|
|
|
|
|
| | Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?Page 24 of 28 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28) | Cafeteria "Constitutionalists" are quite happy to suspend certain rights when it comes to commies, Muslims and Hispanics/Latinos.
I don't know of anyone who's calling for those people's constitutional rights to be violated. Just the opposite. Any true conservative insists on protecting their rights just as thoroughly as the rights of anyone else in the same circumstances. But if their rights ever are stepped on, they can thank Mr. Obama and his ilk for doing all they could to undermine the Constitution.
The natural enemies of the Constitution are statists. Because it strictly limits the powers of the federal government, it stands in the way of the totalitarian scheme they favor. The only parts of it they like are the ones they can persuade judges to misinterpret into support for things like abortion or homosexual marriage or freedom for Islamist war criminals.
The statists among us are also notoriously intolerant--and in particular anti-Semitic. Several of the people in Mr. Obama's Chicago circle--Khalidi, Ayers, Wright, Pfleger--are also extreme Jew-haters.
then went into his book bans, Hollywood, perverts and homosexuals in his witch hunt.
Good for a laugh, at least. I have no idea how Joe McCarthy supposedly persecuted Hollywood, perverts, or homosexuals. And I doubt you do either. If you have any evidence for that, no one has seen it.
Thousands of others in the media and the arts were cowed into submission and hiding and the witch hunt affected thousands of families and the nation.
You don't say. Just who were these nameless, faceless thousands, and how, exactly, were they cowed and their families affected by anything Joe McCarthy did? If there were so many of these victims of his "witch hunt," it should be easy to identify lots of them. After all this time, there must even be long lists of them somewhere. | |
|
| |
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/3/2011 9:38:47 PM |
Earth to whomever...in ase you didn't notice political parties have evolved...
That would be earth to me. Not necessary, but thanks Mr. BB. I'm already connected with both feet on the ground. Political parties have devolved, actually, in that instead of promoting ideals they are all about providing the wealth of other to others.
Pssssst...earth...Joe is still dead.
Earth to whomever...Joe is dead...the new deal was in the last century....civil rights are here to stay...racism isn't cool...gay's are OK...Bible thumping-not cool.
So... if Joe is dead why the fixation on Joe? Let him stay in the grave. The New Deal was in the last century and is helping to ruin this century. Racism isn't cool, except when it comes to beating up on the "rich Jews" who control all the banks. Now that's Occupy Cool. Bible thumping is not cool -- why not? Because most liberals and progressives have NO idea what's inside of it. Communist Manifesto thumping...now that's also Occupy and POF cool, not that it's been read by either group as well. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/3/2011 10:03:26 PM | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQQaX2h1plo&feature=player_embedded
I've seen documentaries like that one quite a few times. I take them for what they're worth--which is not much. They are the standard hit pieces, short on facts and edited to be misleading. They're also out of date--they typically say nothing at all about the many decrypted Soviet cables the U.S. started publishing in 1995.
Those cables make clear how Soviet agents were not only spying on U.S. secrets, including military ones, but were also influencing U.S. policy around the world against U.S. interests. One of the most far-reaching effects of their influence on U.S. foreign policy was to help bring Mao's Communists to power in China. We now know who the officials involved in that effort were, and they were among the ones McCarthy's committees were investigating.
So Walter Cronkite thought McCarthy was a "fascist." Mike Wallace thought loyalty oaths were odd. Ed Murrow despised and denounced McCarthy. Someone else in the news media didn't like the "Red Channels," a report on Communism in radio and TV which McCarthy had nothing to do with. And so on.
The documentary didn't mention two other eminent men who actually knew and admired Joe McCarthy--John F. Kennedy and his younger brother Bobby. As a young congressman in the late 1940's, JFK denounced some of the same people and policies that Joe McCarthy took on starting in 1950. Their views on the threat of Communism were not far apart.
Kennedy's brother Bobby was even more in tune with McCarthy. When he was in law school at the University of Virginia, Kennedy invited McCarthy to speak there. As a 27-year-old lawyer, he served prominently on McCarthy's Senate committees. When Murrow began to attack McCarthy in a speech Kennedy was attending, he walked out. And he asked McCarthy to be the godfather of his daughter Kathleen.
Here's a link to the Venona cables the NSA has published:
//www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/dated.shtml | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/4/2011 12:18:23 AM | The Kennedys were friends with McCarthy before McCarthy went off the deep end. Despite close family ties and the his sense of loyalty to a man who had been a friend and employed him, Bobby later admitted that he was wrong about McCarthy. Jack also finally signed on to the Censure of McCarthy in 1956, a couple of years after missing the Senate vote due to back surgury. By then even Joe found McCarthy unsavory because of his abuses of power.
HUAC and McCarthy routinely violated the 1st, 4th, and 5th Ammendments of the accused.
While McCarthy is dead, his brand of witch hunts still lived on through Nixon, Reagan and the lil Bush. As seen in these forums, McCarthyites are still prolific in their condemnations of anyone left of far right.
"...it is axiomatic that individual liberties are secondary to the requirements of national security and internal civil order." -- "Mandate for Leadership," Heritage Foundation report presented to President Reagan's transition team.
George W. Bush would carried McCarthyism with his shredding of the Constitution and his witch hunt for "terrorists" and dissenting Americans. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/4/2011 10:11:20 AM | "...it is axiomatic that individual liberties are secondary to the requirements of national security and internal civil order."
You quote that to prove what? Anyone who thinks about that a moment will recognize it's true. National security is the first duty of the U.S. government--or any country's government. If the country goes under in a national emergency, there won't be any individual liberties to protect anyway. Or any law, or police, or courts to protect them. As Justice Robert Jackson observed in a 1949 case, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."
President Lincoln suspended the right to habeas petitions--about as basic as rights get. So, the Union Army could put a U.S. citizen in prison indefinitely, without any jury trial, and he couldn't do a thing about it. During World Wars I and II, two Democrat Presidents, Wilson and FDR, stepped much harder on individual rights than any president since. If the presidents you mentioned ever did anything like arresting 50,000 U.S. citizens at a crack on suspicion of resisting the draft, or interning 100,000 people who lived here in the name of national security, the historians have all missed it.
HUAC and McCarthy routinely violated the 1st, 4th, and 5th Ammendments of the accused.
Joe McCarthy never was part of HUAC. He was in the Senate, and it was in the House. HUAC was started by Rep. Martin Dies in 1938--long before McCarthy entered the field.
Once more, no specifics. If you know of any cases where a court held what you claim, name them. Quite a few of the people McCarthy and his staff questioned in the Senate--who we now know were disloyal--exercised their 5th Amendment rights and refused to answer incriminating questions.
Bobby later admitted that he was wrong about McCarthy.
