Talk:McCarthyism

nothing about McCarthyism in 1950s Japan?

there was McCarthyism under AMGOT-administered Japan in 1951. why is this not mentioned in the article? Cliché Online (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The media, the Left and McCarthy

It is fairly typical that a political effort would be labeled by it's least liked member both backwards and forwards in time. Like calling ineffective treatment of Islamic terrorism "Carterism" and projecting it back to WWII and forward to today.

It is true that the whole country was alarmed by Communism in the late 40s and 50s. You could hardly not be! China had collapsed, South Korea invaded, show trials of democratic supporters in Eastern Europe, outright wholesale murder of millions in the new China, etc. This was not fun.

But McCarthy himself was little feared and not for long. To pretend he was seems reprehensible. A summary to this effect was reverted:

Summary of the ascendancy of Joseph McCarthy

McCarthy himself first came to national prominence with his speech of February 29, 1950. His claim was almost immediately ridiculed with the publication of Herblock's cartoon on "McCarthyism" on March 29. Senator Smith first started attacking him before the Senate on June 1, 1950. In 1952, Arthur Miller published The Crucible, a barely veiled attack on McCarthy's methods. In December 1953, the columnist Drew Pearson publicized the information, leaked by the Army, that McCarthy had obtained illegal deferrals for his aides. It was 1954 before Senator Ralph Flanders joined in the attack on McCarthy.[1] In June 1954, the popular President Eisenhower attacked "book burners" at Columbia University speech, a clear reference to McCarthy. In December the Senate had censured him, terminating his influence.

- I think this truth needs to be pointed out in the article. Expecting the reader to "notice" it, is a bit much IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Victims of McCarthyism"?

Why do we call these people "Victims of McCarthyism"? Do we call criminals victims of the police? This is completely slanted. Bogomir Kovacs (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And where were you in the 1950s? DEddy (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Two thoughts: one-word pejoratives are slanted per se. "McCarthyism" is one of those words. It means exactly what the speaker wants it to mean. The section should have a name that is obviously unbiased, a longer name, and be redirected from McCarthyism. The one-word series chosen by the media are causing us trouble when we try to objectively document them without their built-in bias. The media was never interested in impartiality and could care less about being encyclopedic. Other words in that category: Whitewatergate, Monica(gate). "Iran-Contra" at least was a bit more descriptive and not obviously a slur. It can be done but not often by the media. The usual tactic is to use the name of someone who isn't terribly well-liked but is outspoken and eventually (if they are lucky) actually discredited. So "Mccarthyism" applies backwards and forwards through time well before he began speaking, and ever after, like "Naziism" applied to situations or people the media doesn't like.

I was upset in the 50s when it was revealed that important people had supported and continued to support Stalinistic communism when we were facing this paranoiac armed with nuclear devices. Arthur Miller for one. He didn't lose anything from "persecution" but should have IMO. Like supporting the Taliban nowdays. I don't give points for that.

As the previous editor suggested, while McCarthy himself may have been off-base with some of his best-publicized accusations, many of the other accusations were well placed. The loyalties of the people involved were in question and should have been considering the times. Some of what they did were illegal under the laws of the day.Student7 (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Criminals? I defy you to name to one person who was convicted of criminal subversion following his or her being becoming one of the hundreds of people accused acting of behalf of an international communist conspiracy by Joe McCarthy. Put up or shut up. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Whoa! Remember that the media has taken the least liked person to represent the attacks on Communism in the US, not only the few years that McCarthy was in business, which wasn't many BTW, but backwards in time to pre-world war II and forward in time as long as they like. McCarthy did not make very many of these accusations himself. Some of the people that were accused did indeed wind up in jail, at least for a time. For starters, the American leaders of the Communist Party. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember the article is about "McCarthyism", not McCarthy. If people suffered as a result of the movement, then they are victims of McCarthyism. If you dislike the movement being called McCarthyism, take it up with the whole of Western Culture. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Western Culture"? I don't think so. This is a media-assigned term. Has nothing to do with an encyclopedic term which could (and probably should) be different and non-pov. The pov term is a huge problem here as it is with many media-named subjects.Student7 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So Encyclopedia Britannica is unencyclopedic? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

