McCarthy wrote a book arguing that the Soviet Union was the real winner of WWII[7], thanks to the help of willing US accomplices. Looking at the map of Europe before and after the war you have to admit the guy has a case. But who would read a book by Joseph McCarthy?
[1] http://foseti.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/harry-dexter-white/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Dexter_White
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Silvermaster
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perlo_group
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Rosenberg
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers
[7] http://foseti.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/review-of-americas-re...;
The government argued that the Communist Party USA had no right to spread political ideas in the US, and targetted lawyers who dared to defend them.
Whatever the extent of Soviet spying in the US (and it would have been extensive for obvious reasons, as with the other side), the McCarthy era was an assault on the foundations of democracy in this country. If you want to justify that because the threat is real, I suppose we should just give up on this whole Constitutional Rights thing....
Violence is a nasty thing. But violence in service of slavery is a far nastier thing than violence in defense of human rights and freedoms.
Could you provide a bit more information on this - who was jailed solely for distributing the works of Karl Marx and for how long?
Read Yates v. United States. The conviction was reversed and it brought an end to Smith Act prosecutions of the Communist Party.
Decision at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354...
Oral argument at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_6
Yates also largely overruled Whitney v. California (and set up the formal overrule in Brandenburg). It is worth noting however that although the Supreme Court (this was decades before Yates) held that Communist Party membership itself could be subject to prosecution, Brandeis's concurrence apparently lead the governor of the state to pardon Whitney.
It's very much like the folks who insist they should never get into a relationship because they might get hurt, or never found a startup because it might fail. That's the point. We choose to live with that vulnerability because it makes the moments where it doesn't fail so much sweeter.
Sounds about right.
Mussolini said: "Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center ... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words"
Quoting Robert Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism": facism is "... a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
McCarthy was obsessed with "The Red Menace", and was willing to abandon just about any ethical or legal constraint to both cleanse the United States, and to spread his idea of Americanism.
He enlisted industry, traditional elites, and whatever political support he could find his obsessive pursuit of cleansing the US of communism (and homosexuality).
What's especially scary is that you write off his wholesale destruction of careers and lives as an ethically justified approach to the problems of the Cold War (and his problems with homosexuality), despite the tactics baring a striking similarity to the CCCP's enforcement of party politics through social, commercial, and direct governmental intimidation.
We're lucky that McCarthy was never truly unleashed on the Red Menace; your implied support of him and his tactics is abhorrent.
>>> He enlisted industry, traditional elites, and whatever political support he could find
Unlike any politician with the cause, which never ever uses industry, elites and other political support. I didn't know we are practically surrounded with fascists - our whole government is composed of fascists, almost everybody relies to support of the industry, elites and political groups affiliated with their causes! You opened my eyes!
>>> What's especially scary is that you write off his wholesale destruction of careers
I do not "write off" anything. I explain that if the person is a voluntary member of a totalitarian organisation headed by a violent dictator Joseph Stalin, organisation which murdered millions in its home country, drowned multiple countries in blood and caused uncountable deaths and suffering all over the globe, and currently is actively engaged in both hot and covert war with the US - I can understand if some people do not want to entrust sensitive positions to the judgement of such people. Either these people are not of the sound mind, or their personal goals are not aligned, mildly speaking, with something that the rest of Americans would want to happen. If you think not wishing to associate with such people is morally reprehensible, you may want to seek friendship with some KKK or White Pride or Westboro Baptist Church members, but my ethics says these are not the people I'd like to be anywhere near them.
>>> despite the tactics baring a striking similarity to the CCCP's enforcement of party politics
Surely, that's exactly how it happened in the USSR - if somebody was found working for foreign organisation bent on overthrowing communists, he was asked nicely if it is true, and after he refused to answer the worst could happen to him was losing his job, after which he would either just find another one or live off public assistance. This system is exactly what is widely known as GULAG. True story, bro.
By the time HUAC came around, actually, the reasons to take the fifth were quite well developed. Additionally he had helped someone come up with a strategy of refusing to answer questions without an appointed attorney present which had the effect of getting a lot of lawyers who weren't even necessarily civil libertarians thrust into the front lines. The result was that Canwell lost re-election. This was before HUAC even got formed.