He did? When was that, and what did he say? | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/4/2011 11:53:34 AM |
There's nothing illegal or unusual at all about congressional investigations. I don't know of anyone Joe McCarthy wrongly accused of anything. He was a lawyer himself and had been the youngest judge in Wisconsin's history. He also had three very talented young lawyers working on his Senate committees. (My emphasis) That's a very revealing confession. I mean, considering the various references and lists that have been quoted in this thread. Not to mention the full quote of his censure by the congress, and the dictionary definition of the term 'McCarthyism' ('...to make accusations without regard for evidence'), which all contain either direct or implied references to him 'wrongly accusing' various people of imaginary 'crimes'.
So that you "don't know of anyone Joe McCarthy wrongly accused of anything" can only be either a confession of voluntary blindness, or a synopsis of an agenda.
Either way, your perception of reality has little correlation to known facts.
More wild assertions without any facts to support them. Who were these thousands of ordinary citizens, and how is Joe McCarthy supposed to have demonized them? I'll tell you: They exist only in your imagination, and he didn't demonize anyone. That's very similar to what you said before, which is what led me to provide referenced individual examples. Rather than repeating them I suggest you refresh your, apparently very short, memory by looking at post #'s 529, 531, 535, and 573.
Good for a laugh, at least. I have no idea how Joe McCarthy supposedly persecuted Hollywood, perverts, or homosexuals. And I doubt you do either. If you have any evidence for that, no one has seen it. Gosh, you're obviously quite proficient at this voluntary blindness thing. But here's a tip, closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears while going La-La-La-La-La-La-La-La doesn't actually change reality, or make it go away.
After you've re-read those posts I mentioned, read this -
McCarthy was originally a supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. However, after failing to become the Democratic Party candidate for district attorney, he switched parties and became the Republican Party candidate in an election to become a circuit court judge. McCarthy shocked local officials by fighting a dirty campaign. This included publishing campaign literature that falsely claimed that his opponent, Edgar Werner, was 73 (he was actually 66). As well as suggesting that Werner was senile, McCarthy implied that he was guilty of financial corruption.
When the United States entered the Second Word War McCarthy resigned as a circuit judge and joined the U.S. Marines. After the war McCarthy ran against Robert La Follette to become Republican candidate for the senate. As one of his biographers has pointed out, his campaign posters pictured him in "full fighting gear, with an aviator's cap, and belt upon belt of machine gun ammunition wrapped around his bulky torso." He claimed he had completed thirty-two missions when in fact he had a desk job and only flew in training exercises.
In his campaign, McCarthy attacked La Follette for not enlisting during the war. But La Follette had been forty-six when Pearl Harbor had been bombed, and was in fact too old to join the armed services. McCarthy also claimed that La Follette had made huge profits from his investments while he, McCarthy, had been away fighting for his country. The suggestion that La Follette had been guilty of war profiteering (his investments had in fact been in a radio station), was deeply damaging and McCarthy won by 207,935 to 202,557. La Follette, deeply hurt by the false claims made against him, retired from politics, and later committed suicide.
On his first day in the Senate, McCarthy called a press conference where he proposed a solution to a coal-strike that was taking place at the time. McCarthy called for John L. Lewis and the striking miners to be drafted into the Army. If the men still refused to mine the coal, McCarthy suggested they should be court-martialed for insubordination and shot.
McCarthy's first years in the Senate were unimpressive. People also started coming forward claiming that he had lied about his war record. Another problem for McCarthy was that he was being investigated for tax offences and for taking bribes from the Pepsi-Cola Company. In May, 1950, afraid that he would be defeated in the next election, McCarthy held a meeting with some of his closest advisers and asked for suggestions on how he could retain his seat. Edmund Walsh, a Roman Catholics priest, came up with the idea that he should begin a campaign against communist subversives working in the Democratic administration.
McCarthy also contacted his friend, the journalist, Jack Anderson. In his autobiography, Confessions of a Muckraker, Anderson pointed out: "At my prompting he (McCarthy) would phone fellow senators to ask what had transpired this morning behind closed doors or what strategy was planned for the morrow. While I listened in on an extension he would pump even a Robert Taft or a William Knowland with the handwritten questions I passed him."
In return, Anderson provided McCarthy with information about politicians and state officials he suspected of being "communists". Anderson later recalled that his decision to work with McCarthy "was almost automatic.. for one thing, I owed him; for another, he might be able to flesh out some of our inconclusive material, and if so, I would no doubt get the scoop." As a result Anderson passed on his file on the presidential aide, David Demarest Lloyd.
McCarthy also began receiving information from his friend, J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). William C. Sullivan, one of Hoover's agents, later admitted that: "We were the ones who made the McCarthy hearings possible. We fed McCarthy all the material he was using." McCarthy made a speech in Salt Lake City where he attacked Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, as "a pompous diplomat in striped pants".
On 9th February, 1950, at a meeting of the Republican Women's Club in Wheeling, West Virginia, McCarthy claimed that he had a list of 205 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party (later he reduced this figure to 57). McCarthy went on to argue that some of these people were passing secret information to the Soviet Union. He added: "The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give."
The list of names was not a secret and had been in fact published by the Secretary of State in 1946. These people had been identified during a preliminary screening of 3,000 federal employees. Some had been communists but others had been fascists, alcoholics and sexual deviants. As it happens, if McCarthy had been screened, his own drink problems and sexual preferences would have resulted in him being put on the list.
On 20th February, 1950, McCarthy made a six hour speech on the Senate floor supporting the allegations he had made in Salt Lake City. This time he did not describe them as "card-carrying communists" because this had been shown to be untrue. Instead he argued that his list were all "loyalty risks".
He also claimed that one of the president's speech-writers, was a communist. David Demarest Lloyd immediately issued a statement where he defended himself against McCarthy's charges. President Harry S. Truman not only kept him on but promoted him to the post of Administrative Assistant. Lloyd was indeed innocent of these claims and McCarthy was forced to withdraw these allegations. As Anderson admitted: "At my instigation, then, Lloyd had been done an injustice that was saved from being grevious only by Truman's steadfastness."
McCarthy also claimed that the Democratic administration had been infiltrated by communist subversives. McCarthy named four of these people, who had held left-wing views in their youth, but when Democrats accused McCarthy of smear tactics, he suggested they were part of this communist conspiracy. This claim was used against his critics who were up for re-election in 1950. Many of them lost and this made other Democrats reluctant to criticize McCarthy in case they became targets of his smear campaigns.
Drew Pearson immediately launched an attack on Joe McCarthy. He pointed out that only three people on the list were State Department officials. When this list was first published four years ago, Gustavo Duran and Mary Jane Keeney had both resigned from the State Department in 1946. The third person, John S. Service, had been cleared after a prolonged and careful investigation. Pearson also pointed out that none of these people had been members of the American Communist Party. Jack Anderson asked Pearson to stop attacking McCarthy: "He is our best source on the Hill." Pearson replied, "He may be a good source, Jack, but he's a bad man."
With the war going badly in Korea and communist advances in Eastern Europe and in China, the American public were genuinely frightened about the possibilities of internal subversion. McCarthy, as chairman of the Government Committee on Operations of the Senate, was in an ideal position to exploit this situation.