McCarthyism is a term used by newspapers, encyclopedias, academic articles and people on the street. It's a pretty well-understood term. I don't know why you should categorize it a "media-assigned". Do you have a suggestion of something to replace it? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The only other obvious candidate would be (J Edgar) "Hooverism" as suggested by Ellen Schrecker(sp?). But my guess is someone will also object to this label as being "POV". DEddy (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is to use the term that will be familiar to most readers in English. Clearly Hooverism doesn't fit this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree... so what's the issue with McCarthyism as the correct term? No one can dispute that "McCarthyism" was the term used during that period & since, can they? And there were indeed victims of unwarranted "Reds under every bed" hysteria. DEddy (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Only Student7 seems to be objecting. Let's see what he/she says. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with one-word, usually media-assigned, "catchy" terms for an encyclopedia. it is worse when people's names are used to describe a phenomenon. Much worse when it has been a poltical football used to whap one side or the other over the head with. Think Whitewatergate, Monica(gate?), or any other pejorative. The major fault is that it means whatever the name-caller wants it to mean. There are no obvious restraints on usage nor application. The current definition for this one goes back as far as anyone likes (or dislikes, as the case may be) and forward in time forever.

The intent is name-calling not analysis. That is its major fault. I am watching several other articles that are political footballs, but not quite as inflammatory. Some have modified article names (which weren't necessarily media-assigned nor "catchy" to start with). This has made it a lot easier to edit (and discuss) the topics.

As long as the major intent of some of the editors is to best someone rather than report facts, we will continue to have trouble with this article. That would be quite unnecessary with a change to an objective title which could be redirected from here. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that a change of title will result in a miraculous increase in objectivity. Besides, McCarthyism is the term by which the vast majority of people know this philosophy. As I said before, do you have an alternative suggestion?

You might also make suggestions as to exactly what you think is bad in the contents of the article. Then we can discuss specific ways in which it might be made more objective. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to do with the one word title. It will always revert because it is pov IMO.

The article seems to suggest that HUAC was illegal. It wasn't. It asked unpleasant questions that people didn't want to answer. When they didn't. some were jailed, as indeed they would be now if a congressional committee asked questions.

The article says that Hoover gave loyalty reviews to HUAC and states that he shouldn't have. This seems pov. Consider the alternative. Hoover has info that might redeem people. However, he "refuses" to give it to the committee. This is perverse. Either the head of the FBI should a) give the results of loyalty interviews to Congress, for whom he technically (thought indirectly) works for or b) he should do what he damn well pleases and tell Congress to go to hell. I think most people would vote for the FBI cooperating. The reason they don't here is that it does not support their pov. This seems like some fallacy to me but I can't quote it. Maybe "damned if you do, damned if you don't!"

The article says that Hoover gave loyalty reviews to HUAC and states that he shouldn't have. This seems pov. Ummmmm... have you ever read FBI documents/field agent reports? They're about as political as you get. From what actually happened during the McCarthy era it's totally clear that Hoover would leak whatever information he felt would help the FBI & the crusade against often mythical communists. To a certain extent these "source" documents were the equivalent of taking "For a good time call Susie... 202-555-1212" off the wall in a phone booth & treating it as verified fact that Susie was a woman of loose morals (akin to being a communist). To Hoover a communist was someone he didn't like & that attitude is clearly reflected in the field agent reports. His agents and the collection/reporting process was tuned to Hoover's whims. If the Boss expected proof of X, then X would be found. Information taken out of context can be manipulated to say pretty much anything you want... Hoover & his loyal minions were masters at such spin. DEddy (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit ironic that HUAC came in for all that criticism when it was accused in the late 1930s of being too hard on fascism!

There's a fascinating paragraph in Allan Weinstein's Haunted Wood... in July 1941 (Russia has been invaded by the Huns yet again & we're still waiting for December 7) Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau met with the Russian ambassador. Morgenthau expressed dissatisfaction with the FBI's hunting down German agents & requested/suggested help from Soviet intelligence in uncovering said German agents. It is highly unlikely that Morgenthau would have initiated such a meeting & conversation on his own free will. DEddy (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The "victims" seems a bit like cant, simply quoting somebody as saying they were a victim. Having said that, I'm sure some were unfairly denied work because of unjust and unproven accusations. Miller seems more like an unplanned beneficiary rather than a victim! Big names, like Mostel, might expect to be out of work anyway. Big names aren't employed fulltime even today. For a comic who writes his own work, does he really want to do this for some small audience, requiring new material every night or week? So it is hard to tell. An objective list is needed, not one constructed by the supposed victims nor their supporters.

