.
.
McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES:
The Record And Its Meaning
by William F. Buckley Jr. and L. Brent Bozell
copyright: 1954
.
In a very recent email to an Amazon.com friend, I recommended McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES: The Record And Its Meaning by William F. Buckley Jr. and L. Brent Bozell. Then I added: “I should post a review of Buckley's book on Ammyland, too, one of these days. But I'm always thinking: Who's gonna read it now? Old out-of-print book about a subject that everyone thinks is dead and decided.” But the fact is that recently I DID submit a review for Roy Cohn’s excellent book, McCARTHY, and I got to thinking: If I don’t inform the public about these outstanding old books that sort out the myths and the lies of the Liberal spinmeisters from the truth and the hidden history, who will? Should I wait for Al Franken, Al Gore, or Alan Colmes to do it? It seems al be waiting a very long time if I do!
.
Along with Cohn’s aforementioned title, it was the extraordinarily well-documented information in McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES that transformed me years ago from being just another sheep in the flock of American Sheeple (who assume that the broadly used but seldom understood pejorative catchword “McCarthyism” stands for some injurious black mark on the American psyche) into a well-informed but heartbroken fan of the most unfairly maligned and tragically heroic character in our country’s history.
.
Heartbroken? As I said to a different Pal not long ago in referring to my Amazon review of the movie Good Night, And Good Luck: “When it comes to Senator McCarthy, my heart is in a perpetually broken state. I loathe what the powers did to him and his good name. ... It is a national disgrace that the American people don't know the true McCarthy story and have instead been brainwashed (quite literally) into believing that he was some kind of evil and a menace to American society and American principles. He was a flawed hero, but far more heroic than flawed!”
.
Before using the term “McCarthyism” (or allowing someone else to use it in your presence) you owe it to yourself to get acquainted with the facts of the case. Would you pronounce a man guilty of a crime before hearing the evidence? McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES will provide you with the information necessary to render a judgment either for or against the infamous Senator from Wisconsin. The book is meticulously researched and flawlessly organized, and to the best of my knowledge, remains the most comprehensive examination of McCarthy’s part in the so-called “Red Scare” that is bound between covers. [*This changed with M. Stanton Evans’ magnum opus, BLACKLISTED BY HISTORY: The Real Story Of Joseph McCarthy And His Fight Against America's Enemies. Get your nasty, politically incorrect hands on a copy!*]
.
Buckley and Bozell have herein addressed nearly every one of the oft repeated liberal complaints against McCarthy: unsubstantiated accusations; “smearing” innocent people; publicizing his charges; hiding behind Congressional immunity; impugning the loyalty of his critics; and even the assertion that “McCarthyism” represented some rogue “Reign of Terror” to enforce a strict conformity upon the country.
.
The authors make a concerted effort to bend over backwards in making the most of the Liberal positions (e.g., in Appendix D, they state: “We have selected those of McCarthy’s characterizations that are the most derogatory, thus those that make out the strongest case for a charge that he is a reckless smearer.”) While this approach leads Buckley and Bozell to give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-McCarthyites in an instance here and an instance there (where I would not necessarily concur), I’ll state unhesitatingly that they chose the right tactic, as this invalidates the predictable bitching from the Leftists that McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES is a mere unfounded polemic.
.
Did you know that the derisive epithet “McCARTHYISM” was coined by a man later found by the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security to be “a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy”? [pg. 62] (Something you might want to consider before using it yourself or affixing too much value to it when you see it in print.)
.
Did you know that McCarthy was once blamed by a New York Rabbi for “undergarment raids” committed by college men in women’s dormitories? [pg. 308] (Give those Libs credit for fantastic imaginations that nearly match their inability to process facts and reach “reasonable” conclusions.)
.
Did you know that McCarthy made public only 9 of the 110 security risks he named before the Tydings Committee (and only because his opposition, for all intents and purposes, pressured him into it), and that during his “Reign of Terror”, the Grand Inquisitor of the 20th Century publicly accused only 46 persons of questionable loyalty or reliability? [pg. 273] According to the authors, “With the two exceptions of Drew Pearson and George Marshall, not a single person was accused by McCarthy whose loyalty could not be questioned on the basis of a most responsible reading of official records.” [pg. 277]
.