You have a point about McCarthy but only from a different direction. McCarthy was an exponent of what was going on. He did not turn America into anything. He was just the final wave.
We do have McCarthy to thank however for the great free speech protections we enjoy in our nation. It was due to his overreaches that the court ruled that spreading the Communist ideology was protected under the 1st Amendment unless one actually went so far as to try to raise an army to violently rebel (the case was Yates v. United States).
The great irony was that whatever McCarthy's lust for power or his intentions, he succeeded in showing the court why Communists had to have civil liberties too and perhaps turned the US into something better, very much despite his best efforts.
Looks like this person made a career on defending the worst of the worst. The article - which is no wonder - tries to paint it in ligher tones by saying communists and BPP were "prosecuted for radical beliefs" - but we all know it went way, way beyond mere beliefs there. Still, of course, maintaining legal representation even to the worst of the worst is the important part of the due process, so I guess he has a place in the picture too. Though I'm not sure if we heard about a guy who defends the right of local Al Qaeda group to hold meetings in your local civic center, we'd think "he's the hero of our time", even recognizing their right for legal representation.
As for the practice of taking the Fifth, I can appreciate that people associating with organisation with official goal of overthrowing US government and which is financed and directed by Joseph Stalin would feel the need of some defensive tactics when the same government their organisation is trying to overthrow comes in and asks questions. I can also appreciate they may think it was unfair that they suffered some serious problems due to their association with the CP, but think about it - would you want a known Al Qaeda member to be in charge of the gas lines in your city, for example? Yes, he personally never did anything wrong except being publicly in support of Al Qaeda and their actions, which is not a crime, so would you be OK with him in this position or would you demand him to be replaced?
> Still, of course, maintaining legal representation even to the worst of the worst is the important part of the due process, so I guess he has a place in the picture too.
Sure, and defending such rights at the cost of one's job and even being kicked out of the ACLU when the ACLU didn't want to touch the issue requires a certain degree of courage.
> As for the practice of taking the Fifth, I can appreciate that people associating with organisation with official goal of overthrowing US government and which is financed and directed by Joseph Stalin would feel the need of some defensive tactics when the same government their organisation is trying to overthrow comes in and asks questions.
Taking the 5th started after people were prosecuted for refusing to testify before the state legislature in Washington State.
But a goal in the abstract is just a political belief. It is not until it is paired with concrete steps to make it happen that it is actionable. This is what Yates turned on, unless you think the Supreme Court in Yates got it wrong and the Smith Act never should have been castrated.
But if the Communist Party's goal in the abstract of overthrow of our government at some indefinite point in the future makes them illegal, then surely the National Rifle Association's view that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to rebel violently against the government would be illegal too, is it not? There is not much difference between "things are such that at some point we will have to take over the country by violent revolution if necessary" and "this provision of the Constitution is to ensure that if and when the government overreaches, we can exercise our duty and take over the country by violent revolution if necessary." Drawing a line between the CP and the NRA is surprisingly difficult.
I want to underscore this by saying one of my most memorable conversations with John was about gun control back in the early 1990's and I thought it was interesting that he made the arguments almost exactly that the Supreme Court accepted in Heller years later.
My question to you is whether you think the Supreme Court got it wrong in Yates v. United States, when it held that arguing for actions in the abstract with no tangible steps to make it happen was fully protected under the first amendment even when it came to advocating the moral desirability of violent overthrow of the government. Maybe you think that was wrong and the NRA should tone down their rhetoric too. After all the "cold dead hands" mantra is a threat to rebel if sufficient gun control laws are enforced.
Membership in CPUSA per se is not illegal. However, membership in this organisation may very well make the member unfit for employment both in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of his peers. Membership in Stormfront or KKK today in not illegal either, but I think you'd want to know if somebody in the government was a member.
>>>> Drawing a line between the CP and the NRA is surprisingly difficult.
Not difficult at all. NRA never been controlled by a totalitarian state led by the homicidal dictator, never performed mass massacres, never advocated totalitarian restrictions of human rights, never facilitated transfer of top secret defense information to the hands of the enemy. How hard is that?
>>>> My question to you is whether you think the Supreme Court got it wrong in Yates v. United States
No, I think they were absolutely right - people have the right to proclaim any crazy stuff they want, as long as it is not organizing and facilitating actual violence, it is protected by the 1st amendment. However, that does not mean advocating these crazy things would not have consequences for those people beyond governmental prosecution (or rather absence of it) for the speech. If you are advocating crazy stuff, be prepared that people would not want to associate with you or hire you.