Some of the people were "stood in the corner" for their clueless advice during the 1920s and 1930s Stalinist years that Communism was wonderful: DuBois, probably Robeson, most likely Chaplin.

I realize that we live in a country where everyone is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. But there is a certain implication. Would you really want to support someone in the arts if they (in turn) support or supported Osama and/or the Taliban? No one is crying "McCarthyism" over accused professors who were raising money for extremist causes nor the guys suspected of mailing anthrax to congressmen. i'm not sure how many actual convictions came out of this. All set for the next round of "Talibanism" or whatever they call the unconvicted people of this era that no one will now hire!

There is always a certain automatic American sympathy for the apparent underdog in any dispute. We used to sympathize with the Irish who used to kill each other with relish until the English arrived. Eventually the Irish lost and got our sympathy for being "mere poets and harpists." Well, they were hardly that! The Japanese after WWII were portrayed as "poets and gardeners". Their Banzai charges during WWII were hardly poetic. Not sure that underdogs should automatically get sympathy in Wikpedia. We should be a little more objective. Student7 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot in your post, but I'm afraid it seems to me that most of what you write is opinion rather than facts. I see very little of actual content that you think should be changed, and fewer suggestions of what might be said instead.

"The article says that Hoover gave loyalty reviews to HUAC and states that he shouldn't have." I can't actually find a place in the article it says that. If I've missed it please point it out for me. The article does list things the FBI did that were illegal, and it lists some other things that people might think were bad (like keeping the identity of accusers secret), but nowhere does it actually say he shouldn't have done them. It is you who are reading that into the article, and then ironically objecting to it. However the fact that these things were done, and that some of them were illegal, is simply a matter of record.

You may consider that many of the 'victims' didn't suffer very much. However I would point out a) that the article simply says they were on a blacklist, which is unquestionably true, and b) that if I'm unfairly deprived of the opportunity to work then I've been treated badly, even if I find other work. I suspect that if you were thrown out of your school for no reason you might feel like you;ve been badly treated, even if another school took you on. Whatever the case, the article simply records the fact of these people being on a blacklist.

In general the article seems pretty objective. But specific criticisms of specific statements are welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's give credit where credit is due. Wikipedia no longer defines "gay bashing" as "a form of McCarthyism" [2], and even presents Joe McCarthy & Roy Cohn as the innocent victims of homophobia. [3] nobs (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sabotage" of business?

When I asked for an elaboration of what the alleged business sabotage of an individual by the FBI was all about, an editor ignored and deleted it with the explanation that he was "cleaning up." "Sabotage" one of the many things that HUAC and the American Public feared during the late 40s and early 50s.

It seemed to me that the phrase may simply have been an attempt to reverse the accusation with no evidence, exactly what the article is complaining about! Student7 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Victims, again

Some of the people did indeed lose work as a result of these accusations, not an unintended consequence BTW.

I kind of wonder about two cases. One was Arthur Miller who profited mightily from The Crucible and was at least as guilty as anyone in reality and not in anyone's imagination. So he can hardly be listed as a "sufferer."

Zero Mostel (among others) was in a different category. He may have simply been in a career doldrums as many people in acting often are. Some kind of statistical analysis would be needed here if anyone who does them can be considered neutral. Comparing a "control" group of actors against those summoned and see which was worse off afterwards. Most actors do not work during a given year! That is the nature of the business. Very competitive. Nice to have someone (or something) to blame it on, I'm sure! And also nice for a producer to (later) say, "Gee, I would have hired you for that part if it hadn't been for that darned HUAC." Yeah, right! For the record, I think Mostel was tremendously talented. I'm sure hia agent also asked top dollar! Student7 (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just curious. What are you getting at when you say that Miller "was at least as guilty as anyone in reality and not in anyone's imagination"? Guilty of what?—DCGeist (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Miller was a communist. This may seem harmless enough today, but the leader of communism at the time was Joseph Stalin, definitely not a harmless person. It is worse than saying that someone is a member of the Taliban today. Worse, because Eastern Europe and China had just fallen, Italy and France looked like they were next for a time. This was not funny at the time. Nor was he particularly up front about his involvement either. But he got rich off it. This is like somebody privately supporting the 9/11 attacks, and writing a Best Seller about it afterwards. Victim? I don't think so.

