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
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.
Blacklisted by History, the Untold Story of Joe McCarthy—Part III
The first two parts of this review discuss the early history of Joe McCarthy’s charges about extensive Soviet penetration of the U.S. government and the growing resistance by powerful forces to those charges. This part will discuss the later stages when attacks against Joe began be take hold. It is my opinion that his support base quickly eroded when he shifted his focus from people in the State Department to the U.S. Army in general and General Marshall in particular.
“McCarthy’s most controversial speech, deplored by friend and foe alike, was his marathon70,000 word indictment of Gen. George C. Marshall, presented to the Senate on June 14, 1951…” (The public gave Joe wide support before that speech.) McCarthy was seeking the source of policy blunders in and after World War II, and those drafting the speech for him decided Marshall was at the center of the problem. For example, Marshall disagreed with Churchill’s contention that an invasion of the French coast would result in disastrous casualties, and that the invasion should be up through Italy to the “soft underbelly of the Balkans.” Stalin was furious at that idea (because he wanted the Balkans left to him after the war), and Marshall and Eisenhower agreed with FDR’s desire to accede to Stalin’s wishes. Joe was also upset with FDR’s secret Yalta deal with Stalin that gave the Soviets control of Manchuria’s ports and railway systems (and conceded Poland to the Soviets) and the diligent efforts by the State Department to assure Communist control of China. The author offers the opinion that the “…criticism is deserved…a good deal of what he had to say about the policy blunders were not only true but urgently important…McCarthy was right that an immense conspiracy was afoot—especially with regard to China—though erring as to the role of Marshall.”
I found a memo originally classified “Top Secret” copied on page 423 to be quite startling. It turns out the State Department not only wanted Mao to have control of mainland China, they also wanted Chiang Kai-shek ousted from Formosa. The memo clearly states that “The U.S. should inform Sun Li-jen in the strictest confidence that the U.S. Government is prepared to furnish him the necessary military aid and advice in the event that he wishes to stage a coup d’état for the purpose of establishing his military control of the island.”
The book details Joe’s investigations and those conducted against him. The author observes that there were as many investigations of Joe as he conducted against others. He only had one Democrat Senator who was clearly on his side. Joseph P. Kennedy was an admirer of Joe, and McCarthy steered clear of Massachusetts as J.F.K. campaigned to become a Senator. Unfortunately for Joe, he made an enemy of Henry Cabot Lodge, who lost to J.F.K. That wouldn’t be as big a problem as the fact that President Dwight Eisenhower disliked Joe intensely. The anti-George Marshall speech had outraged Eisenhower. “Marshall and Ike were both products of the Roosevelt regime, avatars of the peculiar global vision FDR and Harry Hopkins had promoted during World War II. Both generals had been raised to power over the heads of others by the New Deal White House, and perforce were agents of Roosevelt’s often addled wartime notions and inertial carry-through by Truman. You couldn’t survey the Roosevelt-Truman record without running across the names of Ike and Marshall.”
There were two events involved in the eventual censuring and destruction of Joe that had a central role in the recent George Clooney movie “Good Night and Good Luck.” One was the interrogation of Anna Lee Moss, who wore a cute little hat with a flower on top and acted quite sweet and innocent under Joe’s interrogation. Senators Stuart Symington and Scoop Jackson asked Mrs. Moss whether there were other Annie Lee Mosses in Washington. She demurely answered, “Yes, sir, there are three Annie Lee Mosses.” The Senators and the media immediately decided that Joe had brought the wrong Annie Lee Moss to be interrogated. The facts later proved that there was only one Annie Lee Moss who had lived at the address where a Communist newspaper subscription had been delivered. The FBI had investigated the Annie Lee Moss who was being interrogated, found that she had joined the Communist Party on December 1, 1943, and had provided that information to Senator Scoop Jackson prior to the hearings. Senator Jackson had been told by the FBI they were convinced that she was a Communist.
