Communism and McCarthy

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

  • Use evidence to support a claim about Senator McCarthy

On the previous page, we pulled evidence from one document to support the claim that McCarthy was a demagogue. In this activity, we will focus our analysis of McCarthyism by analyzing a series of statements from individuals critical of the Senator’s aims. As we examine the excerpts we should be evaluating the stated arguments and asking ourselves how we might credibly and knowledgeably contribute to this discussion with a defensible position of our own.

Let’s say that you have been asked to draft an argumentative essay that answers the question: “According to other politicians, did Joseph McCarthy strengthen or weaken anti-communist efforts in postwar America?”

To answer this question, we can examine a number of statements made by public figures, including presidents and members of Congress, who were assessing McCarthy’s effectiveness. While all are in favor of rooting out actual subversion and prosecuting espionage, there is ample evidence here that they are increasingly wary of McCarthy’s actions and apparent beliefs.

Find Evidence to Support a Claim

Read the following excerpts and consider each speaker’s basis for the criticisms, doubts, and corrections being offered. What do they think is at stake? As you read, consider what any of these speakers might support as legitimate investigatory goals. What do they think is happening instead?

Doc A: EXCERPT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMAN’S NEWS CONFERENCE AT KEY WEST, MARCH 30, 1950

Truman: I think the greatest asset that the Kremlin [the seat of the Soviet government] has is Senator McCarthy….

A procedure was instituted which came to be known as the cold war. The airlift to Berlin was only one phase of it. People became alarmed here in the United States then, that there might be people whose sympathies were with the Communist ideal of government—which is not communism under any circumstances, it is totalitarianism of the worst brand. There isn’t any difference between the totalitarian Russian Government and the Hitler government and the Franco government in Spain. They are all alike. They are police state governments.

[ . . . ]

For political background, the Republicans have been trying vainly to find an issue on which to make a bid for the control of the Congress for next year. They tried “statism.” They tried “welfare state.” They tried “socialism.” And there are a certain number of members of the Republican Party who are trying to dig up that old malodorous dead horse called “isolationism.” And in order to do that, they are perfectly willing to sabotage the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States. And this fiasco which has been going on in the Senate is the very best asset that the Kremlin could have in the operation of the cold war. And that is what I mean when I say that McCarthy’s antics are the best asset that the Kremlin can have.

Now, if anybody really felt that there were disloyal people in the employ of the Government, the proper and the honorable way to handle the situation would be to come to the President of the United States and say, “This man is a disloyal person. He is in such and such a department.” We will investigate him immediately, and if he were a disloyal person he would be immediately fired.

That is not what they want. They are trying to create an issue, and it is going to be just as big a fiasco as the campaign in New York and other places on these other false and fatuous issues.

Try It

Doc B:  Statement of Seven Republican Senators, June 1, 1950

Democrats and Republicans alike have unwittingly, but undeniably, played directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide and conquer.”

It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.

Excerpt from a letter from President Eisenhower to his friend, Harry Bullis, May 18, 1953:

[ . . . ] With respect to McCarthy, I continue to believe that the President of the United States cannot afford to name names in opposing procedures, practices and methods in our government. This applies with special force when the individual concerned enjoys the immunity of a United States Senator. This particular individual wants, above all else, publicity. Nothing would probably please him more than to get the publicity that would be generated by public repudiation by the President.

[ . . . ]

It is a sorry mess; at times one feels almost like hanging his head in shame when he reads some of the unreasoned, vicious outbursts of demagoguery that appear in our public prints. But whether a Presidential “crack down” would better, or would actually worsen, the situation, is a moot question.

Try It

Doc C: EXCERPT FROM A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT EISENHOWER TO HIS BROTHER, MILTON EISENHOWER, OCTOBER 9, 1953

As for McCarthy. Only a short-sighted or completely inexperienced individual would urge the use of the office of the Presidency to give an opponent the publicity he so avidly desires. Time and time again, without apology or evasion, I—and many members of this Administration—have stood for the right of the individual, for free expression of convictions, even though those convictions might be unpopular, and for uncensored use of our libraries, except as dictated by common decency.

We have urged that America must be true to the principles of freedom and justice as applied to the individual if America herself is to remain free. Permit me to say that I think there would be far more progress made against so-called “McCarthy-ism” if individuals of an opposing purpose would take it upon themselves to help sustain and promote their own ideals, rather than to wait and wail for a blasting of their pet enemies by someone else….

Try It

Doc D: Excerpt from diary entry by Press Secretary James Hagerty, May 28, 1954

[…] Following staff meeting drafted statement designed for President [Eisenhower] to issue regarding McCarthy’s appeal at hearing yesterday to Federal employees to disregard Presidential orders and laws and report to him on “graft, corruption, Communism and treason.” Discussed the statement with the Attorney General and he was all in favor of us putting one out…. I gave out the statement at 11:00. A few minutes later the President called me in to his office and said he wanted to discuss this further. He was really mad at what he termed “the complete arrogance of McCarthy”—[ . . . ] speaking in rapid fire order he said the following:

“This amounts to nothing but a wholesale subversion of public service. McCarthy is making exactly the same plea of loyalty to him that Hitler made to the German people. Both tried to set up personal loyalty within the Government while both were using the pretense of fighting Communism. McCarthy is trying deliberately to subvert the people we have in Government, people who are sworn to obey the law, the Constitution and their superior officers. I think this is the most disloyal act we have ever had by anyone in the Government of the United States.”

TRY IT

Did Joseph McCarthy Strengthen or Weaken Anti-communist Efforts?

Having carefully read these perspectives on McCarthy’s campaign, what do you think the true impact of McCarthy’s actions were? What has he achieved? Where has he failed?

What are some common themes in the speakers’ statements? An interesting one is the idea that McCarthyism actually undermined the very things it was claiming to defend, and in doing so resembled some of the philosophical orientations and practices of America’s adversaries—namely the totalitarian Soviet Union (and its client states) and the recently defeated state of Nazi Germany. Ironically, the Soviet Union represents the communism that Joseph McCarthy said he was working against.

Note that the seven Republican senators above caution against “being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.” Compare this with McCarthy’s statement from the 1950 speech claiming that “we are engaged in a final, all-out battle,” that could lead to the nation’s demise. In both views, the stakes are the same.

ACTIVITY #2

Evidence to Support a Claim

Based on your own analysis of the above excerpts, and on your understanding of the political figure of the demagogue, list three pieces of evidence from the selection of passages above to support one of the two claims, or thesis statements, listed below.

  • Option 1: According to politicians at the time, McCarthy strengthened the anti-communist movement in postwar America.
    • <Evidence 1>
    • <Evidence 2>
    • <Evidence 3>
  • Option 2: According to politicians at the time, McCarthy weakened the anti-communist movement in postwar America.
    • <Evidence 1>
    • <Evidence 2>
    • <Evidence 3>

Feel free to broaden your framework to consider “McCarthyism” as a philosophy and a practice. This may help you avoid a purely personal judgment about an abrasive, controversial figure. Try instead to focus on ideas and historical facts first, and then to move on to the consequences and observable effects of those ideas. You can use the area below to jot down your ideas.

Demagoguery Beyond McCarthy

Having applied our working definition of demagoguery to Senator McCarthy, identify another prominent political figure and test our definition against that individual’s rhetoric and stated beliefs. Does this person qualify? Why? Be sure to cite specifics and to key your analysis to the different parts of the definition. Find at least three other scholarly perspectives on your chosen subject and compare their views in light of your own.

Finally, consider the potential or actual consequences of this individual’s demagoguery. What do you, and the other scholars you cite, think is at stake?