I was given this book by a friend who thought I would find it interesting, and the Joe McCarthy story is certainly interesting. What most people know about him is that the term “McCarthyism,” is used anytime someone wants to accuse another of an unfair accusation. I’ve read a few of the numerous books written about McCarthy’s investigations of communists and communism in the federal government in the early 1950s. Few of the books have anything good to say about him. If you can think of a derogatory term, that term has probably been used to describe him. Joe McCarthy is often portrayed as one of the most evil men to set foot on the floor of the United States Senate.

“Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans paints a completely different picture, and it is filled with references. It also has copies of memos, letters, hearing records, etc. reproduced in the book that often debunk the common allegations against McCarthy.  Some of the debunking is quite straight-forward. He has been accused of being responsible for the House Un-American Activities Committee persecution of people in Hollywood. It would be quite unusual, perhaps even idiotic, to think a Senator would have anything to do with a House of Representatives committee.

I think it would be worthwhile to quote someone who didn’t like Joe McCarthy (and I think I’ll begin calling him “Joe”). Garrison Keillor wrote on December 17, 2005 in an article titled “McCarthy had a gift of graceful speech,” “It is exhilarating to discover the truth and to find out you were off the mark…There was a Soviet espionage network in our government and the fact that Joseph McCarthy was a drunk, a bully, and a cynical opportunist doesn’t change that. Along with a lot of other Democrats, I’ve wasted a lot of time on these issues that I was in fact wrong about. I’m glad to be set straight.” History has shown that Joe’s quest to expose the extent of communist penetration of the U.S. government and military in the 1940s was only incorrect in one important respect. He severely underestimated the extent of the problem. However, he stepped on many powerful political toes, and paid a huge price for the irritation he created.

Joe began his firestorm of political controversy February 9, 1950 with a speech to a Republican Women’s Club in Wheeling, West Virginia. He announced that there was a serious problem of Communist infiltration of the State department, that the problem hadn’t been dealt with, and that strong measures were needed to correct the problem. He said “I hold in my hand…” a list of Communists in the State Department. I find it fascinating that the McCarthy detractors then and now did not and do not dispute the underlying accusation. However, there were extensive investigations about the number of people he said were included on his list. He later said his list included 57 names, and there were Congressional investigations based on allegation he used a different number (usually 205) in the speech. The investigations weren’t focused on Communist infiltration of the government, but on the number McCarthy mentioned. I will write cynically that it wasn’t important whether there was Communist infiltration. It seems incredible that what was important was whether the infiltration involved 57 officials spying for the Soviets or 205. Joe would deny under oath that he had used the number 205, and would eventually be accused of perjury because of that denial.

The tape of the speech was erased, so there is no way of confirming what Joe said. However, the Wheeling newspaper had an editorial the day following the speech referring to “over fifty” suspects of Communist affiliation. The Denver Post had an article the same day with the headline, “57 Reds Help Shaping U.S. Policy: McCarthy.”

Samuel Klaus had drafted a confidential memo in August 1946 detailing the suspected Soviet agents in the State Department. A similar report was generated in 1947 by Robert E. Lee (no relation to the Confederate General). Several of the people named on those lists were on McCarthy’s list and were confirmed to be Soviet spies by the Venona project and by archives that were made public after the collapse of the Soviet Union,

All copies of the Klaus memo would disappear from public records. What has not disappeared from the public record is that the Soviets had a massive network of spies in the U.S. government and military during and after World War II. They obtained everything they needed to build their own atomic bomb from espionage operations inside the Manhattan Project. The U.S. State Department did everything possible to assure that a Communist government took over control of China. North Korea was positioned to invade South Korea and was later supported by the Chinese Communists. Joe might have come late to the party of figuring out why these things happened, but it is undisputed history that they did happen.  The author offers the opinion, “If McCarthy had killed someone during a spree of drunken driving, or been caught in adultery with a student intern, he would have been denounced and gone into history books as a scoundrel (or maybe not). But he wouldn’t have been rhetorically embalmed, placed on exhibit as an “ism,” or have his effigy dragged around the public square forever after. All too obviously, such nonstop derogation has occurred, not to blacken the memory of an individual, but to serve a broader purpose.” Perhaps the focus should be on why McCarthy was destroyed “…to serve a broader purpose,” instead of how many people were on his list.