For the next two years McCarthy investigated various government departments and questioned a large number of people about their political past. Some people lost their jobs after they admitted they had been members of the Communist Party. McCarthy made it clear to the witnesses that the only way of showing that they had abandoned their left-wing views was by naming other members of the party.
This witch-hunt and anti-communist hysteria became known as McCarthyism. Some left-wing artists and intellectuals were unwilling to live in this type of society and people such as Joseph Losey, Richard Wright, Ollie Harrington, James Baldwin, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole and Chester Himes went to live and work in Europe.
McCarthyism was mainly used against Democrats associated with the New Deal policies introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. Harry S. Truman and members of his Democratic administration such as George Marshall and Dean Acheson, were accused of being soft on communism. Truman was portrayed as a dangerous liberal and McCarthy's campaign helped the Republican candidate, Dwight Eisenhower, win the presidential election in 1952.
After what had happened to McCarthy's opponents in the 1950 election, most politicians were unwilling to criticize him in the Senate. As The Boston Post pointed out: "Attacking him is this state is regarded as a certain method of committing suicide. One notable exception was William Benton, a senator from Connecticut and the owner of Encyclopaedia Britannica. McCarthy and his supporters immediately began smearing Benton. It was claimed that while Benton had been Assistant Secretary of State he had protected known communists and that he had been responsible for the purchase and display of "lewd art works". Benton, who was also accused of being disloyal by McCarthy for having much of his company's work printed in England, was defeated in the 1952 elections.
McCarthy informed Jack Anderson that he had evidence that Professor Owen Lattimore, director of the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University, was a Soviet spy. Drew Pearson, who knew Lattimore, and while accepting he held left-wing views, he was convinced he was not a spy. In his speeches, McCarthy referred to Lattimore as "Mr X... the top Russian spy... the key man in a Russian espionage ring."
On 26th March, 1950, Pearson named Lattimore as McCarthy's Mr. X. Pearson then went onto defend Lattimore against these charges. McCarthy responded by making a speech in Congress where he admitted: "I fear that in the case of Lattimore I may have perhaps placed too much stress on the question of whether he is a paid espionage agent."
McCarthy then produced Louis Budenz, the former editor of The Daily Worker. Budenz claimed that Lattimore was a "concealed communist". However, as Anderson admitted: "Budenz had never met Lattimore; he spoke not from personal observation of him but from what he remembered of what others had told him five, six, seven and thirteen years before."
Drew Pearson now wrote an article where he showed that Budenz was a serial liar: "Apologists for Budenz minimize this on the ground that Budenz has now reformed. Nevertheless, untruthful statements made regarding his past and refusal to answer questions have a bearing on Budenz's credibility." He went on to point out that "all in all, Budenz refused to answer 23 questions on the ground of self-incrimination".
Owen Lattimore was eventually cleared of the charge that he was a Soviet spy or a secret member of the American Communist Party and like other victims of McCarthyism, he went to live in Europe and for several years was professor of Chinese studies at Leeds University.
Despite the efforts of Jack Anderson, by the end of June, 1950, Drew Pearson had written more than forty daily columns and a significant percentage of his weekly radio broadcasts, that had been devoted to discrediting the charges made by Joseph McCarthy.
Joe McCarthy now told Anderson: "Jack, I'm going to have to go after your boss. I mean, no holds barred. I figure I've already lost his supporters; by going after him, I can pick up his enemies." McCarthy, when drunk, told Assistant Attorney General Joe Keenan, that he was considering "bumping Pearson off".
On 15th December, 1950, McCarthy made a speech in Congress where he claimed that Pearson was "the voice of international Communism" and "a Moscow-directed character assassin." McCarthy added that Pearson was "a prostitute of journalism" and that Pearson "and the Communist Party murdered James Forrestal in just as cold blood as though they had machine-gunned him."
Over the next two months McCarthy made seven Senate speeches on Drew Pearson. He called for a "patriotic boycott" of his radio show and as a result, Adam Hats, withdrew as Pearson's radio sponsor. Although he was able to make a series of short-term arrangements, Pearson was never again able to find a permanent sponsor. Twelve newspapers cancelled their contract with Pearson.
McCarthy and his friends also raised money to help Fred Napoleon Howser, the Attorney General of California, to sue Pearson for $350,000. This involved an incident in 1948 when Pearson accused Howser of consorting with mobsters and of taking a bribe from gambling interests. Help was also given to Father Charles Coughlin, who sued Pearson for $225,000.
However, in 1951 the courts ruled that Pearson had not libeled either Howser or Coughlin.
Only the St. Louis Star-Times defended Pearson. As its editorial pointed out: "If Joseph McCarthy can silence a critic named Drew Pearson, simply by smearing him with the brush of Communist association, he can silence any other critic." However, Pearson did get the support of J. William Fulbright, Wayne Morse, Clinton Anderson, William Benton and Thomas Hennings in the Senate.
In 1952 McCarthy appointed Roy Cohn as the chief counsel to the Government Committee on Operations of the Senate. Cohn had been recommended by J. Edgar Hoover, who had been impressed by his involvement in the prosecution of Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg. Soon after Cohn was appointed, he recruited his best friend, David Schine, to become his chief consultant.
McCarthy's next target was what he believed were anti-American books in libraries. His researchers looked into the Overseas Library Program and discovered 30,000 books by "communists, pro-communists, former communists and anti anti-communists." After the publication of this list, these books were removed from the library shelves.
For some time opponents of McCarthy had been accumulating evidence concerning his homosexual activities. Several members of his staff, including Roy Cohn and David Schine, were also suspected of having a sexual relationship. Although well-known by political journalists, the first article about it did not appear until Hank Greenspun published an article in the Las Vegas Sun in 25th October, 1952. Greenspun wrote that: "It is common talk among homosexuals in Milwaukee who rendezvous in the White Horse Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy has often engaged in homosexual activities."
McCarthy considered a libel suit against Greenspun but decided against it when he was told by his lawyers that if the case went ahead he would have to take the witness stand and answer questions about his sexuality. In an attempt to stop the rumours circulating, McCarthy married his secretary, Jeannie Kerr. Later the couple adopted a five-week old girl from the New York Foundling Home.
In October, 1953, McCarthy began investigating communist infiltration into the military. Attempts were made by McCarthy to discredit Robert Stevens, the Secretary of the Army. The president, Dwight Eisenhower, was furious and now realised that it was time to bring an end to McCarthy's activities.
The United States Army now passed information about McCarthy to journalists who were known to be opposed to him. This included the news that McCarthy and Roy Cohn had abused congressional privilege by trying to prevent David Schine from being drafted. When that failed, it was claimed that Cohn tried to pressurize the Army into granting Schine special privileges. Drew Pearson, published the story on 15th December, 1953.
Some figures in the media, such as writers George Seldes and I. F. Stone, and cartoonists, Herb Block and Daniel Fitzpatrick, had fought a long campaign against McCarthy. Other figures in the media, who had for a long time been opposed to McCarthyism, but were frightened to speak out, now began to get the confidence to join the counter-attack. Edward Murrow, the experienced broadcaster, used his television programme, See It Now, on 9th March, 1954, to criticize McCarthy's methods. Newspaper columnists such as Walter Lippmann also became more open in their attacks on McCarthy.
