Of course, but some random guy with a blog is perfectly fine. How surprising.
It become a standing committee in 1945, but actually goes back considerably further than than in the form of a few different committees.
But even though McCarthy was not responsible for the creation of HUAC, and anti-communist investigations had been going on at the local, state, and national level for some time before McCarthy appeared on the scene, no serious and honest student of history can deny that McCarthy spurred a far more intensive and virulent brand of anti-communism in America, one that was far more committed not only to rooting out spies and traitors, but to exposing anyone with left-leaning heterodox ideas and branding them a commie.
None of this refutes in any way the article linked by EddyTeddyFreddy. In fact, if McCarthy had stuck to his list, and focused his attentions in places where he did, in fact, have evidence of actual wrongdoing, he might today be a respected name in American history.
The issue here is not whether his accusations were correct; there is strong evidence that some of the people on his list were spies, and quite a few others should, at the very least, have been investigated more closely as security threats. The problem is precisely that, rather than pursuing investigations into suspicious people in sensitive positions, and focusing those investigations on areas where he had some actual evidence, McCarthy turned his search into a nationwide crusading witchhunt targeting people who were, in many cases, not Communists at all and who, even if they were (or had been; many were ex-Communists), posed no threat whatsoever to the security of the nation.
He shat all over principles of free speech in a monomanic crusade against Hollywood and academia and anywhere else in American society where any sort of left-leaning politics might find refuge, and the hysteria he encouraged caused many Americans, many of whom were, themselves, anti-communist in their politics, to lose their livelihoods.
The excesses that brought him down also meant that his allegations in areas where he did have some evidence were not investigated as fully as they might have been. He is, in many ways, responsible for giving anti-communism a bad name in America, even at a time when many Americans were still worried about communism.
While you seem to be better informed that most who are eager to grab the pitchforks at the man’s name, I think you grossly minimize the importance of his “being right.” The problem was that he did have evidence but was unable to make it public. His detractors, many high-ranking Democrats (not subjects of his allegations) took an opposing position because they don’t want anyone high ranking from the left being identified as a Communist because they felt it would undermined all Democrats. Which there is definitely some truth in. And they seized upon McCarthy’s inability to share evidence to paint the guy as a both evil and a loon. So, yes, you are correct in that one could say he gave “anti-comunism” a bad name. But it’s a bad name in most part because of they way the left mobilized against him. One would have thought that with the benefit of hindsight—and the released intelligence information by both Congress and the former U.S.S.R.—that this McCarthy as Satan narrative would have fallen by the wayside, but some people are immune to having their ignorance fought.
Again, you conflate two issues that should be separate.
You push his “being right” about some (not all) of the people on his list, but ignore the fact that, outside of government and other sensitive areas, he continued on a witchhunt against people who posed no threat to American security even if they were Communists. And many of them were never Communists, or had only been members of the Party back in the 1920s or 1930s days but had left it behind.
Here it is in simple language, in case you have trouble grasping my argument:
Pursuing Communists within the government, military, and other places where they might have access to sensitive material is an appropriate use of government power. This is especially true if you have evidence that their political sympathies had led them to express support for the Soviet government, or if you have evidence that they have engaged in any sort of spying.
Pursuing American citizens who have no access to secret or sensitive materials, and who have committed no crimes; forcing them to detail their political leanings and inform on their friends and acquaintances; and causing them to live in fear of losing their jobs, all based on speculation about something that was not even illegal, is not an appropriate use of government power.
The fact that McCarthy might have been justified on the first issue doesn’t negate him being so horribly wrong and damaging on the second.
So I check out the front page of WND, and also featured are an article about “Death panels already here?”, a ‘Goat Man’ sighting, and an advertisement for a ‘unique device’ which will meet your home energy needs, and ‘the energy companies are scared’ of.
In the words of the Dixie Chicks, “there’s your trouble!”. You can’t tell the difference? Really?:dubious:
On the other hand, Egypt has a significant plurality of MB supporters, and this nonsense will make the U.S. appear more sympathetic to them than it deserves to be.
nm
McCarthy was a Republican.
ETA: We’re talking about Tailgunner Joe, not Clean Gene.
As for McCarthy, he was whipping up a problem that was solved before he stuck his nose into it. There were Communists in the State Department, etc., but the Truman Administration had already purged them.
And those Communists in government and labor unions and other fields who escaped purging . . . they got caught up in the careers they had entered as moles on Stalin’s orders, and gradually lost all interest in being Communists.
You can read the whole story in It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States, by Gary Martin Lipset.
:smack: Never mind, my post was all fucked up. When McCarthy started, Truman was still president too.
Actually, they just call it WND, now. You know, like KFC.
Weapons of Nutbag Distraction?
A quick Googling seems to indicate that it comes from her mother’s prominent role as a founding member of The Muslim Sisterhood and Chairperson of the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC).
Gosh, Mags, had no idea you had such solid and reliable citations to offer! And this question simply must be answered!
What, indeed, does this portend? Dogs and cats, living together? Amoeba in gay marriages? We have no idea, except that it may presage a dangerous outbreak of tolerance and acceptance! We gasp with horror.
That post is fucked up, too. Or are you one of the sheeple who fell for the propaganda that Dewey lost the 1948 election? :dubious:
That post is fucked up, too. Or are you one of the sheeple who fell for the propaganda that Dewey lost the 1948 election? :dubious:
Designated hitters serving openly in the military; mass hysteria!
I am trying to put aside my natural prejudice against designated hitters, but I cannot.
I would only figure. This is the longest, most viewed thread I have ever posted in 10 years of being on this board.
And it’s about a crazy person.
Well, if you would rather, I could discuss The Sword and the Shield, instead.
The secret files of the KGB. Guess what? Except for Alger Hiss? None of them were communists. Entertainingly, they did do a few other things I bet Magellan01 believes were home grown.
It Didn’t Happen Here is another valuable resource.