Logo:

32560 McCarthyism

Trump just as Boris Johnson in Britain have the policy of making America and Britain great again, a Nationalism not seen since the infamous Adolf Hitler. The America for the Americans and the Brits for Britain are slogans we are slammed around the ears with almost daily. Do they have only one such party in America, Republicans, in Britain they have 3 parties with the same principle and the same rhetoric, the British National party (Britain for the Brits). The UKIP party (Britain for the Brits) and the Conservative Party (Britain for the Brits, with added we are better than the foreigners we do it on our own) All three have just as has Trump, foreigners out, unless they are rich or friends. Together they form a Nationalist block then will start a new world war as for both countries the financial situation is the same; Desperate. They just hope that the Israeli rough State will keep Turkey under control and for that USA has given Israel another 500 Billion to buy weapons, 500 Billion that USA did not have and needed to borrow from the Israeli supporting Banks, making it a nice little earner over the back of Trump.


That Foreigners out is a slogan we have always seen to be used by nationalistic governments, that is nothing new, new if the fact that all those four parties in America and the United Kingdom have the same; Blame it on Russia. In Britain they simple created murderous plots to created that hatred based on a fantasy, but in America there is another party the Democrats who have made from the Russian a whole new game strategy. Everything that is wrong is done by Russia, the Russians made the American people vote for Trump, the Russians are the reason for the wars in the middle east, the Russians are spying on us, with the UK US controlled Guardian even going so far that Russians having mol’s in the USA embassies. Let us be clear for all the accusations there is no proof supplied or ever was proof.


We have seen it all before under Richard Nixon and J.Edgar Hoover, when it turned out that the atomic bombs they dropped on Japan after they had surrendered just to intimidate Russia (Soviet) who was not intimidated, and as such they were the providing the taps for Joe McCarthy to start his anti-communist (the Soviet was still ruling) accusations, supported by Bush, Nixon and Hoover. Let's begin by looking at McCarthyism. In a sense, it's a shame that Joe McCarthy gave his name to this movement, for it were a complicated phenomenon that consisted of much more than McCarthy's bizarre behaviour. In fact, if any one individual should have gotten credit for it, it should probably be J. Edgar Hoover, whose FBI provided much of the ideology as well as the machinery for what did happen. 


But Hoover was only one of thousands of players, for what allowed McCarthyism to flourish during the early Cold War was the fact that it came in so many different flavours and involved so many different groups and individuals, each with its own agenda and special interests. Liberals, reactionaries, labour leaders, former Communists, ambitious bureaucrats and politicians like Hoover, Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon, all had reasons for participating in the drive to eliminate Communism and all the individuals, ideas, and organizations associated with it from any position of influence in American life. Because so many of the key players here were highly conservative, they were able to shape the national campaign against the domestic threat of communism into a deeply ideological struggle against all forms of left-wing dissent.


Nonetheless, it's important to realize that the Communist threat, though grossly exaggerated, was not without some foundation in reality. The American Communist party, despite its undemocratic nature, its secrecy, and its ties to Moscow, was the most dynamic organization on the American left during the 1930s and 40s. As a result, thousands of idealistic and energetic individuals were attracted to its orbit; and, about a hundred of them did give information to the Russians during World War II when the United States and the Soviet Union were allies against Nazi Germany. But that espionage operation was closed down by the end of 1945 and whatever threat the Communist party posed to American security had essentially disappeared by the time the Cold War got under way, as even J. Edgar Hoover was forced to admit. Even so, because it was enmeshed in partisan politics, the anti-Communist crusade came to dominate the political scene in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Republican politicians and their conservative allies discovered that charges of communism in government were useful weapons in their battle against the New Deal and the Truman administration, while the Democrats and their liberal allies scrambled to protect themselves by also hyping the Communist threat.


In 1947, for example, the Truman administration implemented an FBI-designed Loyalty-Security program that sought to cleanse the federal government of anybody who even associated with Communists. Soon state and local governments as well as private employers were adopting similar programs. Meanwhile, legislative investigating committees at every level were also looking for Communists. Hollywood naturally attracted the most attention. The House Un-American Activities Committee or HUAC as it came to be called held hearings on the movie industry that set a pattern for questioning Communists and former Communists by forcing them to name names or else risk a prison term for contempt of Congress. Compared to political repression in many other societies, McCarthyism was rather mild. Only two people, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were killed, but hundreds were jailed or deported, and some 12-15,000 lost their jobs, while an estimate 100,000 left the country to go and live elsewhere. A situation what is repeating itself at this very moment under the Whites only from Trump.


The main sanctions were economic. They operated in accordance with a two-stage procedure. First the alleged Communists were identified, usually by an official body like a congressional committee or the FBI, and then they were fired. By collaborating with the process, the often liberal and moderate institutions and employers that administered that second stage gave McCarthyism the legitimacy that made it the most widespread and long-lasting episode of political repression in American history. The nation's institutions of higher learning participated in this process. By 1949, as a result of a highly publicized investigation at the University of Washington in Seattle and the imposition of a loyalty oath at the University of California, the academic community had reached a consensus that card-carrying members of the Communist party should be barred from the nation's faculties, even though there was no evidence that such people had ever abused their academic positions.


But it was not until the early 1950s that the inquisition seriously affected the nation's campuses. At that point, the congressional investigating committees, which had run out of more glamorous targets in the entertainment industry and State Department, called up dozens of academics and questioned them about their past and present political activities. The committees had not selected these people at random. Most were former political activists who had gotten involved with the Communist party in the 1930s and 40s when it seemed to be offering a solution to the depression and was leading the struggle against fascism. They had, however, become disillusioned by the 1950s and most had left the party and even dropped their political activities. Still, they were sympathetic to the left and certainly did not want to cooperate with the committees and give them the names of their former comrades. For complicated legal reasons, the only way these witnesses could avoid becoming informers and not go to jail for contempt of Congress was to rely on the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and refuse to answer all questions about their political activities. They could not, as many wanted, talk only about themselves and not about others.


