• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McCarthyism

McCarthyism should be promoted in America


  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .
Recently a poster argued to me that what amounted to McCarthyism was a good thing.

Who agrees?

Any resin that pit human ageist each other with fear of what their ideas could be is bad for the human race to fallow. I recommend using it to destroy a country from within to take it over in the chaos.
 
Whatever anticommunist virtues the man had were far outweighed by his demagoguery. At least Eisenhower pulled the man aside to tell him to cut crap out.
 
Recently a poster argued to me that what amounted to McCarthyism was a good thing.

Who agrees?

I am not an apologist for McCarthy, in any way, but...

let me ask you this: Do you think that our current , er, heightened awareness of the so-called "Islamic extremism" is a good thing?

Does it help to prevent slaughter of the innocent?

Our Canadian friends could be excused in their thinking that it actually does - after having averted yet another mass-murder by deranged fanatics, just today.

Now, all the Islamic terrorists put together have killed less - much less - than a percentage point of all the people killed by the Commies. I know, this is not a place or time for cold math, but - - -

...Put yourself in the shoes of, say, a Russian, or Polish, or Latvian immigrant, an American citizen now - who knows first-hand "what it is all about"...and the year is 1950, not 1995 - the happy end is nowhere in sight.

Know what I mean?
 
I am not an apologist for McCarthy, in any way, but...

let me ask you this: Do you think that our current , er, heightened awareness of the so-called "Islamic extremism" is a good thing?

To a degree yes, but that is still centered in the framework of being aware and alert against people who have belief, motive and means. McCarthy went after mere beliefs.

Does it help to prevent slaughter of the innocent?

Yes, but what I'm discussing is a move away from looking out for people who have belief, motive and means to a system of surveillance based on the beliefs of people.

Put yourself in the shoes of, say, a Russian, or Polish, or Latvian immigrant, an American citizen now - who knows first-hand "what it is all about"...and the year is 1950, not 1995 - the happy end is nowhere in sight.

Know what I mean?

Yeah, but the ends do not justify the means. Fundamentally the war we face is not decided by who kills more people. It is decided by who's ideas win out. If we abandon what made America great, we have lost the war.
 
To a degree yes, but that is still centered in the framework of being aware and alert against people who have belief, motive and means. McCarthy went after mere beliefs.

To be fair, many of the people McCarthy went after actually did have substantial ties to Communist political organizations which were actively communicating with Moscow. Many (if not most) of these organizations also absolutely were plotting against the United States Government and offering aid to Soviet agents.

In this regard, McCarthy's little crusade actually did do some good by outing a significant number of potential subversives in positions of high power and influence in American society. The problem was that he took things a tad too far, and the whole thing wound up deteriorating into a circus witch hunt as a result.

I would honestly classify the whole episode as being as being something of a "necessary evil." It was rightly put to an end when it overstepped its boundaries.

Yeah, but the ends do not justify the means. Fundamentally the war we face is not decided by who kills more people. It is decided by who's ideas win out. If we abandon what made America great, we have lost the war.

We would appear to have "won" anyway regardless of our temporary lapse in ethics.
 
Last edited:
If we abandon what made America great, we have lost the war.

I couldn't agree more.

But let's have a reality check here: The "victims" of McCarthyism could lose their jobs. The victims of Stalinism were guaranteed to lose their lives - the same goes for their relatives, co-workers and (suspected) sympathizers.

Don't we 'lose the war' the moment we forget what the 'war' is all about, the moment we abandon the sense of proportion, in our moral judgment?

No, it is not healthy, not normal, not rational, to look for a Stalinist - or , say, Jihadist - infiltrator under every bed. But if it will save an innocent life - or a hundred of innocent lives - to hell with health, normalcy and rationality, honestly.

Real people do matter. Abstractions - however noble-sounding - are of limited use.
 
I couldn't agree more.