>>>> After all the "cold dead hands" mantra is a threat to rebel if sufficient gun control laws are enforced.
If "sufficient control laws" - i.e. laws that violate the US Constitution and human rights - are being enforced, what one has left to do? Flee, submit or fight. It has nothing to do, however, with communist actions - they weren't some Tea Party activists going too far. Only use they had for the constitution was when it protected them personally, but if they ever succeeded, all constitution right were to be abolished immediately - look at any communist state.
In fact membership in the KKK was held to be Constitutionally protected specifically because membership in the Communist Party had become protected. Remember that Brandenburg (can't prosecute for KKK membership or for shouting "Kill the niggers... we intend to do our part," quoted from majority opinion footnote 1, at a KKK rally) overturned Whitney v. California, a 1920's precedent allowing prosecution for mere Communist Party membership.
> Membership in CPUSA per se is not illegal.
Yes it was. Look at the portions of the Yates indictment from the Supreme Court's syllabus. The Smith Act prohibited among other things organizing groups which advocated overthrow of the United States government and that was essentially what Yates was charged with.
You talk about taking the 5th but keep in mind that people were being prosecuted and thrown in jail for advocating Marxist ideas. In such, taking the 5th was perfectly legitimate.
> Not difficult at all. NRA never been controlled by a totalitarian state led by the homicidal dictator, never performed mass massacres, never advocated totalitarian restrictions of human rights, never facilitated transfer of top secret defense information to the hands of the enemy. How hard is that?
I meant a line regarding Constitutional liberty. I am sorry if I was unclear. I think you agree with me on that, given that you say the Supreme Court got it right in Yates so this is probably just a miscommunication.
As far as non-criminal matters, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court struck down prosecutions for people refusing to testify before HUAC at the same time Yates was decided in Watkins v. United States, ruling that Congress's power of investigation was limited to legitimate goals of Congress (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vo...), and overturning a misdemeanor conviction of contempt of congress for someone refusing to answer certain questions before HUAC.
> Flee, submit or fight. It has nothing to do, however, with communist actions - they weren't some Tea Party activists going too far.
My point is that where statute and Constitution are at issue the same lines would probably apply to both, and so the protections of one protect the other too.
Ideals take time and perseverance...thank goodness for organizations like the ACLU and the EFF
Well, looking at the number of prisoners we have, and the atrocious way we treat them, I don't think that part has changed very much, except in scale.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Slavery is straight up legal in America if you first secure a conviction. Anyone who pretends to themselves that we are not still openly using slave labor is absolutely delusional.
For lower classes, prison (and prison servitude) is becoming the safety net.
As of 2009 "The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world."
"The United States' incarceration rate is, according to 2009 figures, 743 persons imprisoned per 100,000 (as of 2009). The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...
True that.
> tptacek's assertion that we should strive to be less ahistorical when assessing the current status quo.
We != people. We = Government, I believe. The Government should be less ahistorical in their workings and policy-making. Prevention of terror attacks, cold war logic is exactly the kind of argument that is outdated.
[Edits: Text]
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The Iraq War was a terrible blunder, but it pales in comparison to Vietnam, which inflicted horrible costs on the US but even worse costs on the Vietnamese and Cambodian people, whose civilian populations were carpet bombed with napalm.
No plan survives first contact with the enemy. Speaking of which, if you're really ready to engage with the 20th Century, imagine what would have happened had the Soviets "won". Read about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
It will be another 100 years, at least, until we're no longer feeling the immediate aftershocks of colonialism.
I don't have a specific position that I'm defending. I'm trying to learn some more historical perspective, and to understand your political philosophy in general.
In that contest, 20 years is the single beat of a heart. 20 years ago, the media was entirely controlled by a handful of corporations, and you had no means whatsoever of telling an audience as large as the one you have now that you think America died on 9/11.
Say you want to make the NSA drama especially bad for Obama, and assert that the worst of their snooping is just a couple years old. A couple years. Just a few neurons have fired in that interval. Maybe wait for a few more before we rush to judgement at a world historical scale.
In world historical terms, yes. But not in US historical terms, which is what matters here.
