That Hideous Strength:
Satan is a Democrat,
It is the Blue States that are Red, &
The Evil Empire Strikes Back

Lo! Death has reared himself a throne
In a strange city lying alone
Far down within the dim West....
No rays from holy Heaven come down
On the long night-time of that town;
But light from out the lurid sea
Streams up the turrets silently....
While from a Proud Tower in the town
Death looks gigantically down.

Edgar Allan Poe, "The City in the Sea" [provides the title for The Proud Tower, by Barbara Tuchman, 1966]

The shadow of that Hyddeous Strength
sax myle and more it is of length.

Sir David Lyndsay [c.1490Ėc.1555]; from Ane Dialog betwix Experience and ane Courteour [1555], describing the Tower of Babel [as quoted by C.S. Lewis, title page of That Hideous Strength, 1945]

When Republicans call something a lie, Democrats object that this is the sort of incivility that leads to political violence and terrorism. When Democrats call something a lie, this may well mean that Republicans have been accurately quoting Democrats, often extensively.

Enklinobarangus ()

There's an inceasing sense in our political life that in both parties politicians call themselves public servants but act like bosses who think that voters work for them. Physicians who routinely help the needy and the uninsured do not call themselves servants. They get to be called the 1%. Politicians who jerk around doctors, nurses and health systems call themselves servants, when of course they look more like little kings and queens instructing the grudging peasants in how to arrange their affairs.

Peggy Noonan, "Our Selfish 'Public Servants'," The Wall Street Journal, Saturday/Sunday, January 18-19, 2014, A13

I've decided that American politics is now hopeless. In the '90's I hoped that the Libertarian Party could succeed the Republicans or Democrats as a real electoral alternative. That didn't happen, and, considering what the Libertarian Party is like, I'm beginning to doubt that this is either possible or even desirable. In 2012, the Democrats are still busy trying to turn the United States into a basket case like Greece, if not Cuba; and they have minds, if such can still be called that, that are absolutely closed to any evidence of history, even current history, or even the evidence of their own recent claims and statements. Democrat politics is utterly dependent on loss of memory. It is the politics of senile dementia, and of audacious and astounding sophistry. Meanwhile, the Republicans are still unable to articulate some of the simplest economic truths; they react to their own faux pas by trying to out-socialize the Democrats (it can't be done); and they are still diverted into social conservative issues that are irrelevant to the current situation. There were particularly egregious examples Democrat lies and of the self-inflicted wounds of socially conservative Republicans in the 2012 election. There will truly be Hell to pay if the electorate is deceived into returning the Democrats to full power. My objections to these parties as well as the Libertarians are as follows.

No one seems as certain that they know what the Republicans need to do to win presidential elections as those Republicans who have lost presidential elections, such as Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Bob Dole. Moreover, people take them seriously, and seem not to notice that what the losers advocate is the opposite of what won Ronald Reagan two landslide election victories.

Thomas Sowell, "Random thoughts on the passing scene," 26 November 2013

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!.."

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

Lewis Carroll, "Jabberwocky," 1872

There is little doubt that the Democrats have sewn-up the anti-American and the "blame America first" vote, and that, as Ann Coulter has said, they have made the "treason lobby" feel at home. They should, of course, be ashamed of this; and since they are not, we should realize that this says a lot about them. Fawning visits to the Castros by Democrat politicians, culminating in Obama's "normalization" of relations with Cuba, only provide more evidence. Liberal guilt grows into liberal self-hatred, and this grows into the hatred of America that is now part of school curricula all over the country. The United States may become the first country in history to destroy itself over lies told about it by its own elites, embodied in a political party, the Democrats, who actually have this purpose.

Enklinobarangus ()

That government of the government, by the government, for the government, shall not perish from the earth.

Democratic Party, effective motto and agenda

A government with all this mass of favours to give or to withhold, however free in name, wields a power of bribery scarcely surpassed by an avowed autocracy, rendering it master of the elections in almost any circumstances but those of rare and extraordinary public excitement.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

The Democrats supported and defended slavery. They created, supported, and defended Segregation. And they created, support, and defend the Welfare State. Frankly, I don't see much difference.

Enklinobarangus ()

The essence of modern Democratic progressivism is:  "You will participate in what we have created for you, and you will comply with the law's demands"...

American progressivism is politics by cramdown.

Daniel Henninger, "Progressive Government Fails," The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, October 31, 2013, A13

I hear all this, you know, "Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever." No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us [!] paid for. You hired workers the rest of us [!] paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us [!] paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea ó God bless. Keep a big hunk [?] of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that [?] and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Elizabeth Warren (CP-MA), transcribed from video, house party campaign appearance, Andover, MA, August, 2011 [note],

This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so itís written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in -- you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money -- it would not have passed... Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass... Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but Iíd rather have this law than not.

Jonathan Gruber, Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, $400,000 consultant on the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), speaking at the 2013 Annual Health Economistsí Conference (AHEC), October 17-18, 2013, University of Pennsylvania, color added

But our bill brings down rates. I don't know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT's analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even from now, and much less preventing the upward spiral. [5 November 2009, color added]...

So I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill. [speaking of Jonathan Gruber, 13 November 2014, color added]

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, denying knowledge of the embarrassing Jonathan Gruber, whom she cited as a supporter in 2009,

To summarize:

That's it in a nutshell.

The Ruling Class, or the Real One Percent

The Age of Reagan, 1980-2008

Anti-American Americans

The Practical Rules of Bureaucracy

The Post-Modern Left

Six Kinds of United States Paper Currency

Political Economy

Home Page

Copyright (c) 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Satan is a Democrat, or
It is the Blue States that are Red, Note 1;
"McCarthyism" Practiced against Joe McCarthy

I see another example of Conservatives ritually willing to trash Joseph McCarthy in an August 6, 2009, column by Paul Greenberg, who says, "Joe McCarthy remained on the prowl for non-existent Communists in government, which meant the real ones might be overlooked." What is this even supposed to mean? If there were "real ones" in the government, who "might be overlooked," then there were real Communists, and not just "non-existent" ones, for McCarthy to look for. Doesn't Greenberg know that there were real Communists and spies? Greenberg is apparently assuming, ambiguously, the Democrat canard that there weren't any Communists and that anti-Communists were on a "witch-hunt" for non-existent witches.

This reminds me of one of the first things I remember hearing about McCarthy, when a high school teacher of mine said that McCarthy gave a speech where he waved a blank piece of paper and claimed it was a list of Communists in the State Department. This must have been a reference to McCarthy's Wheeling, West Virginia, speech in February 1950, which began McCarthy's career of public controversy; and the implication the teacher was conveying was that, not just that McCarthy may not have had the list with him, but that there was no such list -- and that McCarthy was blindly claiming that there were Communists when he really knew of none.

While McCarthy in fact did not have a list with him, this was not quite the nature of the controversy at the time. There was indeed a list, indeed two of them. And they were not McCarthy's own lists. The first was referred to in a letter from Secretary of State James Byrnes to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. Byrnes said that 284 persons in the State Department had been found "unfit for permanent employment" and then 79 of them had left. The difference produced the number 205 that McCarthy had written in the original draft of his speech and that got out to the press at the time. However, McCarthy knew of a more recent list prepared by the House Appropriations Committee, which had been obtained by the Washington Times-Herald reporter Ed Nellor from House staffer Robert Lee. The House Committee identified 108 security risks in the State Department, of whom 57 were still there. This was the number McCarthy said he actually used in the Wheeling speech, and that he certainly used in subsequent speeches. Since the Wheeling speech had been broadcast but not recorded, Democrats decided to make an issue of whether McCarthy had used the 205 number or the 57 number.