The FBI had investigated communist infiltration for decades before Joe made his speech. Chief Special Agent Guy Hottel wrote in a 1946 memo to Hoover, “It has become increasingly clear in the investigation of this case that there are a tremendous number of person employed in the United States government who are Communists and strive daily to advance the cause of Communism…” The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began investigating for both Nazis and Communists in 1938. However, it was Joe McCarthy that “…blew the lid off some major security cases, foremost among them the long-buried Amerasia scandal, in which hundreds of official documents had been funneled to this pro-Communist publication and the facts about the matter hidden from the public.” “Officials at the White House, State Department, and elsewhere in government weren’t eager to have the unvarnished facts about the level of Communist penetration on their watch, and their failure to do much about it, set forth clearly before the nations. Joe McCarthy…managed to focus the blazing spotlight of public notice on these issues in a way nobody had done before him. He and his charges were thus viewed in certain quarters as a serious menace to be dealt with quickly, and in most decisive fashion. And so in fact they would be.” This book does a well-documented job of telling the story of how Joe McCarthy was destroyed to protect the guilty. Newsweek reported that the objective was the “…total and eternal destruction of McCarthy.”

Many of the books about Joe include a challenge to “Name one Communist (or Soviet agent) ever by identified by him in his sensational speeches and investigations.” The authors of that challenge apparently haven’t done much research. It is true that none of those charged in Joe’s lists were definitely proven to be Communists or Soviet agents in his lifetime, perhaps because most of the effort expended by investigators was to discredit Joe instead of looking into what he was saying. However Venona and the opening of the Soviet archives confirmed several of the people on his lists to be Communists, Soviet agents, or both. There is a list of ten people named by McCarthy on page 39 of the book that were later identified by Venona decryptions of Soviet cables (see the review about Venona for details). Chapter 26 lists a few of the people that Joe investigated and provides incriminating details about their associations and activities.

The origin of the derogatory term, “McCarthyism,” is quite interesting. Joe had resisted announcing names on his list public, observing that he did not believe it would be fair to name suspects until further investigation confirmed the suspicions. He repeatedly said hearings should be in executive session and steadfastly refused demands to provide names to the Senate. He said, “The names are available. The senators may have them if they care for them. I think, however, it would be improper to make the names public until the appropriate Senate committee can meet in executive session and get them.” He continued to refuse to “…indict them before the country, without giving them a chance to be heard.” He and his Republican colleagues on the Senate subcommittee that was to hear his charges voted to have the hearings in executive (secret) sessions. The subcommittee chairman and the majority of the subcommittee voted to hold the hearings in public sessions and announced there would be no executive sessions. Joe, in my opinion, made a mistake by believing the hearings were more important than the secrecy of the names, and began to name names. Thus, he became guilty of “McCarthyism.”

Joe, who was often characterized as a bully, was often bullied by his opponents. He was called to testify to a Senate committee, and was interrupted repeatedly as he attempted to read a prepared statement. Henry Cabot Lodge finally interceded, asking, “Why cannot the senator from Wisconsin get the normal treatment and be allowed to make his own statement in his own way, and not be cross-questioned before he has had a chance to present what he has?”

I’ll close this part of the review with an incredible story of Senator Millard Tydings, who was instrumental in the interrogation and criticism of Joe McCarthy. Page 244 of the book has a picture of Tydings displaying a phonograph record and player that he displayed to the Senate saying that the record was a recording of Joe’s Wheeling speech that was proof that Joe had lied about the number of people on the list he held that day. There was no record of Joe’s speech, and the record and player were nothing more than theatrical props. Tydings was called to give testimony in a libel suit between McCarthy and William Benton. He danced around the question successfully for a while, but was eventually forced to admit under oath that he did not have a recording of the Wheeling speech. The speech on record turned out to be a radio interview in Salt Lake City that substantiated Joe’s claim that he had used the number 57. However, of course Joe’s detractors don’t mention this “inconvenient fact.”

There is more to follow in part two.