major Democrats Soviet agents? After the question of whether high level Democrats were Soviet spies is the CPUSA - was it autonomous, did it secretly received money from the USSR, did it spy for the USSR, were the Rosenbergs guilty and so forth. Were the communists, "fellow travellers", socialists, trade unionists and liberals pulled in front of HUAC Soviet spies? Or were they just part of a witchhunt against the left? What exactly does Venona prove or give evidence of of these charges? If the Democrats (like Hiss) or the CPUSA are going to have mud thrown at them, I want it to be specific. Especially stuff like this - "But the records [...] show that [...] some of the apparently paranoid charges leveled by McCarthy and other anti-communists about Soviet infiltration of U.S. institutions were essentially true." What records? McCarthy called the the Democratic presidency from 1932-1952 "twenty years of treason". That is a pretty high standard to have to measure up to, and half a century later, if this is all there is (with some of the Venona stuff pointing to an exoneration of Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss), it seems to expose the Red Scare for what it was in an even more obvious manner. -- JohnWoolsey 09:35, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The subject matter of the article is the reaction to McCarthyism which in its extreme form results in people resisting any reference or action which exposes past or present Marxist-Leninist actions and resists them. McCarthy took a shotgun approach and made a lot of wild charges. I don't have any reference before me now but I'd don't recall any Democrat who actually was a Communist Party USA member, although as I think back to my reading there was high placed source who spied for the KGB, but I don't think they were ever specifically identified. Anyway the article is not about the various hot-button issues such as Hiss or the Rosenbergs, but about the wild charges of "McCarthyism" that attach to any objective examination of past or present Marxist-Leninist actions. Fred Bauder 14:14, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Saying that it is "about" polarizing effects does not excuse the fact that the article itself is impossibly polarized. Steven G. Johnson

---

Does this page serve any function other than as a dumping ground for POV texts from Red Scare? Actual, relevant, NPOV material about actual reactions to McCarthyism should go to McCarthyism. Discussion about the causes of anti-communist paranoia, and whether or not the Russians really were coming, ought to go over to Anti-communism or some more appropriate page. For historical revisionism, e.g. claiming that McCarthy was right and a giant communist comspiracy was deeply rooted in the State Department and the White House, I'd advise going to the USENET or talk radio. -- Diderot 11:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The point of the article is that because of McCarthy and his activities and the climate he created, it became difficult to express legitimate concerns about Communism and provided a tool to bash those who did express such concerns as you demonstrate in your post. In fact, Diderot, your post amply demonstrates the factual foundation of the article. I agree that attempts to rehabilitate McCarthy are not fact based, but that is not what the article ought to be about. As to the giant communist conspiracy deeply rooted in the State Department and the White House, it is well established that during the 1940s the Soviets deeply penetrated the State Department and had some information sources within the White House. An intelligence capacity which was entirely lacking on the part of the United States during the same time. That meant when Stalin and Roosevelt negotiated Stalin knew in advance what to expect while Roosevelt did not. Fred Bauder 11:59, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Hopeless

I see no way to salvage this piece of POV propaganda. After all these months, no one has found a way to rework it into something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I recommend that the whole article be deleted. Shorne 23:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)