It really doesn't matter which number McCarthy used. There were security risks in the State Department, and McCarthy wanted to know why they were there and what was being done about them. The centerpiece of McCarthy's speech was actually an attack on Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who, even as Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury in January 1950, expressed his support for him -- "I do not intend to turn my back on Alger Hiss." It is still part of leftist mythology that Hiss was neither a Communist nor a spy. Harry Truman himself later expressed doubt about Hiss's guilt. Yet the evidence against him at the time was decisive and damning, as it still is. One might wonder even today about the judgment and motives of anyone defending Hiss. The Democrats, including Truman, just did not like the political embarrassment; but it was not absurd for someone like McCarthy to wonder at the time if the protection of security threats and Communists was as much a matter of sympathy as of ass-covering. There is no doubt that someone like Acheson, ironically, felt a class connection with Hiss, sharing Northeastern and Ivy League backgrounds -- the beefy and brawling Whittaker Chambers was just declassé (attitudes we still get from the Modern Democrats, vacationing on Martha's Vineyard -- "Marxist Vineyard" -- and sneering at "fly-over country," i.e. the Heartland). Something of the sort had already happened in 1939. When Whittaker Chambers left the Communist Party, he quietly went on with his life -- although prudently saving some incriminating documents in case they became necessary. After the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939, however, when the Communists became allies of those they had always claimed were their greatest enemies, Nazi Germany, Chambers became alarmed enough to tell his story at the State Department. This included information about Hiss's espionage and membership in the Party. The story got all the way to President Roosevelt, who literally laughed it off. Joe Stalin would not be spying on us, and certainly not through such a fine upstanding man as Alger Hiss. Communists then (and now) must have had a good laugh that the class solidarity of the well-born, privileged, and wealthy protected a man who worked to destroy them.

This disconnect from reality evident in my high school teacher's statement continues today in what ought to be better informed and more conscientious venues. Thus, in 2016, the Smithsonian Channel aired a two hour documentary on Joseph McCarthy. It did not address the question of whether McCarthy talked about 205 or 57 State Department personnel in his Wheeling speech. Instead, it said that McCarthy accused the State Department of harboring 205 Communists. This was not true. The documentary also said that McCarthy "named names" and identified the Communists. This is also not true. Curiously, the documentary interviewed a former KGB officer who happily admitted that the Soviets did indeed have agents in the State Department, just not anything like the 205 in McCarthy's absurd accusation. He said it was more like 49.

The documentary thus entirely misrepresented the situation. Rather than acknowledge that McCarthy's concerns were valid, and that 49 agents was damn close to the 57 number that McCarthy subsequently used, the documentary construed the presentation to continue the narrative that McCarthy was just throwing around wild accusations. Also, the documentary never acknowledged that McCarthy did not name names, explicitly because State Department personnel about whom there were questions of security did not deserve to be exposed in public. Names, however, were required by the Democrat controlled Senate at the time. The Democrats accused McCarthy of not really having any names (the "blank paper" canard), and demanded that he release them. When he did, the Democrats then accused him, as they still do, of smearing innocent people with unfounded (or unproven) accusations of Communist connections. This was obviously entirely dishonest behavior, never mentioned by the documentary.

The documentary also never mentioned that until 1953 the Senate was controlled by the Democrats and that Joseph McCarthy actually did not have the power to do anything but talk. While interviewing a victim of prosecution for Contempt of Congress, the documentary did not bother to mention that McCarthy had no power to bring charges of Contempt of Congress and that the "victim" therefore had been charged by a Democrat Congress (both Houses of Congress must agree to such charges) and prosecuted by the Democrat Administration of Harry Truman. He could not have been charged or prosecuted on the basis of anything that Joe McCarthy said or wanted.

Instead, one would never know from the documentary that all the Congressional investigations at the time were directed at rather than by Joseph McCarthy. The Democrats were protecting themselves from the embarrassment of McCarthy's substantially true charges. One could gather from the documentary that the later Army-McCarthy Hearings, allowed by both Republicans and President Eisenhower, were about accusations of favoritism by Roy Cohn for a friend (& lover?) of his in the Army. Whatever the merits of those accusations, McCarthy himself had nothing to do with them, and neither the contents nor the results of the hearings were related to the trumped-up charges for which McCarthy was then Censured by the Senate. Yet those Hearings are generally taken to damn and discredit McCarthy, despite proving nothing. See more about this as follows.

Thus, the Smithsonian Channel in 2016 has perpetuated lies, distortions, and smears as the historical record of Joseph McCarthy. The documentary featured a couple of people who could have spoken up and corrected the record, but they were not allowed any say in the matter and were entirely ignored once the tale of McCarthy's misdeeds got going. The documentary even featured M. Stanton Evans, whose 2007 book, Blacklisted by History, the Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy [Crown Forum, Crown Publishing Group, Random House] got into all these issues; but they didn't bother asking him about any of the false or deceptive statements in the documentary. It is a shameful business; but Democrats, and even quite a few clueless Republicans, are still engaged in covering up the presence of Communists and Soviet spies in the American government, even when, oddly enough, they admit, incongruously and by the way, that there were such people.

The phenomenon of clueless Conservatives accepting the premises of Leftist political narratives continued in 2012. A column by Theodore Olson, "Obama's Enemies List," appears in the February 1 Wall Street Journal. Olson, a lawyer who represents Koch Industries, writes about the Obama Administration targeting David and Charles Koch as part of President Obama's reelection campaign. Since the theme of the campaign is How Evil are the Rich, the Koch brothers, who contribute to various conservative and libertarian causes and think tanks, have been openly attacked. The cutest example is that the Democrats wanted to call the Koches to testify before Congress about the Keystone XL oil pipeline, whose building Obama had recently cancelled to curry favor with the "back to the Pleistocene" environmentalists, even though the Koches had nothing to do with the pipeline.

Nevertheless, Olson can't resist calling the Democrat practices the equivalent of "McCarthyism":

When Joseph McCarthy engaged in comparable bullying, oppression and slander from his powerful position in the Senate, he was censured by his colleagues and died in disgrace. "McCarthyism," defined by Webster's as the "use of unfair investigative and accusatory methods to suppress opposition," will forever be synonymous with un-Americanism. Army counsel Joseph Welsh's "Have you no sense of decency?" are words that evoke the McCarthy era and diminish the reputations of his colleagues who did nothing to stand up to him.

Lies about Joe McCarthy will indeed "forver be synonymous with un-Americanism" as long as people who should know better, like Mr. Olson, continue repeating them. Olson may need to be reminded that McCarthy held no "powerful position in the Senate" from 1950, when he entered the public eye, until 1953, when the Republicans took over the Senate. He then only had a year to conduct his investigations. What were the examples of "bullying, oppression and slander" from that year? Most of the inquiries involving Joe McCarthy, before 1953, and then in the "Army-McCarthy Hearings," when Joseph Welsh -- in the middle of his own "bullying" questioning of Roy Cohn -- voiced his grandstand-for-the-cameras reproach to McCarthy, were directed at Joe McCarthy, first by Democrats and then in the end with the cooperation of the Einsenhower Administration and the Republicans in the Senate, who were very far from doing "nothing to stand up to him."

Even worse is the implication that McCarthy was censured for "McCarthyism," as so defined. But this is now a familiar political technique of misrepresentation. Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading, although most people probably think so. Scooter Libby was not convicted of "outing" Valerie Plame, although the Democrats got their Hollywood friends to even make a movie saying so. And Joe McCarthy was not censured for accusing innocent blushing liberals of being Communists; yet Theodore Olson presupposes that this is something that "everyone knows" to be the case. Indeed, the Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1954, which we are given to understand discredited McCarthy, where not only directed at him, instead of by him, but also resulted in clearing him of the charges at issue (which involved favoritism for a friend, and possible gay lover, of Roy Cohn).

And what "opposition" was being "suppressed" by McCarthy? Certainly not the Democrats, who never shut up, any more than they do now. Communists? Well perhaps that should be stated openly:  "McCarthy inconvenienced people who were spies and agents for the Soviet Union." We can't have that. Like the famous rhetorical question of Joseph Welsh, the context of "McCarthyism" makes its whole presentation, by Academics, the Press, Leftists, Liberals, Democrats, and now Mr. Olson, a lie. They are the ones lacking any sense of decency -- like Democrat National Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in January 2012, still repeating the canard that the lunatic Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords because of the "incivility" of Conservative political rhetoric. But as a supposed Conservative, Olson has no excuse. He should be aware of several recent books setting the record straight about McCarthy. No, like Paul Greenberg, he is pandering to an audience that is going to hate him anyway and is just going to use his endorsement of the McCarthy myth to help perpetuate it.

We are still getting this sort of thing in 2014. In book review of A Very Principled Boy, by Mark A. Bradley, about Soviet spy Duncan Lee ("Hiding in Plain Sight," The Wall Street Journal, April 26-27, 2014, C7), Michael O'Donnell discusses the consequences of the failure of the U.S. Government to prosecute Lee, even though he was exposed by Elizabeth Bentley and his guilt confirmed by the Venona decryptions -- the Government wanted to keep the Venona information secret, even though, as we know now, other Soviet spies had already passed on reports about the program, rendering secrecy about its very existence pointless.