The senate investigations into the United States Army were televised and this helped to expose the tactics of Joseph McCarthy. One newspaper, the Louisville Courier-Journal, reported that: "In this long, degrading travesty of the democratic process, McCarthy has shown himself to be evil and unmatched in malice." Leading politicians in both parties, had been embarrassed by McCarthy's performance and on 2nd December, 1954, a censure motion condemned his conduct by 67 votes to 22.
McCarthy also lost the chairmanship of the Government Committee on Operations of the Senate. He was now without a power base and the media lost interest in his claims of a communist conspiracy. As one journalist, Willard A. Edwards, pointed out: "Most reporters just refused to file McCarthy stories. And most papers would not have printed them anyway."
McCarthy, who had been drinking heavily for many years, was discovered to have cirrhosis of the liver. An alcoholic, he was unable to take the advice of doctors and friends to stop drinking. Joseph McCarthy died in the Bethesda Naval Hospital on 2nd May, 1957 at the age of 49. As the newspapers reported, McCarthy had drunk himself to death. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthy.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/censure_cases/pdf/133McCarthyNov8_1954report.pdf http://eca.state.gov/education/engteaching/pubs/AmLnC/br60.htm
Perhaps an apology for your error is too much to expect. But at the least you'll have to stop saying you "don't know of anyone Joe McCarthy wrongly accused of anything". It appears you weren't quite so 'well informed' as you supposed hey?
| |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/4/2011 7:47:21 PM |
It appears you weren't quite so 'well informed' as you supposed hey?
Well, it's pretty obvious it appears that way to you. It's too bad--but not surprising--that you choose to take such an unfriendly, personal tone. Without taking the time to go through every detail of your enormous cut-and-paste, I don't see anything that counters what I said. I was referring to what McCarthy did during his Senate career--not whether he ran a tough campaign against La Follette, or whether he falsely accused little Susie of putting chewing gum on the seat of his chair in the fourth grade.
Because you grouped your authorities at the end, I don't know which is supposed to support what. Some of what you copied is true. Some of it is the personal opinion of this or that person who hated McCarthy (and may have wanted to discredit him to cover his rear.)
And some of your lengthy compilation is misleading tripe. It sounds at lot like the Communist propaganda of the day. The several completely baseless references to McCarthy's supposed homosexuality--treating innuendo and slander as if it were proven fact--are a dead giveaway.
Here are a few of the martyrs mentioned in your giant cut-and-paste whose activities that mean old Joe McCarthy suggested should be looked into:
Gustavo Duran was a Communist who had served in the Spanish Civil War as a commander under Manfred Stern, one of the main Soviet commissars on the Loyalist side. McCarthy was trying to find out how Duran came to be hired to work first in the State Dept., and then in the UN, without any inquiry into this background ever having been made.
The fact Senator Tyding's committee ignored McCarthy's request that all this should be investigated doesn't clear Duran. Tydings concealed and lied about almost everything in those proceedings. His main concern was not national security risks, but rather attacking and discrediting McCarthy, who threatened to expose just how negligent the past two Democrat administrations had been about those risks.
McCarthy's statement that the FBI had listed Mary Jane Keeney as a courier for the Communist Party was pretty close to what the Venona cables verified fifty years later. She and her husband were both Communists; she had worked in the State Dept. and was then working at the UN. She was an agent the FBI had surveilled meeting many times with another Soviet agent, Sergei Kournakov, and passing secret documents to senior KGB agent Joseph Bernstein.
McCarthy was guilty of exaggerating when he said Owen Lattimore was a "top Soviet espionage agent"--but not by much. Lattimore was a Soviet propagandist whose writings painted laughably glowing pictures of Communist life in Russia and China, even making the labor/death camps of Stalin's gulag sound like little Club Meds.
Lattimore was an influential figures in the Institute of Pacific Relations, starting as editor of its journal. The IPR had been founded in the 1920's and soon became known as a small, well-respected center dedicated to studying and spreading knowledge about the Far East. But by 1935, seventeen new staffers had been hired, from countries around the world.
Each of these seventeen was either a member of the Communist Party or a collaborator with Soviet agents. The IPR had lots of wealthy, respectable connections, which gave it a prestigious, legitmate public image. But these contributors knew almost nothing about its operations. Its real work involved a huge network of contacts worldwide, including quite a few U.S. officials. The list of these contacts reads like a Who's Who of international Communism at the time, and it includes many Soviet agents.
The Internal Security subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by senior Nevada Democrat Pat McCarran, was set up to investigate the IPR. The McCarran committee's report described the IPR as "like a specialized flypaper in its attractive power for Communists." It concluded that Lattimore was one of a group at the IPR who"sought to influence the American public by means of pro-Communist or pro-Soviet content" in their writings; and that Lattimore was a conscious, articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy."