But let's have a reality check here: The "victims" of McCarthyism could lose their jobs. The victims of Stalinism were guaranteed to lose their lives - the same goes for their relatives, co-workers and (suspected) sympathizers.

But the 1950s are not the times we face today. Muslims terrorists cannot bring down the West.

Don't we 'lose the war' the moment we forget what the 'war' is all about, the moment we abandon the sense of proportion, in our moral judgment?

No, it is not healthy, not normal, not rational, to look for a Stalinist - or , say, Jihadist - infiltrator under every bed. But if it will save an innocent life - or a hundred of innocent lives - to hell with health, normalcy and rationality, honestly.

And fiscal responsibility. And the Constitution. And the thousands of people we infringe upon who pose absolutely no threat.

Real people do matter. Abstractions - however noble-sounding - are of limited use.

But does that mean we enact a USSR Secret Police? Sure, having a massive big brother program that spies on people for what they believe COULD save people, but is that what we want?
 
To be fair, many of the people McCarthy went after actually did have substantial ties to Communist polical organizations which were actively communicating with Moscow. Many (if not most) of these organizations also bsolutely were plotting against the United States Government and offering aid to Soviet agents.

In this regard, McCarthy's little crusade actually did do some good by outing a significant number of potential subversives in positions of high power and influence in American society. The problem was that he took things a tad too far, and the whole thing wound up deteriorating into a circus witch hunt as a result.

I would honestly classify the whole episode as being as being something of a "necessary evil." It was rightly put to an end when it overstepped its boundaries.



We would appear to have "won" anyway regardless of our temporary lapse in ethics.

Of the actual names of McCarthys "list" 9 on the 159 were soviet spies. That would be a 94.3% failure rate. That is not "necessary evil" that is "incompetent evil".

Someone actually interested in hunting spies quietly investigates the situation to avoid alerting the suspects. They don't make wild public accusations accusing innocent people with no evidence whatsoever.
 
Of the actual names of McCarthys "list" 9 on the 159 were soviet spies. That would be a 94.3% failure rate. That is not "necessary evil" that is "incompetent evil".

Someone actually interested in hunting spies quietly investigates the situation to avoid alerting the suspects. They don't make wild public accusations accusing innocent people with no evidence whatsoever.

Even if they were not active spies, many of the individuals questioned by the House Committee on Un-American Activities did have ties to Communist organizations that were connected with Moscow. Outing them from positions of high power and influence arguably was for the greater good, because it denied actual spies the ability to potentially use these individuals' positions to their advantage.

That being said, however; McCarthyism did ultimately go far beyond that. Targeting homosexuals and so called "deviants" in general on that basis alone was completely unjustifiable.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more.

But let's have a reality check here: The "victims" of McCarthyism could lose their jobs. The victims of Stalinism were guaranteed to lose their lives - the same goes for their relatives, co-workers and (suspected) sympathizers.

Don't we 'lose the war' the moment we forget what the 'war' is all about, the moment we abandon the sense of proportion, in our moral judgment?

No, it is not healthy, not normal, not rational, to look for a Stalinist - or , say, Jihadist - infiltrator under every bed. But if it will save an innocent life - or a hundred of innocent lives - to hell with health, normalcy and rationality, honestly.

Real people do matter. Abstractions - however noble-sounding - are of limited use.

The amount of lives saved because of McCarthyism was zero. Fear and prejudice don't protect people, they hurt them. The amount of times in history that a persecuted minority rose up and destroyed a nation are almost non-existent, the amount of time they have been oppressed by majorities (especially once deemed a "threat") are endless.
 
But the 1950s are not the times we face today. Muslims terrorists cannot bring down the West.

Exactly. Still, aren't you inclined, at least on the emotional level and to some degree, to understand (if not justify) the current "paranoia"? Don't you feel - for a moment at least - that the FBI was not paranoid enough, when it received the Russian warning about Tamerlan Tsarnoev, did a perfunctory interview - and excused itself from the picture?


And fiscal responsibility. And the Constitution. And the thousands of people we infringe upon who pose absolutely no threat..