O'Donnell says:

Domestically, his [Lee's] case helped pave the way for McCarthyism and HUAC's witch hunts. As Mr. Bradley nicely puts it:  "The existence of real spies in the 1940s had created life-like mirages of them by the early 1950s."

This is an astonishing statement, assuming as it does the entire Leftist narrative and slander about "witch hunts," i.e. that no Soviet spies existed to be found after the 1940s (or, since the Left never admitted that there had ever been Soviet spies, before). From Soviet records themselves, when they were available, we now know that there were over 300 agents acting for the Soviet Union in the United States (Bentley had named 150), only about half of whom (Bentley's number!) were ever identified or caught. All that Mr. Bradley "nicely puts" is the standard anti-anti-Communist line, whose perpetuation by people in The Wall Street Journal is a disgrace -- not to mention its occurrence in a book about someone who was never actually convicted of being a Communist or a spy, and who, like Alger Hiss, maintained his innocence until his dying day. This is a candidate for Progressive victimhood -- a Martyr in the face of an exposé targeting him with the disapprobation of the world after his death. Bradley and O'Donnell should be ashamed of practicing this kind of McCarthyism against someone who can't even defend himself. Perhaps it is their unease at such an accusation -- made all too characteristically -- that moves them defensively to condemn the "real" McCarthyism. After all, they wouldn't want to be associated with the execution of people after show trials, or all of those worked to death in labor camps... oh. That would be Joe Stalin, not Joe McCarthy, who did those things. Never mind.

Some faculty and students at Middlebury College, Vermont, invited quixotic libertarian Charles Murray to speak at the college on March 2, 2017. As has now become common, radical students mobbed the event and shouted down Murray. The college, somewhat to its credit, had Murray deliver his talk anyway, on video. The students, of course, shouted down the video feeds. As Murray was leaving campus, his group was mobbed and assaulted by students, who actually injured one of the faculty sponsors of the event, Allison Stanger, sending her to the hospital. It is not clear if video is available of the assault. Some of the participants were said to be masked, like the now familiar Anarchists of other "progressive" riots. Whether there is video or not, the students involved should be identified, arrested, charged, and expelled from the school. It is not clear that any attempt has been made to do any of this. The students who merely distrupted the event and shouted down Murray should be disciplined or suspended from school. There is no word that this has been done. This is not at all to the credit of the college.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger commented on this in a piece from March 9, 2017. This was titled "McCarthyism at Middlebury"; and in it, unfortunately, he went out of his way to associate the behavior of the students (and their faculty enablers, of course) with Joseph McCarthy, misrepresenting McCarthy's history and not even correctly using "McCarthyism" in the way the enemies of McCarthy and anti-Communism use it themselves.

The violence committed against Charles Murray and others at Middlebury College is a significant event in the annals of free speech.

Since the day the Founding Fathers planted the three words, "freedom of speech," in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Americans and their institutions have had to contend with attempts to suppress speech.

The right to speak freely has survived not merely because of many eloquent Supreme Court decisions but also because Americaís political and institutional leadership, whatever else their differences, has stood together to defend this right.

But maybe not any longer.

Americaís campuses have been in the grip of a creeping McCarthyism for years. McCarthyism, the word, stands for the extreme repression of ideas and for silencing speech.

This is all fine until the last paragraph. Joseph McCarthy had nothing to with "repression of ideas" or "silencing speech." The "ideas" he was against, of course, where those of Communism, as advocated at the time by the living and breathing Joseph Stalin (1950-1953). These ideas were openly defended by some, like I.F. Stone, who wrote a book in 1952, The Hidden History of the Korean War, defending the Communist invasion of South Korea. I am not aware that anyone ever silenced Mr. Stone, although we now know he had dealings, apparently short of actual espionage, with the Russian KGB.

The problem was not innocent Communists being silenced. It was hidden Communists, members of the "underground" Party, who concealed and dissimulated their loyalties and convictions, while covertly promoting Communist ideas and even engaging in espionage for the Soviet Union. Sometimes such Communists, or their supporters, claimed they were martyrs to the First Amendment; but they didn't take advantage of Free Speech by candidly voicing their loyalties and convictions, and they actually didn't believe in Free Speech or the First Amendment. Uncle Joe Stalin certainly didn't.

People who ended up on the Blacklist of the Hollywood movie producers generally just refused to "name names," i.e. identify people that they knew as Communist Party members or "fellow travelers." They justified their silence by saying they did not believe in "ratting out" friends or people they knew. Their appeal, therefore, was to the ethics of the playground or of gangsters. Indeed, although I knew a couple members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) back in the 1970's, I would not be comfortable if pulled before a Congressional Committee and asked to identify them. Whether I answered might depend on the level of threat I saw in the Party. The CPUSA was no threat to the United States in 1977, although the Soviet Union was still a threat overseas.

On the other hand, the CP was a real threat in 1950, when Stalin green-lighted the invasion of South Korea (partially because he then had the Bomb, after its plans had been stolen by his spies, i.e. people like the Rosenbergs), and at least until 1956, when the "De-Stalinization" of Nikita Khrushchev disillusioned many members, whether they supported Stalin or were genuinely surprised (!) at Khrushchev's revelations. Some who refused to "name names," like Zero Mostel, left Hollywood for Broadway, evidently without much complaint. Others wrote for Hollywood movies under pseudonyms, with the cooperation of friends. Some of these, like Dalton Trumbo, thought this was funny. In the end, "liberal" opinion regarded them as martyrs to anti-Communism, when, if they had gotten their way, we would all have been executed or sent to the GULAG. That's how Joe Stalin ran things.

The actual accusation against Joe McCarthy was that he falsely accused innocent people of being Communists, a practice generalized into the Red Scare "Witch Hunt" of spreading false accusations and pursuing Communist suspects, when actually hidden Communists didn't exist, and the beloved, peaceful, and free Soviet Union was engaged in no espionage or subversion against the United States. The truth was that anti-Communists, long before Joe McCarthy, were largely able to target real Communists, whose own principal narrative, of course, was this fairy tale about the peaceful and benevolent Soviet Union, who wasn't using people like them to spy on the United States.

Now, the rioting students and activists at Middlebury and elsewhere have been running around accusing people, like Charles Murray, of being Fascists and Nazis, but this doesn't amount to quite the same thing. They cannot and have not been accused of being members of self-identified Fascist or Nazis Parties, and they can hardly be agents of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, both of which ceased to exist in 1945. Republicans have been accused of supporting the Ku Klux Klan, which does exist, and perhaps this amounts to "McCarthyism"; but mostly the charges leveled by the Left are just lies and smears, unpacked from Leftist demonology, which to most Americans would sound preposterous or unintelligible. As George Orwell said, some things are so absurd that only an intellectual would believe them; but that is what a college education buys you (dearly) these days.

The notion that Joseph McCarthy himself possessed a comparable anti-Communist fantasy demonology requires that the realities of Communism be ignored or whitewashed. But that is, of course, the agenda of the Left. And this means that Daniel Henninger has misidentifed the ideology and the nature of the misconduct of the students at Middlebury. They are not McCarthyites. They are Stalinists. That is the ideology that denies Free Speech. That is the ideology that physically attacks political opponents. That is the ideology that would send us all to the GULAG, if it could, or have us shot. Since Joseph McCarthy didn't sent anyone to the GULAG, or have anyone shot, the beginning of wisdom is to realize that Joe Stalin, not Joe McCarthy, was the real enemy of democracy, humanity, and civilization.

In the 1950s, Republican Sen. Joe McCarthy turned his name into a word of generalized disrepute by using the threat of communism, which was real, to ruin innocent individualsí careers and reputations.

As noted, E. Stanton Evans likes to ask audiences, "Name one." Like Shepard Smith, Daniel Hennigen just assumes that McCarthy was running around ruining "innocent individuals' careers and reputations." This is nonsense. He barely had the time or position to do anything of the sort. To be sure, people had gone to jail, but this had all been because of Contempt of Congress and perjury convictions, usually in relation to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, as prosecuted by the Justice Department of the Administration of Harry S Truman. The Rosenbergs had been convicted of espionage and would be executed after Dwight Eisenhower became President. By the time actual Communists, like Dashiell Hammett, testified before McCarthy's Senate committee, they had wised up and were taking the Fifth Amendment. Hammett had already been to jail. McCarthy's Senate Committee, in 1953 and 1954, did recommend some people to the Justice Department on perjury charges, but the Eisenhower Administration mysteriously never pursued the cases. Mostly McCarthy just wanted people who were security risks removed from sensitive positions, but those he got the Administation to actually remove were usually quietly restored (for a while) after McCarthy, not his "victims," had been destroyed.