And now, I'm going to open a bottle of wine and drink a toast to Joe McCarthy, American hero. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/5/2011 2:20:47 PM | The VERONA papers vidicated McCarthy...I think not:
To the abundant evidence showing that ideologues and non-historians shouldn’t be deciding what students learn in their history classrooms, add another exhibit: far-right efforts to use our kids’ classrooms to rehabilitate the image of Joseph McCarthy and turn him into an American hero. Sadly, that’s what some members of the Texas State Board of Education and people they have appointed to help revise public school social studies curriculum standards are now trying to do. McCarthy used his position in the Senate in the 1950s to publicly smear countless people with false charges that they were communists or sympathizers. He even accused entire organizations — such as the Democratic Party — of promoting treason. McCarthy’s witch hunts were so outrageous and shameful that even Republicans eventually turned on him. In 1954 the Senate voted to censure McCarthy. He then sank into relative obscurity and died a few years later at the age of 48. But now right-wingers are once again promoting the nonsense that McCarthy was a truth-telling, anti-communist hero and patriot. And if they get their way, that’s what Texas history students will soon be learning in their public school classrooms. As we reported last week, board member Don McLeroy, R-College Station, earlier this month told curriculum writers in a memo: “Read the latest on McCarthy — He was basically vindicated.” One of the high school U.S. history curriculum writers — a political activist and non-educator appointed to the writing team by McLeroy — has also insisted that the standards point out that McCarthy was “exonerated” by revelations in the “Venona papers.” Peter Marshall, a conservative evangelical preacher appointed by the state board to a panel of social studies “experts,” backed that perspective in his review of the writing team’s first drafts of the proposed new standards. Marshall wrote that he “emphatically agrees” that the ”Verona Papers … confirm as truth many of Senator McCarthy’s accusations about Soviet spying in the U.S.” David Barton, a Republican Party activist and another supposed “expert,” also agrees. Barton wrote in his review (same link as for Marshall’s) that the curriculum writer’s insistence about McCarthy “is quite proper and reflects a commitment to accuracy and truth in history.” State board chair Gail Lowe, R-Lampasas, and board member Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, have also asked the curriculum writers to include information about the “Verona papers” in the standards. Once again, however, these amateur “historians” simply don’t know what they’re talking about. First, the word is “Venona,” not the Italian city of Verona. “Venona” was the name given a U.S. counterintelligence project that decoded thousands of intercepted cables between spies in the United States and the Soviet Union. U.S. authorities were able, over several decades, to decode and read about 2,900 of the cabled messages (a fraction of the total) sent between 1941 and 1946. Second, the claims by McLeroy, Barton, Marshall and the others about what the Venona project actually revealed about McCarthy’s smear campaign are misleading (at best). Curriculum writers will craft better standards if they listen to real historians instead of far-right ideologues pushing an agenda. Among the most knowledgable experts on the Venona project is Harvey Klehr, a professor of politics and history at Emory University. Prof. Klehr traveled in 1992 to the former Soviet Union, where he got access to Soviet spy archives. He also studied the Venona cables after the U.S. government declassified them in the 1990s. With John Earl Haynes, Prof. Klehr co-authored Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, published in 1999 by Yale University. In short, when it comes to Soviet espionage in America, the Venona project and Joseph McCarthy, Prof. Klehr has the credentials to show that he knows what he’s talking about. In fact, he is very critical of those who still deny the extent of that espionage or downplay its significance. But he isn’t buying efforts to rehabilitate McCarthy’s image. Prof. Klehr told an audience at a 2005 conference that McCarthy may have been right about “some of the larger issues” — such as, that there actually were communist spies in America — but that he was recklessly wrong on much else, especially the details:
[V]irtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. He did identify a few small fry who we now know were spies but only a few. And there is little evidence that those he fingered were among the unidentified spies of Venona. Many of his claims were wildly inaccurate; his charges filled with errors of fact, misjudgments of organizations and innuendoes disguised as evidence. He failed to recognize or understand the differences among genuine liberals, fellow-traveling liberals, Communist dupes, Communists and spies — distinctions that were important to make. The new information from Russian and American archives does not vindicate McCarthy. He remains a demagogue, whose wild charges actually made the fight against Communist subversion more difficult. Like Gresham’s Law, McCarthy’s allegations marginalized the accurate claims. Because his facts were so often wrong, real spies were able to hide behind the cover of being one of his victims and even persuade well-meaning but naïve people that the who le anti-communist cause was based on inaccuracies and hysteria. [Emphasis added.] So where are McLeroy and his fellow ideologues getting their information? Clearly, it’s not from real historians. Their likely source is a favorite of far-right ideologues today: fringe right-wing writers and commentators like Ann Coulter. In her 2003 book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, for example, Coulter insisted that the Venona Papers exonerated McCarthy. She charges that liberals don’t love their country and have undermined its security, and she points to conservatives like McCarthy as the true defenders of America and American values. Prof. Klehr compares Coulter to those who excuse communist spies for doing what they may have thought was “patriotic” because they believed their loyalties were to the “masses” of the larger world rather than simply to their country:
“If espionage on behalf of Joseph Stalin’s Russia is simply an untraditional form of patriotism, then words like loyalty and patriotism have lost any meaning. It is only a short step to proclaiming that Joseph McCarthy’s disregard for due process and reckless smearing of innocent people is a non-traditional way of affirming basic American values. Which is exactly the argument that Ann Coulter makes in her unfortunate recent book, Treason, which seeks to rehabilitate Senator McCarthy as a great truth-teller. Her only excuse is that she is not a historian but a pundit and therefore can claim indifference to factual evidence.” But Coulter’s arguments are the kind of nonsense people like McLeroy, Marshall and Barton want public schools to teach Texas students. Their interest is not in teaching real, factual history. They want to rewrite history so that it aligns with their own personal and political beliefs. (Remember that Barton wanted to censor discussions of César Chavez in social studies classes because the late labor leader’s political associations allegedly made him a poor role model for students: “His open affiliation with Saul Alinsky’s movements certainly makes dubious that he is a praiseworthy to be heralded to students as someone ‘who modeled active participation in the democratic process.’”) As we have said, it would be far better if real historians and social studies experts were making these curriculum decisions. But that’s not going to happen — state lawmakers refused to act this spring on legislation requiring such a change in the curriculum development process. So we’re stuck with decision-makers like McLeroy. Recall what he has said in the past: “I disagree with these experts! Somebody’s gotta stand up to experts!” And facts be damned. http://tfninsider.org/2009/10/29/rehabilitating-joseph-mccarthy/
The religious right always seems to be trying to rewrite history... | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/6/2011 12:53:16 AM | bigbadnirish. That pretty much answers the OP question. The reasons Americans are so Anti Socialists is that we are still infested with McCarthyitis, revisionism, and that NEED to have an enemy to define us. WW II was the rare unifying event in US history. Once the allies dispatched the threats of Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, we quickly turned on our Soviet allies. When the Wall finally fell, Americans suffered from an enemy deficit and we quickly turned on each other. 9/11/01 offered temporary relief from our enemy deficit but we just as quickly squandered that by going after the wrong people and again returned to turning on each other.
The Coulterguist represents the worst of that internal squabble response. In the same book that she revises McCarthyism history she also states that... "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason."
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy."
"Liberals attack their country and then go into diarrhea panic if anyone criticizes them."
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down."
"Whether they are rooting for the atheistic regimes of Stalin and Mao, satanic suicide bombers and terrorists, or the Central Park rapists, liberals always take the side of savages against civilization."
This thread among many has shown that McCarthyism still thrives and that there are commies and socialists everywhere there is not "proper" far right "thinking"/demagoguery. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/6/2011 4:08:34 AM | Actually History is always being rewritten by someone. Every individual likes to remember the past in a way that makes themselves and the people they like, look better.
At the same time, I am quite certain that the angry people among us are the ones MOST likely to consciously choose LIES over facts when rewriting history. Right now, the Right in America are by far the angriest group, and they are fueled as well by greed, since there is also a strong wealthy class here who see clearly that the Right wing rewrite of history directly leads to higher profits for them. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/6/2011 9:32:15 AM |
Prof. Klehr told an audience at a 2005 conference that McCarthy may have been right about “some of the larger issues” — such as, that there actually were communist spies in America — but that he was recklessly wrong on much else, especially the details
No one questions Mr. Klehr's knowledge of the Venona cables. And if they were the only evidence that vindicated Senator McCarthy, what he said about him in that speech would mean something. But those decrypted cables, even though they are very important, are only one part of an enormous amount of evidence that now exists. "Blacklisted by History," which draws on this other evidence--FBI reports, counterintelligence archives, sworn testimony of credible witnesses, etc.--wasn't published until 2007, two years after Klehr's speech.
