Red Scare… Version 3.0

Last September, my late-night information binge found me watching Edward R. Murrow’s “A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy” from 1954. I found it fascinating then, as I do now, that a 65-year-old report can offer such relevance in the present-day paranoia about Russian influence in American politics.

No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism.

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.

We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

We will not walk in fear, one of another.

We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men—not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

– Murrow @23:35

I hate Twitter. I keep my account active solely for the purpose of being able to research the odd comment or thread which originates from that site. This compliments my own begrudging reluctance to enter into prolonged discussions regarding contemporary politics; I find that the immediacy of social media often agitates but rarely resolves. As a result, the current controversy between Hillary Clinton and Tulsi Gabbard was only noticed when some of my favorite podcasters started discussing it.

Gah.

Can we please move on from accusations of Russian interference?

Interestingly, my current thread here on this blog is looking at the events associated with the First World War: the rise of militant anarchist movements, the ship-borne contagion of communism in war-torn Germany and Russia, and how all of it might relate to what we see today.

The McCarthy Hearings, as published, are considerable: five volumes, with only the last being less than 900 pages. What I did not know was that they were not made public until 2003. Regardless, McCarthyism was a political by-product of societal paranoia over the growing influence of the Soviet Union following the Second World War.

History, as I have pointed out previously, is more pattern recognition than true cyclic repetition – at least, in terms of the last 100 years. Much like the efforts of a sensationalistic Congressman from Wisconsin, we are witnesses to similar paranoid rhetoric directed at a familiar target: Russia. McCarthy made dramatic claims to having undeniable evidence of overt or “Fifth Amendment communists” – those whose guilt was implied by seeking protection from self-incrimination – in several areas of American political, military, and entertainment industries. While our current rehash of this theme is much more muddled with accusations, one can see that there are some similarities.

However, a significant difference between then and now might be the rise of many different social causes, beyond the idea of foreign influence in domestic elections, and the overall weaponization of ideas heavily featured in traditional media. Identity, environmentalism, economic standing – all of it may easily be substituted for communism, and the outrage can be just as impulsive, aggressive, and dramatic as McCarthy’s methods; the only difference is that, on the massive stage that is social media, the irrational din may prove difficult to overcome and see where it is all headed.

In texting ideas back and forth with Dave, it has become apparent that my “vicious optimist” perspective might be buckling. With the daily dose of controversy in politics, it is becoming more and more difficult to understand how this would make civil service in terms of political office palatable to the members of “we the People.” Dave echoed my thoughts over the past two decades:

We have dumbed down our schools and our higher education institutes and we have made it so that literally, only those who see power, not service, are willing to run for elected office.

I offered a counter:

Unfortunately, the current events are narrowing the middle… and sort of out of necessity.

Perhaps we have grown too complacent with the way things are. Perhaps we have fallen into lethargic apathy at how nations are run. With social media and its influences, it is far too easy to bicker online rather than understand the problem and apply a solution.

It is rather impossible to say with 100% accuracy which point is closer to the truth; often the singular notion of “one truth” is more of an amalgamation of different frequencies of an absolute… much like how the visible spectrum is comprised of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. I have jokingly referred to disputes between couples as a being a matter of “his side, her side, and the truth.”

One of the best quotes from Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series is appropriate. In The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, a truism emerged:

The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Perhaps this is where my own thoughts on the possibility for ever running for office came from; more than likely, I developed my own ideas based upon mulling over what collateral damage might be associated with campaigning and winning. The problem with our current political environment might be that those most adverse to self-aggrandizement and the scrutiny of their past or possible motivations – and, possibly, with the best attitudes and ideas – aren’t usually the ones seeking civil service in politics.

McCarthy’s vindictive crusade stands as a reflection of where we are today: the vendettas, suspicion, and machinations manifested into a dismal public spectacle… with actions both surreptitious as well as ostentatious, all for what could be reduced to one idea – the quest for power.

Far from new, McCarthy merely capitalized upon fear well-entrenched over the previous decades and balanced by the events of the time. Successful espionage by pro-Soviet individuals during and after the Second World War as well as reactionary conservative ideas which pushed back on the social reforms brought about by the New Deal. The post-war division of Eastern Europe, the rise of communism in China, and the Korean War all fostered national distrust of the Soviet Union and provided an easy means for political targeting by bringing into question the loyalty, activities, and uncooperative defiance of anyone who challenged McCarthy.

Paranoia knows no limits, it seems. In 1946, the “Hollywood blacklist” began, and over the next decade, accusations and associations were the only fuel the fire of public opinion needed as the entertainment, music, and arts industries became political battlegrounds populated by many professional casualties. The Smith Act Trials of 1949 also lent support to the self-propagating fear which easily swayed public opinion towards almost Pavlovian responses at the perceived threat of communism.

We seem to have forgotten what McCarthyism showed – an aggressive public opinion campaign against a dubious foreign threat. In his quest to root out “subversive elements” within American society, McCarthy circumvented Congressional procedure, negated legal process, and made frequent and dramatic claims of evidence supporting his various charges – proof which never existed in the finality he had desired.

The final exchange from 9 June 1954 provides two interesting quotes:

Here is something that neither Secretary Stevens nor I had much to do with: the charge by the junior Senator from Wisconsin – that we’ve had another year of treason under President Eisenhower; the charge that the CIA is infiltrated infested with communists; the charge that the Department of Defense is full of communists; the charge that the Department of Justice – that the Attorney General of the Department of Justice – there’s something phony about him – and the charge that the hydrogen bomb plants and the atomic bomb plants are full of Communists. Well… where do we go from here as the American people? It would appear some of us want to end up in this country with just plain anarchy.

– Senator Stuart Symington @85:09

Apparently every time anybody says anything against anybody working for Senator McCarthy, he is smearing them, and he is accusing them of communism.

– Symington @ 94:41

Patterns in history and in the present. If one recurring theme does resurface in today’s political contests, I would love for it to be an echo of Murrow’s words:  

We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men.

Perhaps the inspiration to write on history may lead to a true comprehension of the problem and efforts towards an applicable solution.