Your personal opinions about Communism are, of course, irrelevant. The question is, did Miller suffer professionally as a result of McCarthyism.

The inclusion of Miller seems to be supported by a reference. Are you challenging the validity of the reference, or claiming some other reason why he shouldn't be included? He appears in a list of people who were "blacklisted or suffered otherwise" as a result of McCarthyism. Even if he didn't suffer as a result of the blacklist he still belongs there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Blacklisted. That is fine, but the category is under "Victims." Victims, a bit pov anyway, is too broad a category for Miller. Yes, include him under "Blacklisted" by all means. While the two may not be entirely exclusive, they are for Miller.

The trouble with the article is that it is just too pov to start with (bad title). There is nothing wrong with considering individual groups of people who were accused, some unfairly. But just be clear about the nature of what happened to them instead of lumping them altogether. Student7 (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources calling Miller and others victims of McCarthyism [4]. What term would you consider more appropriate, and why is Miller a special case? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some info that may be missing

Two items that could be used. I had thought it was William F. Buckley who once said that the McCarthy era consisted of liberals shouting from the rooftops that their rights were being violated. I cannot find this at all, not just from Buckley, but from anybody.

The Kennedys were big McCarthy supporters, Joe Sr., John and Bobby. So John did not vote to censure him, for example. I don't know if this belongs here or not, but the younger Kennedys were liberals.

For a breather for both liberals and conservatives, try Interview with William F. Buckley. You have to search on "McCarthy" about halfway down. Comments (succinctly) are that McCarthy was an alcoholic, making nasty comments publicly, but invariably kind in public, etc. I realize this article is not about McCarthy per se, but it does seem to shed some light by a person who was there and appears to be talking about reality. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first quote seems unlikely, rather akin to someone saying that the Civil Rights era was "a load of blacks complaining about how their rights were being violated". "So-and-so was a liberal" is the sort of thing we try to avoid writing at Wikipedia because it's so vague. The talk page is really for discussions about how to improve the article. Specific suggestions are welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture in Intro

Would it be wrong to refer to the picture on the top right of the article, the comic book cover, as propaganda? I've seen many articles describing other publications from all over the world with such extreme images and claims, and they are rightfully described as propaganda, for example for the Soviet Union. I would argue that propaganda doesnt have to issue from a governing body to qualify, so the fact its only a comic book shouldnt matter. What do we think? ValenShephard 18:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I agree it is not appropriate, but for a different reason: it is not directly related to blacklisting. The cover of "Red Channels," which was an actual blacklist, or something else more directly related to the blacklist should be substituted. Figureofnine (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinions of communists section

This section mostly doesnt give the view of communists in the US but quotes a source which is not in favour of them. Also it uses terms like 'enslaved', which, even if present in the source, are too POV. I'll clean it up a bit in the future if there are no real objections. ValenShephard 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Schrecker's assessment of this article

Professor Ellen Schrecker, who's cited in the article, created a work we haven't cited -- American Inquisition, an audiobook in the Modern Scholar series. I thought those editing the article might be interested in her comment in the accompanying printed course guide. Under a "Websites to Visit" heading, she gives the URL for the Wikipedia article, and says that it "has a good general-knowledge description with many links to other information on McCarthyism."

No, this isn't because we quote her. The course guide is copyright 2004; this version of the article, from the end of 2004, doesn't cite or even mention Schrecker. JamesMLane t c 17:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Victims vs. Targets

If someone "did have" a connection to the Communist Party, then the question is simply whether we as contributors (1) may declare that such a link is entirely innocent or (2) ought to remain neutral as to whether their were colluding with America's enemies (like Nazi collaborators in WWII Europe).

The POV of one side is that "McCarthyism" (so-called) was much worse than the evil (so-called) which it was then opposing. This is an article of faith among some, but it is not universally held. Let's mention the other side as well, which (even if it's in the minority) believes that the Venona papers vindicated much or most of McCarthy's anti-Communist activity. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I've reverted this already.

Do you now, or have you ever, believed that membership alone of the Communist party is a punishable offence under US law? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)