All along, McCarthy was fighting for public disclosure of information relevant to national security. His opponents consistently suppressed or concealed that information, using one pretext or deception after another. Usually in confrontations like that, it's not hard to figure out that the people trying to hold back the information are the ones who'd be embarrassed by it--and who aren't being truthful. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/6/2011 4:56:42 PM | lyingcheat- Thank you for your input. Sometimes people will make gigantic leaps in logic to justify a flawed position. When people do that it becomes obvious that they just want to make a smoke screen to change the subject. I've been a nurse for 14 years and could go on about this for days. I know what I'm talking about, I've lived it and worked in it. The healthcare system, as is, is broken and flawed. National healthcare is not socialist. You don't have to take from others to give to those who don't have, it's a matter of changing the system. Medicine does NOT cost as much to make as people pay for it. It is a travesty that these company's are allowed to mark up medicine as much as 150% as it costs to make. Medicare and Medicaid is about to go broke because there aren't enough checks and balances in place to stop people who are over billing and committing fraud. Some physicians have become so greedy that they have lost TOTAL sight of the meaning of "first, do no harm". Politicians are allowed to take huge contributions from special interest groups and yet are supposed to remain unbiased?! Not gonna' happen. Like I said, we can do better. People have to start putting political bias aside and stop and think about what is going to happen if we don't change things, because the way things are done now is NOT sustainable. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/6/2011 5:39:40 PM |
It appears you weren't quite so 'well informed' as you supposed hey? Well, it's pretty obvious it appears that way to you. Not just to me surely, since what prompted the biographical sketch of McCarthy with its numerous references to, and specific examples of, his propensity for making terribly damaging but wildly untrue accusations, was your confession that you "don't know of anyone Joe McCarthy wrongly accused of anything".
Against that confession I also remarked on the dictionary definition of 'McCarthyism', which has been posted at least twice in this very thread, along with the complete quote of the censure directed at him by your congress in 1954, which both also render senseless your confession that you "don't know of anyone Joe McCarthy wrongly accused of anything".
I don't see anything that counters what I said. I was referring to what McCarthy did during his Senate career--not whether he ran a tough campaign against La Follette, or whether he falsely accused little Susie of putting chewing gum on the seat of his chair in the fourth grade. (My emphasis) Still don't see it hey? But that's only an endorsement of the 'squeeze eyes tightly shut, put fingers in ears, and repeat La-La-La-La-La-La-La-La' method of ignoring facts. It doesn't change reality, it just renders you unconscious of it.
And some of your lengthy compilation is misleading tripe. It sounds at lot like the Communist propaganda of the day. The several completely baseless references to McCarthy's supposed homosexuality--treating innuendo and slander as if it were proven fact--are a dead giveaway. (My emphasis) It's odd that you can detect "completely baseless references" and "innuendo and slander", and use that to discount the overall validity of pieces that refer to McCarthy, yet are apparently blind to the fact that 'baseless references' and 'innuendo and slander' are phrases that define McCarthy's contribution to American politics.
Besides which, according to the article the reference isn't 'baseless', and nor is it 'innuendo'. The 'accusation' was made publicly -
Hank Greenspun published an article in the Las Vegas Sun in 25th October, 1952. Greenspun wrote that: "It is common talk among homosexuals in Milwaukee who rendezvous in the White Horse Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy has often engaged in homosexual activities." Why didn't McCarthy sue if it was 'baseless innuendo'? Maybe it was for the reasons you suggest.
Usually in confrontations like that, it's not hard to figure out that the people trying to hold back the information are the ones who'd be embarrassed by it--and who aren't being truthful. Or perhaps he didn't sue because he was a nice man who disliked conflict and had no inclination to engage in adversarial disputes involving the courts hey?
But while we're on the topic of 'baseless innuendo', let's look again at the two individuals you singled out for special mention.
Gustavo Duran was a Communist who had served in the Spanish Civil War as a commander under Manfred Stern, one of the main Soviet commissars on the Loyalist side. McCarthy was trying to find out how Duran came to be hired to work first in the State Dept., and then in the UN, without any inquiry into this background ever having been made.
The fact Senator Tyding's committee ignored McCarthy's request that all this should be investigated doesn't clear Duran. Tydings concealed and lied about almost everything in those proceedings. His main concern was not national security risks, but rather attacking and discrediting McCarthy, who threatened to expose just how negligent the past two Democrat administrations had been about those risks.
Here is what Wikipedia (my edit) says about Gastavo Duran -
Early life Born in Barcelona, Spain in 1906, he moved with his family to Madrid at the age of four, and studied music. During his piano studies he befriended Federico García Lorca, Salvador Dalí, Buñuel, Rafael Alberti (some of whose poems he set to music) and other Residencia de Estudiantes guests. In 1927 he composed a ballet, Fandango del Candil, for Spanish dancer Antonia Mercé, La Argentina, and accompanied her on a European tour. In 1929 he moved to Paris where he studied under Paul Le Flem of the Schola Cantorum and served, until 1934, as manager and secretary to the Spanish painter Nestor. In 1933 he became an employee of the Spanish section of Paramount Pictures, and continued in that role, after returning to Madrid, at Fono-Espana, Inc., where he dubbed and scored films for the Latin American market. Before the war, he was a leading figure in the Motorizada, the motorized section of the socialist youth movement associated with Prieto. Spanish civil war He served in the army of the Spanish Republic from July 18, 1936 until the end of war. In March 1939, when Franco's troops had reached Valencia, Durán escaped from Gandia, Spain, aboard a British destroyer, landing at Marseille and, eventually, London, where he married, on December 4, 1939, Bontë Romilly Crompton, a well-off American. Exile In May 1940, Durán emigrated to New York, where he was employed by the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs to work at the Museum of Modern Art. From there he moved to the Music Division of the Pan American Union, Washington. In 1942, he was granted US citizenship and was transferred to the Havana embassy on the recommendation of his old friend Earnest Hemingway, who had made him a character in his novel For Whom The Bell Tolls. In May 1945, he went to Buenos Aires, where he served as assistant to the Ambassador, Spruille Braden. UN officer In October, 1946, after rising to the position of special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State, he resigned from the State Department and entered the United Nations, where he served as an officer in the Social Department of the Refugee Division. He was accused that year by a U.S. Representative, J. Parnell Thomas, of being an agent of the Russian police and a member of the Comintern. In 1951, Senator Joseph McCarthy, drawing on a scurrilous report written for the Spanish Falangist journal Arriba (Madrid), denounced him as a communist and member of the Communist-dominated military intelligence, SIM. As a UN officer, he helped start Unesco, CEPAL and was sent to Congo in 1960. He died in Crete in 1969. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Durán Public enemy #1 hey? A musician, composer, fighter against fascism, art-worker, translator, diplomat, and advocate for refugees who helped start UNESCO. So what led to McCarthys interest in him? He was 'denounced' by a fascist magazine in his native Spain... Of all the thousands of people McCarthy accused of thousands of 'crimes', this ^^^ is probably a good representative example. No real, actual, evidence, no proof, no charges laid, no conviction. It's worth pointing out that in persecuting people such as Durán, McCarthy was acting as a tool for international fascists.
But what of the other fellow you selected for special mention? Perhaps he was a black-hearted subverter of democracy?