There were also inferences that the position Mrs. Moss held did not warrant any concern regardless of whether she was a Communist or not. It turns out her job description was to, “Examine messages received in tape form in code and text from Receiving Banks…Process high precedence messages immediately by hand-carrying to overseas desk for quick routing…disposition of encrypted messages destined for or received from the Crypto Center…” As to Clooney’s portrayal of the Moss interrogation in his movie, Clooney made it clear after the fact that he had been informed that Mrs. Moss was a Communist and not a mistaken-identity victim.
The other event portrayed in Good Night and Good Luck was the one most remembered and written about in negative portrayals of Joe. Joe Welch was interrogating McCarthy’s assistant Roy Cohn about a variety of matters, and Welch was skilled at theatrics. Joe raised the issue of Fred Fisher who had belonged to a Communist front organization. Welch railed, “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never fully grasped your cruelty or your recklessness…Little did I dream you could be so reckless or cruel as to do injury to that lad.” When Joe tried to respond, Welch interrupted him with, “Let us not assassinate this lad further Senator. You have done enough. Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” Welch then broke into tears and the chamber responded with sustained applause. It turns out that Joe Welch had provided information for a New York Times article that he had “relieved from duty his original second assistant, Frederick G. Fisher Jr. of his own Boston law office, because of admitted previous membership in the National Lawyers Guild…a Communist front organization.” This article appeared six weeks before Joe mentioned Fred Fisher in the hearing. Apparently that NY Times article, reprinted on page 568, was of no interest to those bent on destroying Joe. Joe Welch did not rail at himself, “Have you left no sense of decency?”
I’ve requested a book titled No Sense of Decency by Robert Shogan. I’m guessing from the title that book will take a different tact on Joe’s “guilt,” but we shall see. I’ll remember the warning “history is interpretive” before seeing that book.
I’m going to close this with a quick mention that Joe McCarthy was censured by the Senate on 33 counts, many of which had been extracted from media accusations. One friendly Senator had asked why he could be censured for things said about other Senators when those other Senators weren’t being censured for viscous things they had said about him. The answer was that because Joe was being tried and no one else. Half of the Republicans voted to censure Joe and half voted against it. All the Democrats voted in favor with the exception of J.F.K., who did not attend the session because of illness. Joe’s name has been consistently vilified since. He died about thirty months after the censure vote, and it is often said he drank himself to death. The author observes that, “It’s true that, ultimately, they got him’ but it’s equally true that, before this happened, he got them—or at least a sizable number of them.”
Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark
This expression originated in Shakespere’s Hamlet, and refers to Marcellus saying “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” He is warning that all is not well in the political hiearchy. It seems that the current king Claudias was involved in his father’s murder to gain the throne. I’m posting this expression because I just completed a three part review of “Blackmailed by History about Joe McCarthy, and what I’ve learned from reading books about “Tailgunner Joe” is that politicians will stop at nothing to further their careers.
Qaddafi is Dead, What Next?
Several events in the Mideast will have major influence on the reshaping the region. Egyptian Coptic Christians continue to be persecuted with the death of several shot at a recent gathering and the burning of another of their churches. Tunisia elected the assembly that will draft a new constitution and Muammar Gaddafi was captured and executed along with one of his sons. The election in Tunisia perhaps will have the most impact. An article by Charles Levinson in the Online Wall Street Journal leads off with the sentence, “In an election viewed as a template for emerging Mideast democracies, Tunisians appeared poised to offer a new narrative: an assembly composed largely of an Islamist party promising a moderate platform, and two secular parties that have pledged to work with it.”
The Islamist Nahda Party won 43 of the 101 seats so far assigned of the 217-seat assembly that will rule for one year. The party has said it would not push for Islamist ideals in the new constitution. The Progressive Democratic Party that had campaigned heavily against Islamists won far fewer seats than had been expected. The U.S. government apparently isn’t skeptical about the outcome. Nahda leaders had visited with the State Department in Washington, D.C., and were said to be “…generally well received.” Aid to Tunisia had been increased before the election, and the Peace Corps will be reestablished. Hillary Clinton issued a statement praising the election, but with no mention of Nahda’s apparent victory.
