Is That Legal?

N.b. that DB uses the weasel word "much," not "most."

But yes, this is a shining post on a par with DB's innocuous "let's rename MLK Day" post last week. He used to be sensible when not on the subject of Israel or his new book.

Eric,

How did you get from "much", which is what I wrote and you quoted, to "most", which is what you wrote at the end? I don't know how to quantify "much", but it isn't a synonym for "most."

Anyway, andd just for example, it strikes me that people associate McCarthyism in significant part with blacklists, and the blacklists were, also in significant part (and I acknowledge in my post that that is some ambiguity on this), private action. Another aspect of "McCarthyism" in the public mind, is suspicion and derision of those with past or present ties to Communism or the Popular Front. And again, this was to a large extent driven by private anti-Communist organizations, not the government. I'm not giving out footnotes here, but Redish discusses this in some detail.

And you may be right that people consider the federal loyalty security program to be McCarthyism, but since it was established by President Truman in 1947(well, well, before McCarthy's time in the limelight), I wouldn't have put it in that category.

David, why, then, did you use the word "much," rather than the word "some?" If you don't know how to quantify the phenomenon you're writing about, then it'd be wiser to stay away from words that imply quantity.

You may be right that "people" associate McCarthyism in significant part with blacklists, but those "people" aren't scholars. Whatever the popular term "McCarthyism" might mean to scholars who actually study the Cold War period and the Second Red Scare, it means far, far more than blacklists.

Similarly, "people" may consider "McCarthyism" to include "suspicion and derision of those with past or present ties to Communism or the Popular Front," but from what sources and processes did the suspicion about such past ties generally arise? From suspicions generated in loyalty-security programs and federal and state legislative investigations.

For a scholarly review of a scholarly book for a scholarly journal, you would be well advised to abandon the artificial boundaries you've placed around this ill-defined era of "McCarthyism." American anti-communism was already building steam before WWII (which, incidentally, is when HUAC--then called the "Dies Committee"--was formed), went on temporary hiatus due to our uncomfortable alliance with the Soviets, and then zoomed back into existence when the war ended. It accelerated massively with the so-called "loss of China," and this too happened long before Joe McCarthy was in his heyday.

Threats to the First Amendment did not magically arise at the beginning of some period called "McCarthyism."

So there is no defensible reason for excluding the loyalty-security programs, which started in 1947 and continued through the entire period you're writing about, from your analysis.

maybe I'm missing something.

I thought McCarthyism meant accusing loyal Americans of being weak and treasonous because they disagree with those who's first inclinication -- despite protests to the contrary -- is to use force with no plan for the aftermath.

Of course, my understanding is an unstudied one. So it may fall outside Bernstein's view of those zany private actors destroying the lives of thousands of loyal Americans just because they exercised their 1st Amendment right to disagree.

I say again. What's so remarkable about the second Flag-Salute Case -- West Virginia v. Barnette -- is that the SCOTUS invoked the principle of dissent and diversity in explaining why kids do *not* have to salute the flag, which will actually enhance national security.

In contrast, the first flag-salute case -- Gobitis v. Minersville School Dist. -- the SCt only 3 years earlier relied on forced unity to explain how national security is preserved.

Oh. Did I mention. Barnette was decided in 1943 -- in the middle of world war.

Gobitis was decided during the relative calm of 1940.

My point? Diversity and dissent breed a strong loyalty to our country and its princples.

Dick Cheney -- who the next time he's wrong will be his first (not!) -- could take a lesson from, hmmm, history?

Eric's post is fine as far as it goes, but even the blacklists themselves were not spontaneous actions of private anti-Stalinists. They were a response to great pressure that was put on major media corporations by anti-Communists (and by the way, it was anti-Communism, not anti-Stalinism, as these folks didn't think Trotskyites or even social democrats should get work either) to drive the Left out of a position of perceived influence.

The Right puts out a lot of noise about this topic, and fools a fair amount of people, but there's good reason why "McCarthyism" and "blacklisting" are still epithets.

"American anti-communism was already building steam before WWII"

Exactly so, at least since 1916 when the impending formal entry of U.S. into WWI brought forth a rash of oppressive fascist-like legislation, and a wave of vigilantism in this country that makes the current bunch of Bush fear mongers and apologists look like pikers.

The American Protective League and local Councils of Defense were given "authority" (sometimes extra-legally) by federal and state governments. These organizations allowed or condoned private individuals' vigilante harassment, assaults, property confiscation, and murder. The victims of this oppression was often socialists, members of the labor movement, and sometimes just anyone that a mob did not like.

Look up Palmer Raids

Eric,

Exactly how does expecting "McCarthyism" to be connected with McCarthy constitute an "artificial boundary?" I don't sit in an ivory tower, but including events that predate McCarthy in an assessment of McCarthyism seems like a stretch to me. I suppose the sack of Carthage was an outgrowth of Christianity, too? The pograms in medieval Germany a consequence of Israeli foreign policy? Is Terry Gilliam ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081633/ )teaching history down in North Carolina these days?

Lostingotham, you're just being provocative for the sake of being provocative here.

David Bernstein is writing a scholarly review of a scholarly book for a scholarly journal. He's making some sort of evaluative claim about the First Amendment impacts of the wave of anti-communism that swept the nation from the late 40s well into the 1950s. Although the word "McCarthyism" has crept into our language as a catch-word for that period, if one is interested in studying the impact of intense anti-communism on First Amendment rights, there is no reason at all for separating the anti-communism practiced in 1949 from the anti-communism practiced in 1951.

My first and only experience with loyalty oaths came the summer of 1969 (between my freshman and sophomore years at Carolina)when I applied for a sommer job with the postal service in Hartford, and was asked to sign an oath which stated that I did not "belong to any organization listed in Eexecutive Order ___" (I don't remember the number.) That's all was handed. I made the mistake of asking to SEE a copy of the executive order that was mentioned, as I had NO idea what they were talking about. A supervisor finally came over and told me in a very loud voice that I was "the only person who had ever asked to see a copy of the executive order". He was very suspicicous of me, and finally located a copy of the order. It appeared to be a list of organizations from the Spanish Civil War, 30+ years prior to my job application.

We faculty at the University of Oklahoma still have to sign a loyalty oath.