McCarthy was guilty of exaggerating when he said Owen Lattimore was a "top Soviet espionage agent"--but not by much. Lattimore was a Soviet propagandist whose writings painted laughably glowing pictures of Communist life in Russia and China, even making the labor/death camps of Stalin's gulag sound like little Club Meds.
Lattimore was an influential figures in the Institute of Pacific Relations, starting as editor of its journal. The IPR had been founded in the 1920's and soon became known as a small, well-respected center dedicated to studying and spreading knowledge about the Far East. But by 1935, seventeen new staffers had been hired, from countries around the world.
Each of these seventeen was either a member of the Communist Party or a collaborator with Soviet agents. The IPR had lots of wealthy, respectable connections, which gave it a prestigious, legitmate public image. But these contributors knew almost nothing about its operations. Its real work involved a huge network of contacts worldwide, including quite a few U.S. officials. The list of these contacts reads like a Who's Who of international Communism at the time, and it includes many Soviet agents.
The Internal Security subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by senior Nevada Democrat Pat McCarran, was set up to investigate the IPR. The McCarran committee's report described the IPR as "like a specialized flypaper in its attractive power for Communists." It concluded that Lattimore was one of a group at the IPR who"sought to influence the American public by means of pro-Communist or pro-Soviet content" in their writings; and that Lattimore was a conscious, articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy." This ^^^ all looks a bit like the "completely baseless references" and "innuendo and slander" of years gone by... But what are the facts? This is what Wikipedia (my edit) has to say about Owen Lattimare -
Owen Lattimore (July 29, 1900 – May 31, 1989) was an American author, educator, and influential scholar of Central Asia, especially Mongolia. In the 1930s he was editor of Pacific Affairs, a journal published by the Institute of Pacific Relations, and then taught at Johns Hopkins University from 1938 to 1963. During World War II he was advisor to Chiang Kai-shek and the American government and contributed extensively to the public debate. In the early post-war period of McCarthyism and the Red Scare, American wartime 'China Hands' (experts on China) were accused of being agents of the Soviet Union or under the influence of Marxism. In 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy accused Lattimore in particular of being "the top Russian espionage agent in the United States."
The accusations led to years of Congressional hearings which did not substantiate the charge that Lattimore had been one (nor did wartime intercepted Venona cables refer to him as one). The hearings did document Lattimore's sympathetic statements about Stalin and the Soviet Union, however. Although charges of perjury were dismissed (in 1955), the controversy put an end to Lattimore's role as a consultant of the United States State Department and eventually to his career in American academic life.
From 1963 to 1975, Lattimore was the first professor of Chinese studies at the University of Leeds in England, where he taught Chinese History, richly flavoured with personal reminiscences. He died in 1989 in Providence, Rhode Island. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Lattimore Public enemy #2? [/guffaw] All you've done is give an example of another person McCarthy falsely accused, which kind of contradicts your statement that you "don't know of anyone Joe McCarthy wrongly accused of anything"?
For all your frequent insistence that "thousands" of dangerous subversives were identified by McCarthy, and your assurances that 'history has proved him right', you're having trouble coming up with any kind of convincing list. Why is that?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Edit;
National healthcare is not socialist. Indeed, you are absolutely correct. One need only look at the list of countries who have some form of universal healthcare to see the proof. They are overwhelmingly - 1st world, wealthy, democracies.
http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/ http://alessonaday.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/sicko-list-of-commie-pinko-countries-with-universal-health-care-socialized-medicine/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/6/2011 6:06:10 PM | I disagree. National healthcare is socialist.
Just like the 5 day work week, Old Age Pensions, Federal deposit insurance, Workers Compensation, laws regulating child labour and worker safety.....I could go on, but all of these things were socialist planks at one time.
That's kind of the point of the thread - you don't have to think that all things socialist are bad. A healthy democracy is responsive and keeps the things that work and dumps the things that don't. For instance, it seems clear now that stripping regulation and oversight from the financial markets wasn't a good idea in retrospect. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/6/2011 6:11:30 PM |
Without taking the time to go through every detail of your enormous cut-and-paste...
You should. It is quite interesting; although I'm not surprised you didn't take the time. From reading your posts, it's obvious you don't take the time to go through the details of anything. For the most part, you just seem to make it up as you go. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/6/2011 7:14:39 PM |
From reading your posts, it's obvious you don't take the time to go through the details of anything. For the most part, you just seem to make it up as you go.
Is it that obvious? Really? And here I thought my posts here were *very* detailed. I even gave the Soviet code names of some of the Soviet agents Joe McCarthy identified, as verified by the Venona cables. Maybe you didn't take the time to go through the details of that post.
I hope you're not implying that "for the most part" I'm purposely misstating facts here. If you were, someone might wonder why you'd attack me personally instead of just showing where I'm mistaken. That should be a piece of cake for a smart person like you, if what I wrote is so obviously untrue. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/6/2011 8:42:20 PM | From post #586:
[V]irtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. He did identify a few small fry who we now know were spies but only a few. And there is little evidence that those he fingered were among the unidentified spies of Venona. Many of his claims were wildly inaccurate; his charges filled with errors of fact, misjudgments of organizations and innuendoes disguised as evidence. He failed to recognize or understand the differences among genuine liberals, fellow-traveling liberals, Communist dupes, Communists and spies — distinctions that were important to make.
Hmmmm...who should we believe???
I even gave the Soviet code names of some of the Soviet agents Joe McCarthy identified, as verified by the Venona cables. Maybe you didn't take the time to go through the details of that post.
And as you say:
No one questions Mr. Klehr's knowledge of the Venona cables.
So, now we hear about this new source "Blacklisted"...here's a quote from a conservative review:
For all he does to Joe McCarthy from history’s “blacklist,” M. Stanton Evans wouldn’t assume to argue that McCarthy’s importance in the post World War II order has been overstated, so much as it’s been misunderstood. “McCarthy was a drunk, a crook, and a liar who maintained his waning political career by willfully attacking individuals and organizations that posed no threat to the United States,” writes The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin, a publication McCarthy once referred to as “the Pravda of the Prairie” after it opposed both of his bids to the U.S. Senate. That the type of sentiment is precisely what Evans attempts to address.
Anyone who’s had to do a project that necessitated reliance upon grandparents or those elderly enough to be grandparents knows our elders can offer the type of perspective no dry, detached history book can offer. That “I remember where I was when…” perspective of is so different in its insight than books myopically focused on the top of the top figures in national politics.
Even if you are swayed by Evans’ evidence that many of the “names named” were demonstrably employed by the Soviet Union concurrently with their service to the federal government – and how can you not? – that still leaves you with an arguably alcoholic self-appointed Town Crier, a finger-pointing Puritan content to drag whomever necessary through the mud if it suited his purposes.
Even if McCarthy’s aim was true, his tactics weren’t, and his willingness to tell The Big Lie cost McCarthy his own career in the end. Much like Ernesto Miranda, freed from prison for not being read the “Miranda Warning”, only to have his eventual killer released without charges 10 years later for a procedural problem regarding his Miranda Rights, perhaps the person most undone by McCarthyism was the man himself http://blogcritics.org/books/article/book-review-blacklisted-by-history-by/page-3/ | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/6/2011 9:27:15 PM |
National healthcare is socialist.