I, however, do not agree with Buckley on every point: On page 313 he writes, “Impulsively, and absurdly, McCarthy denounced government sponsorship of books which follow the Communist party line.” I would suggest you wait to read Roy Cohn’s account of this episode in McCARTHY before assuming the Wisconsin Senator’s stance was “absurd.”
.
In chapter XII, Buckley over intellectualizes and renders unnecessarily convoluted the arriving at an acceptable definition of a “loyalty risk.” The plain truth of the matter is that the USA was designed as a Constitutional Republic, and the Constitution proclaims itself to be “the supreme law of the land.” (Article VI) Our elected leaders are sworn to uphold and protect our Constitution, and therefore, anyone who undermines, or enables another individual to undermine, the clear intent of the Constitution and/or our constitutional republican form of government is a “loyalty risk.” (And, yes, the Constitution IS clear; only judicial activists -- usually Socialists / Communists -- muddy its meaning.)
.
And in Appendix F, Buckley explains why he believes that McCarthy deserved to be criticized for his imputation of treasonable motives to George Marshall’s policies regarding China. While Buckley concedes that Marshall probably deserves the title of “America’s most disastrous general”, he is willing to attribute his inordinate number of major foreign policy blunders (17) to “irrationality”. And yet, in citing Dorothy Kenyon’s involvement with 28 Communist front organizations, Buckley infers that her loyalty status was at least suspect. Sorry, Buckley Boy, but you can’t have it both ways. I tend to agree with McCarthy: “If Marshall were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve his country’s interest.”
.
Nevertheless, McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES is profound; a remarkably well-researched and revealing study to which I give my highest recommendation. Roy Cohn’s 'McCARTHY' might be a better starting point for the neophyte student of “McCarthyism” as it is more personal and therefore more accessible. This book, being primarily a recitation of cold, hard evidence, may seem a bit “dry” to the uninitiated, but once your interest in the subject is whetted, I’m sure you’ll devour every fascinating fact with the same relish that I did. (For a brief but accurate overview of the subject, click HERE.)
.
“McCARTHYISM”: Communist propaganda term or a scandalous period on a formerly great country’s record? Examine the evidence for yourself and render your verdict. While the uninformed may think that this is all just ancient history, I tell you this: The Communist threat is NOT dead, only the vilified Wisconsin Senator is.
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
.
[This Guide was written and originally posted online in August of 2005.]
.
.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"LET'S USE OUR HEADS FOR SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST COWBOY HAT RACKS!"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
==================
* SPOILER ALERT! *
In order to tear this movie limb from limb, it will be necessary to reveal significant plot points. I suggest you forgo reading this guide if you've never seen HIGH NOON but think someday you will.
==================
TIME TO RE-EVALUATE THE "CLASSIC":
HIGH NOON (1952) is considered to be one of the greatest of the classic Western films.
In his book 'Western Films', Brian Garfield writes, "HIGH NOON is an exquisite thriller about the ninety minutes before noon on the wedding day of Will Kane [Gary Cooper], ex-marshal of Hadleyville. Kane learns that Frank Miller, a killer he sent to prison, has been pardoned & will arrive on the noon train to exact revenge." That's an overview of the plot.
'The B.F.I. Companion To The Western' comments that "the film is memorable for its careful illusion of 'real time' suspense... [High Noon is] usually interpreted as a liberal allegory of existential man faced by the horrors of McCarthyism."
There are two ways in which HIGH NOON should be critiqued: Cinematically and Politically. The first part of this guide will look at it Cinematically. In Section 2, we'll examine its political underpinnings. The movie has been registered as a national treasure with the Library of Congress, but I think this has more to do with its politics than anything else.
HIGH NOON is NOT a terrible movie. Its use of "real time" suspense to heighten the drama was a unique idea in 1952. The scene in which the pendulum of the grandfather's clock ticks off the final minutes like a metronome before the train whistle blows was suspenseful and nicely edited. But overall, HIGH NOON does not live up to the accolades and cannot withstand a careful examination. There are some significant flaws in the movie: Some of the plot devices are too contrived. Some characters defy genuine human nature. As just simple-minded escapism, HIGH NOON is acceptable, but it is hardly the "masterpiece" professional critics have made it out to be.
