Monthly Archives: November 2011

No Sense of Decency, The Army McCarthy Hearings—Part I

Posted on by

I recommend this book because it presents a picture of history that is important. However, I would caution that I believe some of the information and accusations about Senator Joseph McCarthy follow “the standard media line.” The introduction to the book includes the quote from Joseph Welch in interrogating Senator Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?” This is referred to as a response to “…an attack by Senator Joseph McCarthy” on June 9, 1954. Stay with me through this review, which discusses many historically important events, and I’ll present the opinion that this quotation, from which the title of the book is taken, makes me less eager to recommend the book.

The Prologue to the book describes that Joe McCarthy, “…ruthlessly, and many would said (sic) recklessly—exploiting the tensions of the cold war between the United States and public anxiety about Communist subversion at home.” I disagree with much of the condemnation of Joe McCarthy for reasons I will discuss in a blog posting on the subject, but the focus on the influence of television on American politics in this book is intriguing. As the author observes, “As it turned out, history would show that the decisive factor…was …a very recent entrant in the American political wars: television.”

The author correctly points out several world events that led the American public to support McCarthy’s allegations of the Soviet threat and influence that led to weakening of U.S. positions during and after World War II. J. Robert Oppenheimer admitted association with Communist organizations while the debate about development of the hydrogen bomb was being debated. Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg were convicted and sentenced to death for providing the Soviets information that led to their successful detonation of an atomic bomb that was designed from information stolen from the Manhattan project. (Roy Cohn, who would be the primary assistant to McCarthy, was a key player in the prosecution of the Rosenbergs.) Continue reading →

Hoax

Posted on by

I’m posting a description of this word because I’ve been reviewing books about Joe McCarthy in that link of this web site, and he was described as “a fraud and a hoax” by one of his fellow senators. (You’ll learn Joe made the mistake of taking on powerful people and that he underestimated the extent of Soviet infiltration of the U.S. government if you read the reviews.) Regardless of that other subject, Wikipedia defines a hoax as “…a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as the truth.” Thomas Adv’s A candle in the dark published in 1656 mentioned hocus pocus as the origin of the word “hoax.” Magicians uttered lengthy phrases including the term hocus pocus to distract the audience from their sleight of hand. The phrase also was used to imitate (or mock) Catholic priests performing transubstantiation (the ritual of turning bread and wine into Body and Blood).

Election Politics

Posted on by

I nearly typed the title as “Election Year Politics,” but then was sad to realize that the next Presidential election is still about a year away. I don’t think I’ll begin a monthly countdown, because that would make the process to seem to last even longer. As a part-time Libertarian and dedicated Independent I mostly want the Republicans to decide on their nominee as soon as possible. Democrat spokespeople are puzzling whether Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, or some other Republican is the most evil person in America, and it is tedious listening to them trying to paint several people as the most evil while they await the Republican selection. The Republicans have the advantage that they already know that Barrack Obama is the most evil person, although there is some talk of Hillary getting back into the mix.

The arrival of the Tea Party (see the posting dated January 7, 2011 describing the origins), which apparently isn’t a political party at all, has been a further distraction or side show, depending on your view. And now we have the “Occupy” groups in various cities trying to decide what their message is beyond the fact they are enjoying protesting something and are angry about several things.

Much of front page of a recent Denver Post Perspective section was about the Tea Party, and pro and con views were given. A poll of Colorado voters not surprisingly found 79% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party while only 10% of Republicans agreed. The number I found most interesting was that only 36% of Independent/Others were favorable and 51% were unfavorable.

Curtis Hubbard’s article, “Where is the Tea Party taking us?’ lists people who are in the Tea Party as being called “Hostage –Takers, Heroes, Pariahs, Patriots, and Terrorists.”  It seemed to me that Democrats managed to energize enough voters who liked what the Tea Party was saying in the last national election to allow the Republicans to take control of the House of Representatives. (I can’t bring myself to credit the Republicans with being sufficiently clever to do that on their own.) I continue to be baffled by some the current rhetoric, but of course that’s probably because I’m not a skilled politician. As an example, let me give an example of what Robert Gibbs, former White House spokesperson recently said in an interview on NBC’s today show. He repeated what is becoming a Democrat campaign talking point that aims to cast the movement as extreme and divisive. ‘The Republicans are going to have to make a choice. Are they going to swear allegiance to the Tea Party, or are they going to work on behalf of the United States of America?’”  Michelle Bachmann recently explained the Tea Party by saying, “Let me say what the Tea Party stands for:  It stands for the fact that we’re taxed enough already. We shouldn’t spend more money than we’re already taking in. And, third, we should act within the Constitution.” Thinking about Bachmann’s explanation and the Gibbs’ comment, I wondered which of the three points Gibbs would consider un-American. I guess it must go back to that argument that we need to tax rich people more, and anyone who says otherwise is un-American. I posted a blog on the subject of how much we would need to tax rich people to be fair in December 2010, and my guess is that we would have to take all of the rich people’s money for some to consider it to be fair.  At least that is the approach that FDR proposed.

Going back to the polling about the Tea Party, the Denver Post articles recently said 40% of Americans now have a negative view.  I can’t help but wonder whether the media barrage of comments calling the non-existent party members “Terrorists” might have influenced those poll numbers.

For those who think my commentary has been slanted too far toward the Republicans, I will say one of my favorite comments about the differences between the two parties has been that Democrats want to tax and spend and Republicans want to spend and not tax. I believe the primary sin of the Tea Party is that the primary belief that neither approach is wise. A recent letter to the editor to the Idaho Statesman observed that witnessing Republicans and Democrats bicker over the U.S. debt is analogous to watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic.