I’m a little ignorant of recent facts to come up, but weren’t the charges against Oppenheimer essentially baseless? I thought that it was beyond doubt that he did not channel any atomic bomb information to the USSR. The guilty party for that was Klaus Fuchs. I seem to remember that Oppenheimer may have had some tangential contact with the Communist party (friends were members), but he was never an active member. While it didn’t destroy his career, he was forced out of any contact with the atomic program he had fathered.
Rudolph Guiliani’s father was a gangster. Here he comes pledging to fight crime like he broke down the NY mobs, even though the ‘no assets from crime to pay lawyers or post bail’ laws had as much to do with gathering his convictions. Now imagine the Democrats implying that Guiliani is a ganster himself because of his father. Could he live it down? Cuomo barely could.
This is exactly what is happening as far as Coulter and her ilk is concerned in implying liberals as traitors, even though they aren’t caught shaking hands with Sadaam Hussein. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Squink,
Yes, the wording was a bit sloppy.
Of the 81 who left the service, how many were forced out and who were they.
All the other questions still apply.
As for the claim that “True Americans” are offended by fabricated evidence and lies in the political arena, partisan supporters, or politician worshippers, who form about 80% of an electorate in any of the world’s elective dictatorships, are rarely offended by such actions. About half of this 80% would support such actions and the other half would perceive such actions as being debased and criminal.
As for McCarthy, the story of the rise of this demagogue and his final political destruction appears to be surrounded by a very large dose of mythology.
I don’t believe he is any worse than a number of other demagogues who have come and gone from the political scene. I quoted Senator Ted Kennedy as just one example of a person who has behaved on TV just as badly and shamelessly as McCarthy, although without anything like the same repercussions.
Anyhow, the OP question is “McCarthyism - anyone hurt by it?”
It depends on what the meaning of “hurt” is.
Venora proves that there were, in fact, many communist spies in the US government leading up to McCarthy.
Simply the truth.
Venora proved that there were some Soviet agents in the U.S. government. Rather few of them were caught by the witch hunts of the HUAC, McCarthy, or the AWARE organization. Generally, a lot of people were harmed by the witch hunters for looking at alternative social philosophies while in college or for knowing someone else who looked at alternative social philosophies while the actual agents went on about their business.
Lots of publicity for the witch hunters, no protection for the country, innocent people harmed by the violation of their constitutional rights. That’s a real good legacy.
I believe it was Venona, not Venora however.
Venona, right. I always say ‘venora’… Sounds more English I guess.
And the leftwing/communists looking the other way while the Rosenburgs and Fuches ran off with the goods…
That’s some legacy too.
Good thing your rightwing witchhunters caught them, eh monty ?
Two amusing links that should not be missed:
Telegram from Senator Joseph McCarthy to President Harry S. Truman
Reply from President Harry S. Truman to Senator Joseph McCarthy (Probably Unsent) <–NOTE
And only if you’re not scared of your eyes glazing over:
Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations (McCarthy Hearings 1953-54)
Essentially, yes, though the details are sort of awkward. For a start, I wouldn’t quite characterise his contacts with the party as “tangential”. Offhand, in his own phrase he’d been “a member of every front organisation on the West Coast” and both his wife and brother had been actual party members. IMHO, he certainly lied about incidental espionage contacts during the war at the time, but there’s certainly no evidence that such contacts could be regarded as a success by Soviet intelligence. He brushed off Chevalier in the kitchen when he made the approach. Yet, and understandably, to protect his brother and friends, he was less than forthcoming when questioned about such matters.
Did he forward anything to foreign powers ? Absolutely not.
Was there any intention by him to aid Soviet intelligence ? Nope.
Is there any evidence that his actions actually aided the USSR ? Nope.
Were his answers in response to questions from Boris Pash unwise ? In hindsight, surely.