You don't have to tell me. I am a libertarian. I "stand with Rand", and I would "stand" with Margaret Chase Smith if it were 1950.

But before issuing a summary condemnation, we need to understand. Did McCarthyism go too far and do harm? Absolutely. Was it an overreaction to a real, serious threat? Also - yes.

(By the way, why is it always "McCarthyism", and not "Trumanism" or "Martinism"? The Executive Order 9835 dates to 1947).
 
Last edited:
. The amount of times in history that a persecuted minority rose up and destroyed a nation are almost non-existent.

Almost being the key word. Two "persecuted minorities" - the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Nazis in Germany - representing rare but rather significant exceptions.
 
Small amounts of certain poisons have a beneficial effect when used to treat specific ailments. Larger amounts of the same substance have predictably fatal results.
 
I guess I need to clarify my position:

Let's deal with our current situation without dragging in the dubious historical parallels.

Yes, it is appalling that Charlie Chaplin and Paul Robeson were blacklisted. Should not have happened in a free country. But imagine that some public figure in America writes an equivalent of To You My Beloved Comrade (the Robeson's epitaph to Stalin) for Osama bin Laden.

Your reaction?

And Osama had killed about as many innocent people as Stalin was killing per day during the Great Terror.
 
Recently a poster argued to me that what amounted to McCarthyism was a good thing.

Who agrees?

Cripe - why does the one yes vote not surprise me.

McCarthyism was a prime example where people did not think for themselves, but allowed judgements to be made by others based solely on stupid labeling, fear, paranoia, and ignorance.

I am embarrassed that many Americans back then did not have the spine to stand up someone who was obviously a bully and a liar, but chose to follow the masses who followed him brainlessly and without question.

Most folks knew that McCarthy was wrong, but still allowed his power to increase.

I detest people who do not think for themselves, and allow others to manipulate them - it is pathetic and weak.
 
he was a zealot. zealots deal more in emotion than in logic.
 
Absolutely it should.

However, I think that pursuing it in the methods that McCarthy used would not be a good thing. An anti-socialism campaign highlighting socialism, demonizing what socialism has done/what it can lead to and not protecting socialist if people choose to not employ them or choose to not to give them goods and services would definitely be a good thing. Maybe at least a "social studies" class every two years for school students with a module highlighting the bad of socialism would definitely be a good thing. However, how exactly we could do it when socialist currently control the Senate and the White House, I'm not for sure, maybe good freedom loving communities could start it at the local levels.
 
McCarthyism is defined as accusations of Communist activities without evidence.

Liberals start nonsensical, irrelevant threads like this so that they can pursue their anti-American activities without criticism.

McCarthy was NOT connected with the House Unamerican Activities Committee, which developed the blacklists and exposed the Hollywood Communists.

Today there is overwhelming evidence of the evil intent and activities of the anti-American socialist globalists throughout our society and government and academia, yet no one speaks out against these destructive forces. If one even hints at such a thing, the loons bleat "McCarthyism" in order to silence their American critics.

Today there should be no sympathy for the destructive forces of Liberalism leading to it's beloved nanny state Socialism in order to destroy the goodness of the former greatest country in the world. McCarthy would be a hero today now that his worst fears have come true throughout America.
 
Exactly. Still, aren't you inclined, at least on the emotional level and to some degree, to understand (if not justify) the current "paranoia"? Don't you feel - for a moment at least - that the FBI was not paranoid enough, when it received the Russian warning about Tamerlan Tsarnoev, did a perfunctory interview - and excused itself from the picture?