There has been a flood of news reports since the execution of Muammar. I found a site that had a collection of political cartoons, and I appreciated many of them. My favorite was a cartoon that showed “Dozens of dangerous animals were shot dead in Oho this week…and one in Libya.” There was another that showed an oil pump from the Mideast to the U.S., with the captions “What could possibly go wrong.” Perhaps the most interesting was a depiction of President Obama on the Jay Leno show saying, “Jay, and then I personally beat Gaddafi to death with my Nobel Peace Prize.”
There is some pressure mounting for an investigation of Gaddafi’s death. It will be difficult to claim he was dead when discovered, since there is video of him being dragged from a drainage pipe wounded and bloodied, but still alive. He could be heard pleading for mercy for himself and his sons as he is being yanked around by his hair and beaten amidst taunts from his captors. The display of his shirtless corpse in a walk-in freezer was gruesome. I cannot help but cynically think, “Imagine the outrage if they had water boarded him.”
It is difficult to argue with the outcome of Gaddafi’s capture and death, which brought to mind Benito Mussolini’s execution in Italy during World War II. There were thousands of casualties in the bloody battle between the rebels and Gaddafi loyalists, and Gaddafi’s 42-year tyranny generated deserved hatred. He was buried in a secret location in the desert with the son who had been captured with him and his Defense Minister. He had three sons killed during the insurrection, but the one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, is still at large. He is thought to be trying to make it to make it to Niger to join other regime loyalists or perhaps to Algeria to join Gaddafi’s wife, daughter, and two other sons. There is concern that al-Islam might try to mount an insurgency against the new rulers if he succeeds at escaping to a country that won’t turn him over to the International Criminal Court to be tried for war crimes.
I’m more concerned about the speech given by the head of the Libyan National Transitional Council to announce Gaddafi’s death. He said, “…Islamic Sharia law would be the ‘basic source’ of legislation, and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.”
Blacklisted by History, the Untold Story of Joe McCarthy—Part II
Part one of the review about the book “Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans gives the background for Joe McCarthy’s original accusations about the infiltration of communist agents in the U.S. Government in general and the State Department in particular and the early attempts to discredit him and his accusations. This part will focus on the friction between those concerned about Soviet spying, including Joe, and reactions of other politicians, including the Presidents.
I’ve read several books that make it clear that Franklin Delano Roosevelt never wanted to hear negative things about the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. He had paved the way to provide diplomatic immunity to the Soviets. He didn’t want to hear that action had opened a broad pathway for the Soviets to establish a massive espionage network in the United States that sent its tentacles into just about every aspect of government and the military. Roosevelt made a rude remark to Adolph Berle when Berle tried to brief FDR about a Soviet espionage ring revealed by Whitaker Chambers. The author summarizes in biting terms the Roosevelt administration’s mood “…during the ‘gallant allay’ daze of wartime, when FDR, Harry Hopkins, and their minions were lauding Stalin, letting Earl Browder out of prison, and strewing roses along the path that led comrades to the federal payroll.”
Truman, I had always thought, took a much less conciliatory tone toward Stalin and the Soviets. I also had read that the generals who had control of who would be briefed about the magnitude of Soviet espionage as learned by the Venona project decided that Truman would not be given that information. The FBI is often blamed for the failure to identify and prevent Soviet penetration, and that blame often includes the allegation that that agency withheld information from Truman. However, the author observes that “…all of this is moonshine and will be so perceived by anyone who bothers to check the official records. As has been seen, the FBI was neither fooled by nor indifferent to Soviet penetration efforts in the 1940s…Nor did the Bureau withhold its knowledge of such matters from the Truman White house.” The author offers the opinion, “That he (Truman) was a visceral anti-Communist is not in doubt. However, he did seem to know little about the way the Soviets and their U.S. agents functioned, or their presence in the government he headed, and didn’t show much interest in learning.” Continue reading