Questions remain about a few people, like John Stewart Service at the State Department, who was identified by McCarthy as a security risk, and who had been caught red handed, long before McCarthy, passing secret documents to the Communist Front magazine Amerasia. During the War in China, Service roomed with Chi Chao-ting, a Communist agent who had infiltrated the Kuomintang, and Solomon Adler, a Treasury official who, in league with Soviet Agent and Assistant Treasury Secretary in Washington, Harry Dexter White, was engaged in sabotaging a $200 million loan of gold to the Nationalist government to help stabilize its currency. Both Chi and Adler revealed their true colors by later defecting to the People's Republic of China, but Service, who was arrested by the FBI in 1945, never admitted that he had anything to do with his roommates, although reports he wrote about the Nationalist Government passed on the same Communist propaganda and was being created by Chi and Adler.

The prosecution of Service was quashed, as we now know from recently released FBI files, by a high level cover-up and conspiracy to obstruct justice, orchestrated by Soviet agents like White House assistant Lauchlin Currie. Although Service would be publicly exposed (again) by McCarthy, and J. Edgar Hoover knew everything that had been going on, the Eisenhower Administration, for its own obscure reasons -- part of which may actually have been that Hoover and Eisenhower did not want the Soviets to know how much they actually knew -- silenced McCarthy and allowed Service to continue with a quiet but harmless career. This strategy, unfortunately, allowed the essentially pro-Communist narrative of the Democrats to become the "public record." So today, people like Daniel Henninger can remember McCarthy as the villain in the business, not people like Service, Adler, White, or Currie.

Today, polite liberals -- in politics, academia and the media arts -- watch in silent assent as McCarythyist radicals hound, repress and attack conservatives like Charles Murray for what they think, write and say.

One of the first politicians to speak against this mood in 1950 was Republican Sen. Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. In her speech, "Declaration of Conscience" [June 1, 1950], Sen. Smith said: "The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as 'Communists' or 'Fascists' by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others."

Since no one had heard of Joe McCarthy before February, 1950, while the Democrats controlled Congress and Senator McCarthy had no power, and she didn't name McCarthy, what was Margaret Chase Smith talking about? McCarthy could make accusations, but nobody would have paid any attention to them if there had not already been a history of Communist spying and subversion. Alger Hiss had just been convicted of perjury (January 21, 1950). The Korean War would begin on June 25th.

Nobody was being smeared as a Communist because they were speaking their mind. If Communists had been speaking their minds, no accusations would have been necessary. It was precisely because Communists concealed their beliefs and loyalties that accusations were necessary. Meanwhile, the Left, then and now, has shown no reluctance to accuse anyone, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump, of being Fascists -- yet, despite Smith's nod in that direction, the complaints have really all been about anti-Communists, not about those who style themselves "anti-Fascists" -- realistically kind of a dead letter in 1950.

I begin to wonder if Smith was a RINO-before-her-time, currying liberal favor, and mainly complaining at that point about the rather long history of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), so that people who had no worries (or worse) about Communism would think well of her. But the Korean War started less than a month after Smith's speech; and it was McCarthy, not Smith, who helped elect Eisenhower in 1952.

Three years later, in 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower gave a famous commencement speech at Dartmouth College. "Donít join the book burners," Ike told the students. Even if others "think ideas that are contrary to ours, their right to say them, their right to record them, and their right to have them at places where they are accessible to others is unquestioned, or it isnít America."

So what was Eisenhower talking about? One of McCarthy's investigations, after the Republicans took control of the Senate in 1953, was why Communist authors were featured in so many American Information Libraries overseas. Americans had no trouble reading these books in the United States, but why would the United States Government be furthering Communist propaganda through its own agencies -- especially given the purpose of the libraries, to fight Communism, according to the law, sponsored by a Democrat, that authorized them? Note, McCarthy wasn't burning books, or proposing that they be banned, but asking why the ostensively anti-Communist U.S. Government was promoting Communist authors. In his round-about way, was Eisenhower objecting to this inquiry? Actually, books that were removed from the libraries were "disposed of," in ways that sometimes may actually have involved burning. But this had nothing to do with Joe McCarthy. It was the work of Dwight Eisenhower's own Admiminstration, i.e. himself. Yet someone got to Einsenhower and told him that McCarthy was buring books. He seems to have believed it, or was willing to use the lie to smear McCarthy. None of that reflects well on Eisenhower, regardless of what Daniel Henninger thinks about his Dartmouth speech. As it happens, not many years ago our friends at Berkeley actually were burning books, under the banner "Fight Fascist Censorship!" The irony of their acts escaped them.

Today, the smear is common for conservative speakers and thinkers. Prior to Mr. Murrayís scheduled talk at Middlebury, a student petition, signed by hundreds of faculty and alumni, sought to rescind the invitation because "we believe that Murrayís ideas have no place in rigorous scholarly conversation." Such "disinvitations" have become routine.

It is not clear to me what "smear" Mr. Henninger is talking about. But the action of the Middlebury faculty is clear enough. They don't want to hear "Murray's ideas," which to them are beyond the pale. But where anti-Communists wanted Communists to candidly confess their loyalty and profess their ideas; the modern Left wants people silenced and shut out. Whatever Joe McCarthy was doing, that wasn't it. It's what Joe Stalin did. So, again, it is Stalinism at Middlebury, not "McCarthyism."

So let us plainly ask: Why hasnít one Democrat stood in the well of the Senate or House to denounce, or even criticize, what the Middlebury mob did to Charles Murray and the faculty who asked him to speak? Have any of them ever come out against the silencing of speech they donít like?

Democrats, as partisans of the Left, naturally have no objection to silencing their opponents. Their most recent strategy has been to use "campaign finance reform" to do it.

Letís recognize that the failure to oppose McCarthyist creep from the left is also consuming liberal reputations.

But "let's recognize" that Daniel Henninger has cluelessly accepted the Democrat and Leftist narrative about "McCarthyism" and has failed to recognize Leftist ideology for what it is:  Socialist, totalitarian, and Stalinist. This is admitted quite openly on college campuses like Middlebury, but somehow Henninger has missed the memo. Indeed, the Communist tactic of dissimulation and concealment continues; and when embarrassing statements by radical professors become public, most of the outrage is not about their content, but about how such accurately reported statements by professors have been allowed to become public. They have the right, you see, to maintain the secrecy of their (publicly funded and presented) teaching, and even of their posts on public media -- i.e. we don't have the right to know about anything they say. Because we might find out what they mean and intend.

The rest of Henninger's column is salutary, as would be the whole thing without his misuse of "McCarthyism." But, as I have been examining, it is not unusual for Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians to accept Leftist narratives about Communism and anti-Communism and to, in effect, participate in the cover-up of Soviet spying and subversion and the whitewash of Americans who accepted Soviet ideology and who planned, planned, on turning the United States into a totalitarian police-state. You see, they are still at it, and in the same way as before.

What is it about the Wall Street Journal? Does it have a style code that requires disparaging references to Joseph McCarthy? On March 22, 2017, we have a column from Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. entitled "Leakgate Finds Its Joe McCarthy." At least Jenkins used "McCarthyism" in the dictionary defined and politically correct way, saying of California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff:

A congressman with a modest profile, Mr. Schiff has been working hard ever since to become the public face -- not to say the Joe McCarthy -- of this witch hunt.

Now, what Schiff is engaged in is the Democrat strategy of contending that Donald Trump won the election in 2016 in collusion with Vladimir Putin of Russia. After the Democrats realized they couldn't win the election by recounts (although they recruited Green Party candidate Jill Stein to ask for the recounts for them, although she really didn't have any grounds to do so anywhere), and that accusing Trump of winning because of "fake news" meant that he could accuse them with greater justice of using "fake news" (so that reporters began bleating that the accusation of "fake news" was like using the "N word"), they settled on a permanent strategy of portraying Trump as a creature of the Russians. With Schiff carrying water for this, Jenkins associating it with Joe McCarthy is rich, since it relies on the Democrat narrative and the conventional wisdom that McCarthy never identified any Communists, that there were none for him to find, and so the whole business was a "witch hunt" for non-existent, or falsely accused, witches.