I get it. I just don't feel it's worth trading liberty for security. I do not want a USSR style secret police in America. It disturbs me to a amount I, as a licensed CPA cannot count to, that "conservatives" are promoting. The FBI doesn't have the resources to track everyone who holds beliefs that we may find dangerous. We budget resources based on who has the skills, motive, beliefs and capacity to be a threat. Otherwise, some people here would be on spy lists. Recently a user has made it clear that he believed the state backing of mass raping and murdering of children is less bad (and even necessary) then hanging around decades ago with a low level terrorist who frankly wasn't much of a threat to the country. HOLY ****. That should earn you a spot on the list for domestic spying purely under beliefs. Now, I don't think he should be on the list, even if I think he's arguably the most morally and ethically corrupt person on the board.

You don't have to tell me. I am a libertarian. I "stand with Rand", and I would "stand" with Margaret Chase Smith if it were 1950.

But before issuing a summary condemnation, we need to understand. Did McCarthyism go too far and do harm? Absolutely. Was it an overreaction to a real, serious threat? Also - yes.

(By the way, why is it always "McCarthyism", and not "Trumanism" or "Martinism"? The Executive Order 9835 dates to 1947).

I dunno. Good question.
 
Almost being the key word. Two "persecuted minorities" - the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Nazis in Germany - representing rare but rather significant exceptions.

The Nazi's were not a persecuted minority. They rose to power by winning elections and become the largest political party in Germany. The Jews were the persecuted minority in that particular circumstance and we all know how that turned out. The Bolsheviks only rose to power because of the chaos from the collapse of the Tsarist regime and WW1.

The idea that that America was at risk for a communist revolution is a joke. Communism has a 100% correlation with war, political upheaval, economic disaster and social dissent. The post war United States had more economic advantages than any society in recorded history. You have fallen the endless cry of every oppressive tyrant, about how the unpopular helpless minority is the aggressor and their persecution is merely self defense. Its exactly the same kind of line used by the USSR when they destroyed those accused of "counter revolutionary" activities.
 
The Nazi's were not a persecuted minority.

At some point, they were. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in the Landsberg Prison.

The Bolsheviks only rose to power because of the chaos from the collapse of the Tsarist regime and WW1.

True. But they had been a "persecuted political minority" before that. Even if the persecution they have suffered looks like motherly TLC, comparing to what they have unleashed on their compatriots.

The idea that that America was at risk for a communist revolution is a joke.

Exact words of the prominent liberal (in the European sense) leader, Pavel Milyukov, in 1912. Of course, he was speaking about Russia.
 
Last edited:
Not just no but Hell NO! It shouldn't have been allowed then!
 
At some point, they were. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in the Landsberg Prison.

Hitler wasn't put in prison because he was a social pariah, he was put in prison because he committed treason. The fact he served a mere 8 months shows how much favorable treatment he received. If were actually being persecuted, he would have been killed before he even made it to trial, not given a slap on the wrist.

True. But they had been a "persecuted political minority" before that. Even if the persecution they have suffered looks like motherly TLC, comparing to what they have unleashed on their compatriots.

The fall of the Tsarist regime left a power vacuum, there was no longer a political majority in Russia. The Bolsheviks only had to beat out other equally fractured movements in order to seize power. The communists didn't engineer the downfall of the Tsars, they merely took advantage of it.

Exact words of the prominent liberal (in the European sense) leader, Pavel Milyukov, in 1912. Of course, he was speaking about Russia.

If he really said that he was an idiot. The revolution of 1905 made it clear that the Tsars reign of absolute autocratic rule was over. In the second Duma, revolutionary socialist parties had 20% of the seats and labor another 30%. The existing regime was highly unstable and communist elements already had considerable political power.

Post War America was the last place on earth for communist revolution. The nation was undergoing a massive increase in economic prosperity coming off a victory in WW2. Its literally the exact opposite of the conditions in Russia or Germany.
 
McCarthy was right and he did not lead the house committeee everyone ascribes to him. He did not go after the Hollywood set as everyone ascribes to him. His committee was in the senate and went after those in government AND it was no witchhunt like the house version.

It's wrong that some nob reporter labelled the whole thing as "McCarthyism", he got a bum rap. Turns out we've since discovered, McCarthy himself was right on the money.
 
Back
Top Bottom