You may actually be right, depending on when you were born. If you were born in the 80s, then things weren't too bad (unless you were a homosexual or other estranged group, of course). I think tptacek is reasonable to counter that, a decade or two earlier, things were noticeably worse than they were now. That's not to say that he's justifying what's going on now with "well, this is fine, because Vietnam was way worse".
You know who else thinks that the current period of time is absolutely the scariest, most dangerous time in American history? The kind of politicians who enact the laws that you are opposing.
This being said one thing that really differentiated Iraq from Vietnam was that when backed into a corner, Bush had one of his few shining moments as President when he tied the troop surge to political reforms aimed at a more inclusive Iraqi government. One of the problems in Vietnam was that we were so used to propping up despots we were unwilling to confront Diem on issues of governance. At least Bush learned from that lesson albeit late and with his back to the wall (and I think further it is pretty damning that Bush's finest moment was one that merely managed to contain a mess he created).
1. Nixon signed the Banking Secrecy Act requiring banks to report suspicious transactions to the Treasury Department to fight organized crime. This was held to be Constitutional in California Bankers Association vs. Shultz.
2. Carter signed FISA, in a bid to contain Nixon-era domestic wiretapping. Under Carter you also see the rise of FBI Swat teams and expansion from there to local police forces.
3. Reagan asks for and gets a drug exception to Posse Comitatus, allowing the military to be directly involved in enforcing domestic narcotics law. Reagan also expands on Carter's SWAT programs by forming the outright military arm of the FBI known as the Hostage Rescue Team (involved in both Waco and Ruby Ridge, working aside the military in both cases under the drug exception to Posse Comitatus).
4. Clinton asks for and gets the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which provides for most of what was in the USAPATRIOT Act. Clinton Asks for the rest and a bill written by Biden fails to pass. Clinton also asked for a terrorism exception to Posse Comitatus and this also failed to pass Congress.
5. Bush, in the wake of 9/11, signs the USAPATRIOT Act into law, and embarks on Nixonesque wiretapping of Americans. Seeks to hold Americans without trial.
6. Obama sucedes in getting the Bush-era wiretaps legalized, and argues that Americans suspected of being in terrorist organizations can be killed anywhere in the world without trial.
The point is that 9/11 was not a tipping point. It was not what destroyed this nation. This has been going on for a long time. It just started to be thrust into public discussion after 9/11.
I am both optimistic and pessimistic on this. On one hand, we are losing what we need in order to recover this country, as the economics and politics are deeply interconnected. On the other hand, at least we are having the discussion which we were not having to the same extent under Clinton or Reagan.
What it looks like a hundred years from now is something nobody can make a reasonable stab at. Chances are that by then this has healed and gotten better, chances are that it will get much worse.
"This too shall pass" applies forever, and countries have been born and have disintegrated long before they managed to achieve their goals.
You think terrorists drove us mad with fear, try actually reading some of the history of the 20th century and imagine what we would have done, in an era before our modern feeling of entitlement to privacy and to open dissent, when our enemy was vast, spectacularly well-armed, beat us into space, and had nuclear missiles pointed in our face.
The compass points towards liberty, but sometimes we walk east, or west, or, during the Kennedy and Nixon and Reagan administrations, fucking south.
The notion that protesters ended the Vietnam war is also ahistorical, a fiction designed to flatter the boomers.
There is an interesting interview with him at http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/caughlan_inter...
It is worth noting that our strong protections of open dissent were specifically created by the court in response to very dramatic overreaches by the government.
I'm responding to the "Eventually" you wrote. When you're digging yourself a grave, the sooner you put down your shovel and get out of the hole, the better.
I live in LA and personally know families who spent time in those camps. I also know screenwriting families who lost their jobs during the 1950s Hollywood blacklist. So yes, those mistakes were real, and they can divert the course of lives for the worse.
In the flawed world we live in, it takes time for people to change their minds and muster the political will to roll them back. This is generally prompted by over-reach. For example, as the cold war started to cool off a bit, the Church Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee) and the Pike Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_Committee). Maybe we're seeing such a time now.
I bet voicing support to a state-sponsored terrorist organisation with officially declared goal of violently overthrowing US government could get you into some trouble anytime. Especially if you work for government and have access to sensitive data.