Since Joe McCarthy accused people of being agents for Russia, perhaps there is a parallel with the Democrats now accusing Donald Trump of being an agent for Russia. Although why he would be is a little obscure, since Trump has no ideological commitment to Putin's dictatorship (it's the Democrats who like dictatorship) and he has no real business interests in Russia. But Trump laid himself open to such charges by saying kind things about Putin during the Presidential campaign. But whatever sort of appeasement or accommodation Trump might seek with Putin, the Obama Administration had already beat him to it.

This is one of the great ironies of the Democrat narrative, since Barack Obama and John Kerry did very little to block Putin's conquests and encroachments. At one point Kerry seemed to be doing no more than begging Putin not to conquer any more land from the Ukraine, and Obama himself was caught on an open mike telling Dmitry Medvedev (President, as a place-holder for Putin, 2008-2012) that after the 2012 election he could be more accommodating. Obama and Kerry invited Russia into Syria, rather than doing anything about Obama's "Red Line" ultimatum about the use of chemical weapons, and they could only sputter in mortification when Putin went on to support the Assad dictatorship and bomb rebels who were actual allies of the United States. The rebels, who had held on grimly in Aleppo, were finally driven out, with the help of the Russians bombing things like hospitals. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration, no more than the Trump Administration agenda, ever provided the Ukraine with even the weaponry to defend itself. This has allowed Russian infiltration and low level combat to continue, which somehow has been fine with both Presidents.

So if "McCarthyism" means making political hay with false accusations of innocent people, the Democrats are probably guilty of it. Just not Joseph McCarthy. And it is a little late in the day for Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. to still be buying the Democrat and anti-anti-Communist narrative and using the term in the politically correct way. But that is one of the biggest problems with Republicans, as I have been detailing on this page. They are continually displaying their bona fides as dupes and suckers of the Democrats.

Prior to the column by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. just examined, The Wall Street Journal ran a review by Thomas Mallon, entitled "The President Fells a Demagogue" [March 18-19, 2017, p.C7], on the book Ike and McCarthy by David A. Nichols [Simon & Schuster]. The "demagogue" of the article is, of course, Senator Joseph McCarthy, and the "president" is Dwight Eisenhower, who, keeping a low profile at the time, is now more generally recognized as behind the destruction of McCarthy. Indeed, at a time when the Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate, it should have always been obvious that this could not have been done to McCarthy without the consent and direction of the President. Why Eisenhower did this is properly one of the great stories of the age. It is also the story of a near mortal blow suffered by the Republican Party. While the Republicans had at times controlled the House and Senate in the years after World War II, in the election of 1954, they lost control of both houses of Congress until the Reagan Administration, and did not again hold control of both until the election of 1994. When Eisenhower was elected in 1952, there had been Democrat Administrations for twenty years; but then from 1954 forty years would pass before voters gave Bill Clinton a fully Republican Congress. Did the destruction of Joe McCarthy have something to do with this? I think so. And this means that Dwight Eisenhower was in great measure responsible. The first Republican President after the New Deal was no boon to the Republican Party.

First, I should note some things about the review. Whatever Mr. Mallon knows, or has gotten from the book by Mr. Nichols, it isn't enough. A key statement is "Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and a close presidential adivsor, believed that McCarthy decided to go after the Army because of Einsenhower's indelible identification with it..." However, McCarthy did not decide to "go after the Army." He never went "after the Army." He was tipped off that there were security problems at Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, were a great deal of secret work was done, at various scattered locations, in technology and communications. The commander of the post, Major General Kirke B. Lawton, agreed about the problems and testified that people who had been removed from sensitive positions because of obvious security problems, i.e. they had Communist associations, were being reinstated by a review board at the Pentagon, without explanation. For his testimony, the Army destroyed the career of General Lawton -- something Mr. Mallon doesn't bother mentioning, although we hear that McCarthy "humiliated" General Ralph Zwicker, who actually was scheduled as a friendly witness, until he apparently was visited and threatened by people from the Pentagon. Then he became uncooperative, ultimately to be richy rewarded by the Army.

But Mallon trivializes these issues by reducing the problem to "an Army dentist with onetime leftist affiliation," which happened to be the specific case involving Zwicker -- ignoring everything else. So Mallon doesn't seem to know what the problems were at Fort Monmouth. But, without pause, he does continue that "the senator and Roy Cohn had been risibly at war with the service for months." This is nonsense. Since the people in New Jersey were alert to the security problems, McCarthy simply wanted to know why the review board at the Pentagon kept reversing the decisions of the competent authorities, especially General Lawton, on the spot. We have literally never learned why. McCarthy was stopped, and the people involved, and their motivations, have never seen the light of day -- just as we still don't know, as McCarthy asked, who had moved the Communist Party member Annie Lee Moss from the mail room to the code room. When things like this are still mysteries, more than sixty years later, any disinterested observer would say that something very peculiar was, and is, going on.

Mallon continues that McCarthy staffer and Cohn friend:

David Schine had been drafted in November 1953 and the thought of his golden boy peeling potatoes on KP inspired more fury in Cohn than any pinko with a security clearance. He repeatedly demanded that the secretary of the Army, Robert Stevens, and its legal counsel, John Adams, secure passes and privileges for Schine.

This is a biased, hostile, and distorted representation. Schine had already been in the Army but then was passed over with a 4F deferment because of a slipped disk in his back. In 1953 he was at the upper limit of draft elegible age and ordinarily would never have been considered for any more service. However, the Army had a history of drafting Congressional staffers to hold, essentially, as hostages when the Army didn't like what a Congressional Committee was doing. The "secure passes and privileges" for Schine were a concession to McCarthy for Schine to complete his work.

Of course, the Army and Einsenhower Administration would then accuse Cohn and McCarthy of threatening the Army to get unwarranted privileges and favored treatment for Schine. This was the basis of the Army-McCarthy hearings, which then investigated Cohn and McCarthy for these charges. Of course, Schine should not have been in the Army anyway, and the whole business now looks like a fraud and a setu-up, designed to distract McCarthy from his investigations. Which it did. The hearings, televised, were designed to make McCarthy look bad, which in great measure they did; but nothing actually came of it. The Army could not prove that Cohn or McCarthy had ever really done anything improper; and when information began to come out that the whole thing was a political plot against McCarthy, Einsenhower cut off witnesses and documents with a novel claim of "Executive Privilege." Mallon at least admits that this principle, praised by all at the time, was dropped like a hot potato when Richard Nixon tried the same claim. The famous Nixon White House tapes were exactly the kind of records that Einsenhower had refused to turn over to Congress. At the same time, the supposedly damning Army-McCarthy hearings had nothing to do with the subsequent censure vote against McCarthy, yet the impression of post hoc ergo propter hoc remains.

If Mr. Mallon's treatment faithfully represents the level of Mr. Nichols' book, then I think we can expect that the book is no more than another contribution to the anti-anti-Communist propaganda that is too typical of Cold War and Joseph McCarthy scholarship. Another cute bit is Mallon saying, "McCarthy went after the Voice of America's supposedly slack anti-communism and sent Cohn and Schine on a sort of honeymoon hunt for subversive literature in U.S.-run libraries abroad." I have discussed some of this business above. The "subversive literature" means, of course, the books by Communists that by law should not have been in U.S. information libraries at taxpayer expense, whose purpose, by law, was to fight Communism. If Mr. Mallon does not know that from the Nichols book, then we have a good clue about its honesty and value. Similarly, the problem at the Voice of America were people who had broadcast pro-Soviet propaganda during World War II, when this was excused for an Ally against Germany, but who maintained the same line when things had become very different after the War. Mallon can say things like "slack anti-communism" when he doesn't need to give us any details of what was going on.