THE CLOCK IS TICKING:
The problems start with Gary Cooper's performance as Marshal Will Kane. Although he earned an Academy Award for it, a glance through 1952's competition will show that there wasn't much of it. In truth, Cooper's performance was one-dimensional. He plays every scene with a whimpering look on his face and a lump in his throat. We can expect the hero to be experiencing fear, but at the same time, we're supposed to accept this man as a no-nonsense, frontier lawman who previously cleaned up the wild 'n' woolly town of Hadleyville. Cooper doesn't look like he's that man. In fact, the same expression appears on his face in the opening scene when he marries the Quaker girl, Amy Fowler (Grace Kelly). He looks as if he's about to cry, both at his wedding and throughout the rest of the picture! Brian Garfield praises Cooper's acting as "possibly one of the most intense performances by any actor ever to have been filmed". Only if Cooper were portraying a man "intensely" constipated, could I agree with Garfield's assessment.
Having married the man just minutes before, Amy Fowler learns that Kane is going to remain in Hadleyville to face down Frank Miller and his three fellow outlaws intent on killing him. She is entirely incapable of understanding his reluctance to tuck tail and head for the hills like a scared little dog. Objecting to having to wait an hour to find out whether she is a married woman or a widow, she gives Kane an ultimatum: Either dash out of town with her now, or say goodbye forever.
Did Amy Fowler just drop from the sky? Did she know nothing about this man she married? Kane was largely responsible for saving Hadleyville from its criminal element and making it a respectable place for families. He was a well-known and (mostly) admired man in the town. How come Amy Fowler seems to know less than ANY other person in the town about the character of the man she has fallen in love with? Does it seem reasonable that she should be so ready to abandon him when he chooses to remain and face his responsibility, all because she MIGHT soon find herself a widow? By leaving him, in essence she was GUARANTEEING her "widowhood" by her own actions. Bright girl that Amy Fowler!
At the first sound of gunfire, Amy rushes back to her husband from the train depot. This makes all of her earlier protestations against violence ring hollow -- especially when she picks up a gun herself and shoots one of her husband's opponents in the back. (Something even he wasn't willing to do!) Clearly, Amy Fowler's motivations were lacking any REAL commitment and her threats about leaving Kane were nothing more than a contrived plot device meant to increase the perceived tension in the story. Everything about the character, Amy Fowler, was artificial -- she was simply a device!
Another plot device intended to heighten the suspense is the fact that the townspeople leave the Marshal to face the killers alone. Each citizen finds their excuse to abandon him. While this device accomplishes its goal, it is not the least bit believable! Those early Western pioneers were, almost without exception, extremely hearty and courageous people. They possessed an intestinal fortitude that today's soft Americans can't even imagine. It is not a lily-livered individual who packs up a few belongings and crosses the plains in a prairie schooner or Conestoga wagon, travels over mountains, across rivers, braving thunderstorms, dust storms, Indian and outlaw attacks to forge a new life in a barren land. It is entirely unrealistic to believe that every upstanding man in Hadleyville would suddenly turn chicken at the approach of four outlaws!
Two incidents from history serve to illustrate this point: When Jesse James' gang attempted to rob the First National Bank of Northfield, Minnesota, on Sept. 7, 1876, the citizens (not even the fearless Western variety, but mostly Nordic immigrants) responded with armed force and sent two members of the gang to their Maker. Within days, the posse killed another outlaw & captured Bob, Cole and Jim Younger. (See the movies 'Great Northfield Minnesota Raid' and 'The Long Riders'.)
An even worse fate awaited the Doolin-Dalton gang on Oct. 5, 1892, when they rode into Coffeyville, Kansas, with the audacious plan to rob two banks simultaneously. When the news of what was occurring spread to the townspeople, they armed themselves & shot it out with the desperados who were attempting to escape. The Doolin-Dalton gang was decimated! Bone chips are probably STILL being collected from the streets! (See 'The Last Ride Of The Dalton Gang')
The most egregious example of a false motivation comes in the form of Deputy Sheriff Harvey Pell (Lloyd Bridges). Dissatisfied because Kane has not recommended him to the town council for the recently vacated position of Marshal, the Deputy Sheriff walks out on Kane. This device, designed to leave the Marshal alone, does not work because it is not the reasonable actions of a brave lawman. If Pell really desired Kane's support in garnering the promotion, wouldn't it have been obvious that standing with the Marshal in defense of his life, when all others turned their backs, would have resulted in the commendation he sought from Kane? Bright boy that Harvey Pell! HIGH NOON has too many contrived gears to make it the least bit believable.