But the situation was, or should have been, different for college teachers. They had academic freedom. According to the standard formulation, the 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom of the American Association of University Professors or AAUP, when professors speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline and should not be dismissed without a hearing. Nonetheless, the stigma of having Fifth Amendment witnesses on their faculties was so damaging that every school which employed such a witness decided to act. Most organized some kind of faculty or administrative panel that questioned these people about their political views and affiliations. These panels did not, and this is significant, investigates these people's teaching or scholarship, for, at no point, were there allegations that the unfriendly witnesses had skewed their research or misused their classrooms. 


And at no point, and this, I think, reveals the extent of the academic community's collaboration with McCarthyism, at no point did any academic leaders question the need for such an investigation. Although they knew that the men and women under attack had done nothing but rely on their constitutional rights, both college administrators and fellow faculty members were so caught up in the repressive mindset of the early Cold War that they allowed themselves to administer the economic sanctions that made the red scare so effective. I really can't emphasize this enough -- although the McCarthy era investigations of these unfriendly witnesses turned up nothing that bore any relationship to their professional fitness, the colleges and universities that employed them were so concerned about the bad publicity that these investigations produced that they could not or would not assert their institutional autonomy by ignoring the investigations and leaving the unfriendly witnesses alone. In other words, they could not or would not protect their own academic freedom and that of their faculty members.  


As a result, about one hundred professors lost their jobs. Those at private schools fared somewhat better than those at public ones. Tenure was some protection; with only one exception, every single junior faculty member who refused to cooperate with the committees lost his or her job. But, there was an academic blacklist as well. For over a decade, most of the fired professors could not find jobs within mainstream institutions of higher learning. Some, if they could get passports (which was not always easy for politically tainted individuals) left the country, some went to historically black colleges in the South that were so desperate for teachers with PhD’s that they were willing to overlook these people’s political problems, and some simply left the academic profession altogether. Even if they didn’t lose their jobs, people who had come under suspicion had problems. Some scientists, for example, had trouble obtaining the security clearances they needed for their work. Others could not get the passports they needed to attend international conferences or were barred from serving on federal research panels. Foreign scholars were denied visas. 


However, the rest of the academic community suffered as well. Studies at the time document the existence of a chill on campus. Students became part of what was called the silent generation. They shunned political activism and refused to join any groups that might later get them in trouble. If they opposed any aspects of the status quo, they usually did so in a cultural rather than political form. University of Chicago physics graduate students. It’s hard, here, to evaluate the impact of McCarthyism on people’s teaching and scholarship. How, after all, can we assess the courses that weren’t offered, the readings that weren’t assigned, and the research that was not undertaken? People censored themselves. Some stopped teaching controversial subjects and shifted their research to safer fields.  


Just as the patriotic frenzy that followed 9/11 enabled the Bush administration to realize many of its previously unattainable goals in the name of the war against terrorism, so too that frenzied atmosphere made it possible for a coterie of well-organized special interest groups, often with a connection to right-wing Zionism, to bring their pre-existing campaign against the academic community to the broader public. Their charges that tenured radicals on the nation's faculties were indoctrinating their students gained widespread circulation and were picked up by the mainstream media, politicians, and the general public. Initially, it was Middle East that came under attack. Right-wing activists like Daniel Pipes, whose Campus Watch website targeted several professors and institutions for their supposedly unacceptable views about Islam, Israel, and US policy in the Middle East, popularized the notion that the late Palestinian activist and literary critic Edward Said had so dominated the field that more traditional scholarship was being frozen out.  


However, unlike the McCarthy era allegations about the so-called "loss of China" that proved so damaging to professors in East Asian studies, today’s attack on university faculties is not just limited to people who study the Middle East. The accusations of bias that highly respected scholars in Middle Eastern studies have been facing for several years are now spreading into other departments. The well-funded right-wing activist David Horowitz is spearheading that attack with his Academic Bill of Rights, a measure that ostensibly promotes greater ideological diversity on campus and protects both students and teachers from retribution because of their political or religious beliefs. Currently under consideration in Congress and over dozen state legislatures though fortunately defeated here in California the Academic Bill of Rights could impose external political controls over what gets taught and who teaches it.


The rhetorical strategy behind this crusade is brilliant. It rests upon two justifications: one, the undeniable evidence that Russian was forcing the American students to be more liberal than the rest of the American population and the other, an appeal to the academy progressive values and commitment to open-mindedness. Though Horowitz parrots the AAUP’s official statements about academic freedom to urge greater diversity in faculties, he ignores the Association's pronouncements that stress the college teacher's professional obligation to maintain objectivity in the classroom. This is not an obligation that is taken lightly; and, despite Horowitz's assumption that professors infuse their teaching with their personal political biases, little evidence of such indoctrination, such interference such a indoctrination ever exists.


It does not stop America to spent million after million to proof a non-exiting point, and just as Britain who does to same, to get ever to proof their point as both countries are wrong, the world is greater than the 400 million Americans and the British, and they managed already to upset a third of the world population, while rest may still look at America as a great State, the people in the world are not so sure anymore.


Other pages:


This is the text-only version of this page. Click here to see this page with graphics.
Edit this page | Manage website
Make Your Own Website: 2-Minute-Website.com