Almost approaching a bit of honesty is Mallon admitting that Joseph Welch's famous rebuke of McCarthy -- "Have you no sense of decency, sir..." -- was something that "he had dilgently prepared to be ouraged at just the right moment." Mallon does not give us the context, however. In an aside from Welch's badgering of Roy Cohn, the ostensible witness, Welch solicited from McCarthy an example of someone with subversive associations, to which McCarthy answered with the example of one of Welch's own lawyers, Frederick Fisher, who had belonged to the National Lawyer's Guild, which had been identified as a Communist Front organization by the Attorney General (it still exists and is still reliably radical in its Leftism). Welch was self-righteously indignant over the "cruelty" and "wrecklessness" of McCarthy naming this young man, who thus "shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you."

Unfortunately for the myth, Fisher had already been exposed, in an article published in the New York Times, by none other than Joseph Welch, who stated that Fisher would not be on his legal team at the hearings precisely because of his association with the National Lawyers Guild. So Welch knew about Fisher, and McCarthy was telling him something that he not only knew about already, but that he had acted on, in full publicity. Which was why Fisher was not at his side in Washington. So the whole performance, so famous, and so commonly cited as the ultimate shaming and condemnation of Joseph McCarthy, was precisely that, a performance -- a fraudulent, dishonest, act -- that was staged for no reason than the effect it would have on television. It continues to deceive, as it would still deceive anyong reading Mallon's article, despite the limited admission it features.

This merits some reflection. Joseph Welch deliberately, consciously, and with forethought acted out a lie and a fraud. Yet he continues to be celebrated as a hero for exposing the morally debased character of Joseph McCarthy, when the facts of the case do exactly the opposite and instead expose Welch as an unprincipled and dishonest opportunist, with accomplices among the press and historians who continue the deception even now. Every time someone runs the sound bite of "Have you no sense of decency, sir...," the lie is repeated. Often enough, this may be done by people who don't know any better; but it can be exposed in the easiest way, by showing the page of the New York Times with the story about Welch disqualifying Fisher from his team. When this is not done, we see the result of a decades long effort to conceal the full story, for which the number of guilty increases steadily, obviously including David A. Nichols.

Why would Eisenhower allow and promote such a circus? Why would Eisenhower do something that, in effect, would discredit the Republican Party for decades? My God, the Party of Joseph McCarthy, the man who falsely accused people of being Communists and ruined countless lives! This is still used in what is essentially Communist propaganda in American "education," politics, and the press. As with the book by Nichols and the review by Mallon. So what was Eisenhower's problem? Well, perhaps he wasn't that much of a Republican. The military prided itself on being above politics, but Eisenhower had made his name working for Democrat Presidents, FDR and Truman. He had friends. And Joe McCarthy had complaints about a lot them, since they had done little about Soviet penetration of the U.S. Government and had helped deliver Eastern Europe and China to Communist forces. So Eisenhower personally disliked McCarthy. Also, Eisenhower openly declined to undo any of the destruction of the Constituion effected by the New Deal. We still live under this lawless regime.

We can still wonder why Truman was so tolerant of Communists and Soviet agents in the U.S. Government. One suggestion is that Omar Bradley had never given him the Venona transcripts, which had been decoded from Soviet cable traffic and that detailed much about Soviet espionage in the United States. However, Truman does seem to have received this information, and also everything that the FBI knew about Soviet espionage and Communist Party activity, which was considerable. Some of it Truman simply does not seem to have believed. He never accepted the guilt of Alger Hiss, despite the damning evidence against him. So part of that may have been self-deception and wishful thinking, qualities that are usually not otherwise attributed to Harry Truman -- but are the most charitable interpretation.

There never were more than two reasonable motives for obstructing security inquiries and timely action against Communists and Soviet agents. Either the Democrat Administrations were actively protecting Communists and Soviet agents, or they wanted to hush it up and cover it up to avoid the political embarrassment that would follow. If Joe McCarthy accomplished anything, it was to blow the lid off the cover-up. Which helped get Eisenhower elected (although Mallon says that McCarthy was on Eisenhower's "coattails," although that doesn't explain the defeat of McCarthy's Congressional enemies). But then Eisenhower didn't want to embarrass his friends and mentors, so in effect the hush-up and cover-up continued. Anti-Communism was OK, as long as it was quiet and unembarrassing. But there was a price for this, for the Republicans at the time and for an honest history of the Cold War now, when the Left is just as active as ever, with all the same goals, regardless of whether they call themselves Communists, or perhaps something else, like "Democratic Socialists."

Let's see some final indications of the quality of scholarship that we are dealing with in Mr. Mallon. He says, "The chairmanship [of his Senate subcommittee] allowed the Wisconsin senator to hire as the subcommittee's counsel the cunning Roy Cohn, along with G. David Schine, the Tab Hunter-ish object of Cohn's affections." Notice the contemputous language here, and the implication that Schine was Cohn's lover. But more important than the scorn and implications is the omission. McCarthy also hired a young, admiring attorney, the later sainted and martyred Robert F. Kennedy. But was Kennedy "cunning" like Cohn? We don't know, since he isn't mentioned.

Kennedy did not get along with Cohn (perhaps because he was Jewish and a homosexual -- prejudices that Kennedy had that are not generally included in the Kennedy Mythos) and later left the team, but McCarthy remained close to the Kennedies. McCarthy became the godfather of Robert's first child, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy, later Townsend, who was named after his tragic sister, Kathleen Agnes Kennedy. Kathleen had become the Marchioness of Hartington by marrying William, Marquess of Hartington, the equally tragic heir to the Dukes of Devonshire.

They all died young, as would indeed Bobby Kennedy. And as would Joseph McCarthy. As would John F. Kennedy, who carefully absented himself from the Senate on the day of the Censure vote against Joseph McCarthy -- and who may have owed his Senate seat to McCarthy standing aside when Kennedy unseated Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (whom we have seen as a subsequent member of the Eisenhower Administration) -- perhaps the only case of McCarthy, if only by inaction, favoring a Democrat over a Republican. Bobby quietly attended McCarthy's funeral; and in later years, when reporters tried to solicit anti-McCarthy remarks from him, Kennedy refused to take the bait.

This is one of the great ironies of the McCarthy story. No one is more hated by "liberals" than McCarthy, or more loved than the Kennedies. Yet the Kennedies would not turn on him, as so many others did, as members of his own Party did (but not Barry Goldwater or Evertt Dirksen, who voted against Censure), and as his own President did. In the end, it was McCarthy's enemies who generally had "no sense of decency." They also seemed to be protecting Communists and Soviet agents.

Last but not least, although at the beginning of the article, we have Mr. Mallon referring to McCarthy's "demagogic and spectacularly ineffective hunting of communists in government (of which, yes, there were some)." This is nonsense, although part of the canard promoted by the anti-anti-Communist Left. In 1950, McCarthy produced the names of 100 individuals, who were in or had been in the State Department, who were either Soviet agents, Communists, or sympathizers and "fellow travelers." His information was from the FBI or from previous Congressional invesigations, and none of them was falsely accused, although this is what their defenders and "liberal" opinion claimed then and often continue to claim now. Also, McCarthy did not want to make the names public, since he did not want to expose people who might turn out to be innocent. The Democrats forced him to make the names public -- obviously so that they could subsequently smear him as exposing innocent people -- a strategy conducted simultaneously with the accusation that he had no names in the first place. That, indeed, was the level of game played by the Democrats -- an exercise in dishonesty and cynicism that staggers the mind. If Mr. Mallon is not aware of this, and of the results of McCarthy's later invesitigations, he has no business writing about these things. Is this the same kind of partisan dishonesty and cynicism? Has he no sense of decency?

The Essential Anti-Communist Bibliography

Return to Text

Political Economy

Satan is a Democrat, or
It is the Blue States that are Red, Note 2:
Elizabeth Warren's Rant Against Business

The infamous rant of Elizabeth Warren ( ) against business merits some careful consideration. While the diatribe is sometimes said to be against the rich (which would include Warren herself), it is actually against all business, from Microsoft and Bill Gates all the way down to PJ's Pancake House in Princeton, NJ. And its bite seems most particularly directed at the most entrepreneurial. No one would think of a Harvard MBA who is hired to manage a corporation that they had built it. So the "you didn't build that" sentiment, as formulated by Barack Obama, only applies to people who start small and make something of their own business. Since Warren turns on those "who got rich," her sights are set on the successful, like Bill Gates himself, a college drop-out who started with nothing. The blast of her animus, and her big government avarice, is thus bound to catch all small businesses, which are struggling just to survive, with no more than a rare chance that the owners can get rich. This is less "class warfare" than it is simple envy and resentment.