Having been utterly abandoned, with only a few minutes remaining before the four gunmen come for him, what do you suppose a brave Western lawman would do? Formulate some sort of plan by which he might gain an edge? Concoct a way to even the odds? No, not in HIGH NOON! Our hero sits down to make out his Last Will And Testament. Now there's a doggedly determined Western man for you! And just what possessions is he so concerned about leaving to his loved ones? We saw him earlier leaving town in a wagon and it didn't contain much of anything other than his new bride!
THE CLOCK STRIKES TWELVE:
...and here comes Frank Miller and his 3 outlaw buddies. They know that Kane is waiting in town for them, so what do they do? They do like any smart outlaws would -- they walk right up the center of the street, just like ducks at a shooting gallery! Bright boy that Frank Miller! Had Marshal Kane planted himself in a second-story window (instead of writing out his Last Will And Testament), he could have picked 'em off like shooting fish in a barrel! (But then all semblance of realism left this picture early on!)
Give Kane credit for being smart enough to maneuver himself behind the outlaws while they come marching up the street. Now he's in a position to open fire from behind before they know what's hit them. BUT NO! Kane couldn't do that! Why that wouldn't be fair. (As if Frank Miller is concerned with fairness! Four against one -- that's called "outlaw morality".) No, the only fair thing to do is to call out to your opponent before shooting. "Heads up, boys; I'm behind y'all here!" So, what happens when Kane yells to Miller? Miller & Company wheel around with their guns a-blazing, of course. Immediately the edge that Kane had managed to establish disappears in a cloud of smoke. Bright boy that Will Kane!
To make a long shootout short -- Kane dispatches his opponents (with the help of a nicely placed bullet to the back and a clawing of Miller's face by his pacifist wife, Amy). Just as the last gunshot echoes through the streets, a stable boy pulls up with Kane's horses harnessed to his wagon loaded for the honeymoon. Kane wordlessly drops his Marshal's badge into the dusty street, climbs onto the wagon with Amy and the "bright bride & groom" ride off into the sunset together. End of "Classic" Western. Boy, they don't make 'em like they used to! Aren't you glad they don't make 'em like they used to?
THE DUST SETTLES:
We're all adults here, so let's be honest... HIGH NOON may be suspenseful toward the end, but it is certainly no "masterpiece." This is just simple-minded "entertainment". That it's been registered as a "national treasure" is really kind of embarrassing. If you want to see the "real time" suspense concept utilized far more successfully, I suggest you check out the relatively unknown Western, '3:10 to Yuma' (1957). Although it is a HIGH NOON derivative and its ending is a bit implausible, '3:10 to Yuma' is everything HIGH NOON wanted to be and more! It boggles the mind to consider that of the two, HIGH NOON came to be regarded as the "Classic." But that's probably due to its hidden "political" agenda. Shall we?...
SECTION 2
THE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE POLITICS OF 'HIGH NOON':
HIGH NOON has a well known reputation as a political statement. It is my belief that its political aspect is more responsible than anything for its continued celebrity. HIGH NOON is supposedly the rebuttal to "McCarthyism" from Hollywood's Liberal Left.
As a political statement, the movie is wrong-headed and rather opaque, but then Communists / Socialists have never exactly been known for their smarts and lucidity!
I am borrowing the following explanation (*with its bias evident) from the Lycos / Tripod website, which will make clear what all the fuss was about. Due to space constraints, I've had to severely edit it:
* * * * * *
By showing an example of a man who stood up to outlaws, [HIGH NOON] criticizes those who gave the names of people with left-wing political views to the McCarthyites and the House Un-American Activities Committee during the Red Scare.
The 1947-1954 Red Scare directly affected Hollywood and the movie industry, but was not limited to them. Several people in the State Department lost their jobs as suspected Communists or went to jail. Two people -- Julius and Ethel Rosenberg -- were electrocuted for their (supposed) role in a ring to smuggle atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The federal government and organized labor were also targets of the scare.