Just like the 5 day work week, Old Age Pensions, Federal deposit insurance, Workers Compensation, laws regulating child labour and worker safety.....I could go on, but all of these things were socialist planks at one time.
That's kind of the point of the thread - you don't have to think that all things socialist are bad. A healthy democracy is responsive and keeps the things that work and dumps the things that don't.
This bears repeating.
Neither socialism nor capitalism are inherently good or bad. Elements of both have their place in civilized society, and being a species that is never content with the status quo we'll keep tweaking how we do things in the name of improvement.
I do believe certain social services should be provided for all. I also believe competitive markets are wonderful tools if properly regulated, and have no problem with entrepreneurs reaping the benefits of their hard work and risk taking.
Deciding on the proper mix is the trick, and something I'm sure we'll debate in many a thread to come. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/7/2011 4:21:17 AM | Well said waterfall.
Another way to answer the original/title question is:
They aren't. They just THINK they are, owing to lots of misinformation and manipulation. They are anti-the-way-they-did-it-in -Russia-and-china. SOME of them are against it no matter what, but even most of THEM assume that lots of elements of Socialism will remain a part of what they think is free-market capitalism(but are not).
In the same way, most Americans don't really understand what free-market capitalism really is, either. And you can tell them again and again, but the ones who believe that listening or thinking things through calmly is a form of treason, will not hear you. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/7/2011 5:46:15 AM | igor...
Another way to answer the original/title question is:
They aren't. They just THINK they are, owing to lots of misinformation and manipulation. They are anti-the-way-they-did-it-in -Russia-and-china. SOME of them are against it no matter what, but even most of THEM assume that lots of elements of Socialism will remain a part of what they think is free-market capitalism(but are not).
In the same way, most Americans don't really understand what free-market capitalism really is, either. And you can tell them again and again, but the ones who believe that listening or thinking things through calmly is a form of treason, will not hear you.
Unfettered capitalism is a danger, just as is unfettered socialism. The difference is, that people can and do find a way around a private monopoly (Linux), but when it is government that is the provider and the enforcer of laws, there is a grave problem, that in time will only get worse.
It is human nature to be greedy and want things, and when you can vote yourself "things" and an ever increasing share of the treasury, there is no stopping the corruption that will follow. Another problem with creeping socialism is that eventually if falls victim to the laws of economics. Say what you will, but economics will trump socialism eventually and always, because there is only so much of "other peoples money" to keep spreading around to the perpetually greedy. Socialism is a distortion of nature and economic laws, which are pure and true, and nature always wins. Always.
I agree with you in that folks receiving their Social Security check do not realize they are taking part in a socialist ponzi scheme. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/7/2011 9:54:00 AM |
Deciding on the proper mix is the trick
Even if it were, it's not just a matter of deciding which laws or policies will work best, and then putting them in place. There's also the question of authority and legitimacy--at least if we want to live under the general principle we call the rule of law.
The states have an inherent, general power to make laws and policies. If 51% of voters want a law, they can have it, provided it doesn't conflict with the state or U.S. constitutions, or with any federal law or treaty.
But when it comes to the national laws and policies people usually are talking about in socialist schemes, it doesn't work that way. The federal government doesn't have any general power to make laws and policies. It has only the limited powers the states gave it in the Constitution. So if the U.S. doesn't have authority to do something, it makes no difference if a large majority wants it.
This fact is frustrating for statists. They know how things should be for everyone, and they're impatient to see their grand schemes put in place. That's why they're always deriding the Constitution and those of us who insist on following it. Almost everything about the Constitution is at odds with a central government which manages much of our lives--a do-it-all or "totalitarian" government.
The men who founded this magnificent country--radicals in the truest sense--held that we have natural rights by birth. That makes them hard to take away--and our laws reflect that. The ones who wrote the Constitution didn't design it the way they did just to be frustrating. They limited centralized power because they knew people aren't angels enough to be trusted with it. It leads to tyranny, where government is the only source of individual rights, to give or take away as needed to keep everyone in line.
Socialism, like fascism, communism, or any other form of centralized economic control, also means centralized *political* control. THAT is the problem--the one requires the other. Unlike free market capitalism, socialism is not compatible with a limited central government. It also requires individual freedoms to be limited, because they make people hard to control. If everyone's free to make their own decisions about everything, you can't get them all to pull at once in the officially approved direction. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/7/2011 10:27:37 AM | Matchlight:
After reading your version of "The Way Things Ought To Be"-- it certainly isn't "The Way Things Are"-- it seems as though the US federal gov't has been doing all kinds of things throughout its entire history that are outside its Constitutional authority, right from the start, in fact. How has that been possible if the rules are as clear and inviolate as you say?
I mean, there were the Alien and Sedition Acts, restriction of Habeus Corpus, internment of US citizens, Civil Rights Acts, federal aid to the states, the creation of numerous federal agencies and bureaus... the list of Constitutional offenses (strictly speaking) is virtually endless. It seems we are a nation at constant war with its own ground rules-- and the ground rules have been mostly losing. | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/7/2011 11:41:24 AM | He wvw
You may think that neither capitalism nor socialism is inherently good or evil, I will disagree..............
You see, socialism is based on those in power taking from those who have achieved, and then deciding who "needs" it, and re-distribuiting some of it...... well, they have to keep some of it for their troubles, don't you know.
Capitalism is where people pool together money, and someone has an idea on how to make money, create things or services, and thereby create jobs.
What is going on at Wall Street is NOT capitalism....... theya re the MONEY CHANGERS of modern society. They take the finished product of captialism, stretch it, bend it and remake it into what it is not.
That may be s bit of an oversimplification, but as soon as those who are rabid capitalists see that Wall Street is NOT capitalism, the sooner that Wall Street will get fixed. There is only one change that I would make on Wall Street, and that change would get rid of most of the problem that they committed, and that is as follows........ Allow margin purchases ONLY if the purchaser has at least 33% of the purchase price to put into the deal. That would force speculators out of the business, and if you were going to buy on margin, you would actually have to BELIEVE in your purchase, and have skin in the game.
Unbridled capitalism works, BUT, what went on in Wall Street is not capitalism, it is the money changers hard at work creating value from nothing, and sooner or later it reached around and bit everybody on the A$$.
Once the socialists figure out that despite their best intentions, they will never fix everybody's problems, and stop trying to do so, they too will become reasonable.
The other problem is to get the fed. govt out of things like housing, as they are the ones who sete up the playing field for the RE boom and bust.
There you go...... all fixed.
Paul | |
|
| Why are Americans so Anti Socialist? Posted: 11/7/2011 11:57:25 AM |
Allow margin purchases ONLY if the purchaser has at least 33% of the purchase price to put into the deal. Sounds good. So, you are not against governmental regulation as a valid concept, then. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
24
of
28 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
|
|