Of the actual spies inside the Manhatten Project, he must have known Fuchs personally. But he’d been vouched for by the British and so his eligability was never put to Oppenheimer. As for David Greenglass, I doubt Oppenheimer was ever aware of his existance.
It’s also worth remembering that he’s a case who never directly interacted with McCarthy. It was all to do with AEC security clearances.
[And, courtesy of Romeo and Juliet, I always wrongly read it as Verona.]
I would disagree with that statement. Although you did add “without anything like the same repercussions.” (I assume you meant McCarthy’s demise rather than his influence on average Americans).
I watched both the Kefauver crime hearings and the McCarthy hearings on live tv. My dad worked nights, and he loved watching things like this on tv, much as did many Americans.
So, if I was gonna watch tv, I had to watch what he was watching.
He simply ate up the McCarthy hearings. My dad was a blue collar worker, bare high school education, child of the depression.
And when this stuff came into our living room, you could hear and feel my dad’s excitement about getting the Commies.
And that’s the shame of McCarthy. It was a time when, on a new medium like tv, McCarthy had an inordinate influence on the general public’s opinions. He reinforced the bad parts.
Ted Kennedy, buffoon that he is, and I say that as an ultra liberal, influences esentially no one in the US today. Of the 245 people who watch C-span at night, most have their minds made up already.
It’s almost impossible for a Senator or Congressman today to have the influence on the general populace that McCarthy did.
[sub] Yeah! I’m old[/sub]
Fuchs and the Rosenbergs were caught by the FBI, not by grandstanding congresscritters who were more interested in destroying our civil rights to get votes than they were in protecting the country.
samclem,
I am old too.
Yes, I did mean McCarthy’s political demise.
But the influence that a TV appearance may have these days lives on in print and the net, and gains a far larger audience as a result.
As for what the current media mavens want to appear on TV, it is more likely to reflect the views that are the exact opposite of Sen. McCarthy’s nonsense.
Which does not make it sensible, by the way.
Reverting to the main topic, so far, this thread has not attracted a great number of names of people who were “hurt” by big bad Tailgunner Joe.
Perhaps it was, after all, just a “Magnificent Myth” which Plato recommended in his “Republic” as an essential element for a successfully functioning polity.
Ummm… how about everyone he forced to testify in public, and many of the people he forced to testify privately?
Quite similar to the victims of today’s version of “McCarthyism”.
They had been segregationists or mixed up with segregationist organizations in the 30’s or 40’s, but their views had moderated since then, and they had put that part of their lives behind them.
Yeah, tell it to Trent Lott.
Trent Lott obviously didn’t put that part of his life behind him, because the speech which got him in trouble was full of wistful reminiscing of how great it was that people voted for Thurmond. Come on, Razorsharp, you could have actually found people unfairly victimised today for their racist youth, such as Sen. Byrd and perhaps just maybe Thurmond in his later years, but your use of Lott as an example is just foolish. Lott didn’t put anything behind him, he just hid it until it unfortunately exploded and wounded his career.
UnuMondo
“unfortunately exploded”?? Ha, what a joke. It almost sounds “foolish”.
Because Lott " was full of wistful reminiscing" while giving a speech at Thurmond’s 100th brithday, that was extrapolated as being racist. Typical Democratic “McCarthyism” was what that was. Funny how it is only Democrats that are allowed to put their past associations behind them.
In his capacity as a United States Senator, I don’t recall any incident or actions by Trent Lott which could truely be deemed as racist. In fact, Trent Lott was somewhat liberal on social issues such as immigration and amnesty.
I don’t think it’s quite the same.
Lott is a politician, therefore everything in his life, past and present, is fair games. AND if Lott had kept his mouth shut, he’d still be a ranking member of the party.
Nobody went searching for this guy. Nobody got called before a committee and threatened or coerced into telling what Lott had done. Lott simply put his foot in his mouth.
Well, I see it as an incident of manufactured racism, much like former President Clinton’s childhood “memories” of Black church burnings.