Warren's basic implication, examining what she actually says, is that businesses are parasites. They contribute no good to us or to society, and we therefore allow them to exist and prosper just out of the condescending goodness of our hearts. They can keep a "big hunk" of their profits as along as we take our "hunk," since we are doing a bunch of stuff for them, like roads and police, which evidently we aren't already doing for ourselves and to which they make no contribution. Since this "hunk" is mostly going to be extracted from small businesses with people who are never going to get rich, Warren's antipathy, in Marxist terms, is directed at the "petty bourgeoisie" rather than proper capitalists. It all can be summed up in one demand:  "Hey, creeps, you owe us a lot of money."

There is no sense in any of this that businesses provide any goods to the public. The only services mentioned by Warren are those provided by government, i.e. roads, schools, and police. Does Warren even know that people obtain necessary and desirable goods and services from businesses (like pancakes), and that this is usually
I hear all this, you know, "Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever." No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea ó God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Elizabeth Warren (CP-MA), transcribed from video (available on YouTube), house party campaign appearance, Andover, MA, August, 2011

done in a cheaper, more convenient, more effective, and even friendlier way than government provides its services? Nor do we get a sense that public goods, like roads or police, benefit everyone, including "the rest of us," equally, or that businesses pay for them just as much as anyone else does -- if not more so.

Apart from providing goods and services to the public, businesses also employ most of the labor force of the country. Indeed, listening to "progressive" politicians, one might often think that the principal purpose of business is to provide employment, even if the product of the business is worthless. When Margaret Thatcher planned to close coal mines that cost more to operate than their coal was worth, British coal miner unions rather openly contended that the worth of the mines was the jobs, not the coal. But any version of the value of business for employment seems to have escaped the notice of Elizabeth Warren; and it is inconceivable that she might appreciate the wisdom expressed by the late Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Paul Tsongas (d.1997) when he said, "You cannot be pro-jobs and anti-business." Warren seems to be anti-business, and the jobs be damned. Or, we might suspect, she simply wants everyone employed by the government, and private jobs are so worthless as to properly be beneath her notice -- although she herself is a millionaire off of her own private legal practice.

The strongest implication of the parasitism of business in Warren's rant is that the "rest of us" have paid for the roads, schools, and police that businesses use as "free-riders" to exploit the rest of us and make their ill gotten profits. That businesses are taypayers themselves, and have already paid along with the "rest of us," seems to have escaped her notice. Not only that, but over half the population of the United States doesn't even pay income taxes, while the profits of business are usually taxed twice, first by a corporate income tax, and then second by taxes on the income of the people to whom corporate profits make their way (with this usually duplicated at the State level). Since the federal corporate income tax is 35%, which is the highest in the industrialized world and is close to the top marginal rate even for individual incomes taxes, it is very hard to say that businesses are not paying their "fair share." Indeed, from what Warren says, one might guess that business doesn't pay taxes at all.

And it is not as though Warren wants to tax businesses more to pay for roads or police that they are not paying for already. Since they are, she clearly wants the tax money for something else. So her whole approach is dishonest. The notion that "infrastructure" needs more funding is itself a lie, since federal gasoline taxes, which are supposed to pay for roads and bridges, are diverted to other, politically conspicuous projects, like "light rail" or Jerry Brown's "high speed" train, which are projects that never pay for themselves and must be subsidized in perpetuity. Similarly, tolls from bridges to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey are diverted from the upkeep of the bridges where the tolls are collected, which consequently can be seen covered with rust. Eventually, even President Obama admitted that the "stimulus package" of 2009, which was supposed to be for "shovel ready jobs," was almost entirely spent on other things (i.e. paying off government employee labor unions). No, Elizabeth Warren wants more money to buy votes and to fund the welfare state and other leftist projects of social engineering and government domination. In other words, she wants largess for the gravy train of the ruling class, of which she is herself a conspicuous part. She has no concern for the effect on the economy or for the welfare of most people with regular jobs.

The ultimate sentiment of someone like Warren is that the government owns all business, all property, and indeed all the citizens. As Hegel originally thought, we are slaves or minions of the state (the source of the "Freedom is Slavery" motto in George Orwell); and indeed we are metaphysically unreal apart from it. While usually not openly stated, this principle lurks behind almost all the policies and assertions of the Left -- where we should be aware that statements about "collective action" or "collective social action," as from Barack Obama, mean that political minorities, especially dissenting conservative or libertarian groups, are illegitimate, if not criminal. "Solidarity" requires unanimity, and those who reject the "collective" consensus are outside both the political and the moral pale.

Also, while we get public statements about things like "abortion rights" from the Left, the Left actually doesn't believe in individual rights. What we call "rights" are privileges temporarily granted by the state for its own, perhaps transient, purposes. Civil Rights law, which was originally supposed to limit government and protect citizens, now has become a way of the government telling people what to do, what to say, and even what to think. Thus, "Civil Rights" become the means to creating a government of absolute and totalitarian power.

This blast of hatred for business from Elizabeth Warren was soon echoed by the infamous statement of Barack Obama:  "If youíve got a business -- you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happen" [13 July 2012, Roanoke, Virginia]. Among other things, this seems to confuse necessary and sufficient conditions, or material and efficient causes. While conditions might exist for Henry Ford to build the Model T, it was the man himself who "made that happen" (the efficient cause) and not anyone else from whom Ford may have drawn assistance or materials in doing it. People like Obama say things like this, not only because they want everyone to be helplessly dependent on government, but because they pursue policies that will bring about that condition. Thus, in the current economic regime [2015] of poor growth and poor employment, this is fine because it puts more people on food stamps and other government assistance, which actually makes it less necessary for them to find private jobs. Thus, in 2012, Obama said, "The private sector is doing fine," when in fact growth and job growth were dismal and people were leaving the labor force. His point was, as it always is, that governments need more money, because "weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government," which have experienced budget cuts.

Thus, both Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama think that economic prosperity is mainly a matter of government spending and ownership. This is why Warren doesn't notice that businesses provide goods and jobs for the public and why she apparently thinks that the rest of us are doing business a favor by allowing it to exist. I have little doubt that both Warren and Obama think that the provision of all services would be better if the government did it. Also, both Warren and Obama have adopted "income inequality" as their defining issue, even though inequality has increased because of Obama's policies and equality is actually greater in Texas, under the closest thing to laissez-faire capitalism that we've got, than in those fevered hotbeds of leftist politics, New York, Massachusetts, and California. The State with the least income inequality at the moment is conservative, Mormon dominated Utah. The facts, however, are unlikely to inhibit the Left from demonizing Texas, or perhaps even Utah, as safe havens for the callous and oppressive rich.

In 2014, Warren is now the darling of the Left and will probably run for President in 2016, with the support of Obama against others like Hillary Clinton or Vice-President Joe Biden. Since the pretty openly pro-Communist William de Blasio was elected Mayor of New York, I have no confidence that a vicious leftist like Warren is not automatically disqualified in public opinion. Yet Warren is a hostile and repellent person, whose animus towards the productive people and institutions of America has never been more openly on display than it was in this talk from 2011. Any vote for her is a stab in the heart of both freedom and prosperity.

Political Economy

Return to Text

Satan is a Democrat, or
It is the Blue States that are Red,
Note 3

On July 30, 2015, on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, our favorite pathological liar, Democrat Party Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz [], was asked by Matthews, himself a leftist sympathizer, "What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?" Wasserman Schultz did not answered the question but evaded it by trying to talk about Republicans. Matthews pressed her, saying, "I used to think there is a big difference. What do you think it is?" He never got an answer.

We might think that this was because Wasserman Schultz has never thought much about socialism and perhaps doesn't know what it means. If that was the case, anyone would expect her to read up or get briefed on the matter and be ready with an answer should the question come up again. Not quite. She was asked again, by Chuck Todd on "Meet The Press":  "What is the difference," he asked, between the platform of the Democratic Party and socialism, "Can you explain the difference?" She still couldn't. This leaves the possibility that she didn't answer the questions because she is a socialist, and doesn't want to admit it, or because she knows that enough Democrats are socialists that she doesn't want to alienate them by making it sound like the Party is at odds with them.

This is the alarming degree to which corruption, ignorance, and folly have entered American life. The dishonesty and stupidity of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is now the paradigm of political action and is not troubling in the least to the elites and interest groups who support the agenda of the Democratic Party.

The code word for "socialist" in Democrat rhetoric is "liberal." This is part of the dissimulation and misdirection that is practiced in Democrat politics. In Europe, "liberal" still means support for individual rights, limited government, and the free market. Democrats, indeed, don't believe in any of these things. The proper meaning of the word begins to emerge when we travel further into Leftist discourse. There, "liberalism" or "neo-liberalism" means the revival of free market economics after Ronald Reagan. On the hard Left, mainstream Democrats are contemptuously called "liberals," very much as the word might be used by Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh, however, is aware that mainstream Democrats, as Fabian Socialists, only use the word to disguise their ultimate goals, which are not much different from those of the hard Left. The dissimulation of Democrats is so effective that it even fools Communists (people who otherwise only became "good liberals" when they were exposed and confronted with their treasonous allegiance and obedience to the Soviet Union).

"Fabian" refers to the tactics of Quintus Fabius Maximus, who dealt with Hannibal by avoiding open battle. He became know as Cunctator, the "Delayer." Fabian tactics, as adopted by Fabian Socialists, were thus to avoid open battle but achieve victory by small incremental advances. Medicare and Medicaid, although disappointing to those who wanted socialized medicine immediately, nevertheless were steps in that direction, inevitably leading to big pushes for full socialism, as in 2009. Since Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt and have helped push up the costs of medicine, these outcomes can actually be used, ironically, to promote more socialism.

Americans who want to reclaim the proper use of "liberal," and help expose the Democrats as socialists, may use the term "Classical Liberal" for their views. Otherwise, "libertarian" is available, although this then does not contest the use of "liberal" and also implies the stranger and more radical libertarianism, as we have seen, of Rand and Rothbard. All these varieties of views are examined by way of the diamond quiz.

By 2013, we are hearing the term "progressive" more often, instead of "liberal." While the Progressives of the Era of Teddy Roosevelt continue to be remembered fondly by the Left, my association of the word "progressive" is with its use by members of the Communist Party USA whom I knew back in the 1970's. This gives me no confidence that people self-identified as "progressives" today do not actually share the goals and methods of the CP, as I think they do.

Return to Text

Satan is a Democrat, or
It is the Blue States that are Red, Note 4;
Joe the Plumber

The pure vindictiveness of the Democrats and the Left is often astounding. The best example of this may be the case of "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher. In October 2008, Barack Obama walked through Joe's Ohio neighborhood as part of his political campaign. Joe was in his front yard and asked Obama about his tax plans. Joe wanted to have his own plumbing business and was concerned that the tax increases that Obama was talking about would hit his business just as it might get going. Obama admitted that his tax increase might affect Joe's plumbing business (raising rates from 36 to 39%). Explaining this, Obama finished by saying, "I think when you spread the wealth around, itís good for everybody."

Republicans and Democrats immediately saw this as a potentially embarrassing and damaging statement. It made Obama sound like a "redistributionist," who thinks that income in capitalism is "distributed" unfairly and that it is the job of the government to take from the rich (and from business) and give it to the poor. This is a popular idea among the Cargo Cult economic thinkers of the Left. Thus, we can't allow Joe's plumbing business to do too well, because obviously this can only come from exploitation of the workers. So part of the fruit of Joe's success would be better spent by the government. The idea that capital and private investment create wealth for all is a principle foreign to this ideology.

The reaction of the Democrats to this tells us so much about them. There is no doubt that they think this way, and Obama too. Their anger therefore was simply at being exposed as thinking what they actually believe. They always walk a fine line there. They want their core supporters to hear the radicalism of their ideology straight but then don't want that to get out to the public. The most damaging admissions are thus often statements to private groups that may get informally recorded on cell-phones and then released to the Press. Thus Obama, speaking to a private group in California in April 2008, said of Pennsylvania voters losing jobs in old industrial towns (because of Democrat anti-business policies, of course), "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." This was immediately seen as condescending and disparaging of people who believe in gun rights, religion, and only legal immigration -- and are probably racists (while the Obama Administration itself has policies that are increasingly protectionist and anti-trade). The Democrats, of course, see guns as Fascism (unless, ironically, in the hands of the police), religion as the "opium of the masses," illegal immigrants as Democrat voters, and job losses in the Rust Belt as due to greedy capitalists.

To Democrats, a "smear" against them is to honestly represent their views and policies, even with direct quotes (which can be denied, as we saw with Barney Frank). To Democrats, "suppressing free speech" directed at them means any speech that simply contradicts what they say, or actually believe. Violence against conservative speakers, which may literally prevent them from speaking, on the other hand, is "free speech." This is all the Orwellian Double-Think of the Marxist politics of Herbert Marcuse, now part of the Democrat playbook.

But nothing is more remarkable than what happened to Joe the Plumber. Eliciting an embarrassing statement from Obama made Joe an enemy. Democrats and the Left immediately went after Joe. So we learned that "Joe" wasn't his real name (he is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, obviously using his middle name for dishonest purposes). He wasn't a licensed plumber (he worked for one). He owed some back taxes (like several people nominated to be in the Obama Adminstration). Some Democrat Ohio bureaucrats even began (illegal) investigations, to try and find anything else to discredit him. The pointlessness and infantile vindictiveness of this is just astonishing. In fact, it doesn't matter if Joe the Plumber turned out to be Charles Manson. The issue is what Obama said, and what it said about him. Joe himself was irrelevant. Yet many Democrats figured that there was something suitable and useful about discrediting or smearing Joe. He had done something that could result in hurt or embarrassment to them, so it made him, however senselessly, a target. Even if there were nothing else about the attitudes or actions of the Democrats, this reveals them, or at least their public agents and representatives, as morally vile and despicable people.

Return to Text

Satan is a Democrat, or
It is the Blue States that are Red,
Note 5

Another good example of incoherent falsehoods, and not just from these individuals, is the Democrat slogan, "Bush lied; people died." The idea there is that because George Bush said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear), and no such weapons were found after the invasion of Iraq, Bush therefore had lied. Since the ordinary meaning of a "lie" is to utter an intentional falsehood, one might wonder how the slogan chanters know that Bush was uttering an intentional falsehood. Oh, that's easy, we can leave out the "intentional" part. If there were no WMD's in Iraq, then Bush ipso facto lied. I kid you not. I actually saw Michael Moore argue in an interview with Bill O'Reilly that it was a lie simply because it was false. This is something worse than just sophistry. It is an infantile petulance. But we get a lot of it from the Democrats.

As it happens, before the Iraq war, I saw Tony Blair at a meeting of European leaders challenge them to deny that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He said, "You all know" that he has them, because their intelligence services all had the same information. Now, if "Bush lied," not only was Tony Blair lying also, but the leaders of France, Germany, etc., who never helped out in Iraq, must have been so deceived by all these lies that they didn't even have the gumption to stand up and call them lies to Tony Blair's face. Indeed, one of the other "lies" attributed to Bush, that Iraq had been seeking uranium from Chad, was information supplied by British intelligence. We went through a period of denials that Iraq had done this (the absurd and dishonest Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame controversy), but in the end it looks like the British were correct. Even if we don't need intentionality for lying, Bush would not have been lying. The Democrats, however, are never so honest as to remember Tony Blair or his challenge to Europe -- much less admit that Saddam Hussein was someone who deserved to be deposed, WMD's or not. See the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, the former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, for his thoughts about Saddam's WMD's.

Meanwhile, the European Left likes the idea that Blair was "hoodwinked" by Bush into participating in the war. That doesn't square very well with the idea that the British supplied false intelligence to Bush.

Return to Text

Satan is a Democrat, or
It is the Blue States that are Red,
Note 6

Incredibly, there is now a government agency in Britain whose acronym actually is "NICE," the "National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence." Since it looks like the acronym should really be "NIHCE," somebody has gone out of their way to go for "NICE," perhaps without being aware of its use and meaning in That Hideous Strength.

In August 2009, the London Telegraph reported that NICE "intends to slash by 95 percent the number of steroid injections, such as cortisone, given to people who suffer severe and chronic back pain." This is, of course, the kind of rationing and degradation of care that is characteristic of socialized medicine. Similar provisions in the Democrat's 2009 health care "reform" bill are what led Sarah Palin to brilliantly dub the envisioned "end of life" services "death panels," to the fury and indignation of the Democrats. NICE, whether in C.S. Lewis or in modern reality, is a "death panel."

Return to Text