THE HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE (HUAC):
This committee was not held in very high regard during the '20s and '30s, and did not do much. But starting in 1947, when the Republicans took back control of Congress for the first time in 18 years, it became active again.
During the first part of the [HUAC] hearings, the Committee called cooperative (“friendly”) witnesses and allowed them to read prepared statements. These people testified about what they knew of Communist activity in Hollywood. Representing the studios were Louis Mayer and Jack Warner. Representing actors were Gary Cooper, Robert Taylor and Ronald Reagan.
.
In 1951, HUAC reconstituted itself under the leadership of Georgia Democrat John Wood. Also, the Senate got in on the act through its Internal Security Committee under the leadership of new Wisconsin Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy. These two committees were much more reckless and indiscriminate than the first phase of HUAC. They made wild, unsubstantiated charges about hundreds of people in Hollywood and the federal government. Thus, the term “McCarthyism” is equated with the more colorful “witch hunt.”
If you “named names” and recanted publicly in front of the Committee about your Communist past, you got to keep your job in Hollywood. If you stayed silent, you got fired. If you reasserted that you were a communist, you lost your job and were subject to prosecution by the government during this period. Hollywood people, especially people who had a leftist past, found themselves choosing sides, losing friendships and holding grudges forever.
.
'ON THE WATERFRONT' (1954):
In the 1930s [Elia Kazan] had been involved with the Communist Party for a few months, but then became disillusioned with its beliefs and methods, and dropped out. In 1952 he was subpoenaed to appear in front of HUAC. He agonized over what to do, but ultimately he “named names” and denounced Communism. He angered a lot of his friends and colleagues, some of whom would never speak to him again.
Depth of feeling about Kazan’s recantation and “naming names” still runs deep in Hollywood. In 1999, when the Academy Awards people wanted to give him a lifetime achievement award, many people walked out of the ceremony.
[*An indication that Hollywood is STILL loaded with Communists / Socialists! And which I believe accounts for the rabid esteem that the movie HIGH NOON still enjoys in Hollywood. ~ STMcC]
Kazan produced On the Waterfront in 1954. Many people have interpreted the movie as a metaphor for what Kazan went through in Hollywood. The hero of the movie is a dockworker who turns in fellow dockworkers who have been instrumental in letting the Mafia infiltrate and take over the union. In the end, the informant gets severely beaten and loses family members, but ultimately triumphs over evil. Substitute the words “Communists” for “Mafia” and “Elia Kazan” for “Terry Malloy” and you have a not-so-hidden defense by Kazan for his actions in 1952.
HIGH NOON (1952):
This movie stars Gary Cooper, one of the original “friendly witnesses” from 1947 who felt bad about his role in the whole thing. The script was written by Carl Forman, who was blacklisted right after the movie came out, and did not work in Hollywood again until the 1960s. Most people see HIGH NOON as a metaphor attacking HUAC and the Blacklist, which is plausible considering the situation of its writer.
The movie is much more subtle than 'ON THE WATERFRONT'. It is the story of one man who stands up against evil and violence to defend a town that will not even defend itself. The “evil” is McCarthyism and the Red Scare; the “town” represents Hollywood; and “the marshal” is a person who would not cooperate with the whole process. The power of this movie in delivering this message was not so subtle that people did not immediately get it. One of the most outspoken anti-Communists in Hollywood at the time, actor and director John Wayne, called HIGH NOON “the most un-American movie I have ever seen.”
* * * * * *
There is much I could write concerning this topic, but space being limited here, I will make just two points :
It is important to keep in mind that although his name has become synonymous with the entire so-called Communist "Witch Hunt" era, the Wisconsin Senator, JOSEPH McCARTHY, was not personally involved in the question of Communist subversives in the Entertainment industry. That was the House Un-American Activities Committee’s area. McCarthy was ferreting out Communist spies that had infiltrated our government. (A good idea, unless you're a Commie.) For his efforts, the man was demonized unmercifully by the mass media and even many of his fellow Senators. No man has been more vilified in the United States than McCarthy. Even Jesus still fares better in America. It's almost impossible to find anyone defending McCarthy's honor.
Everyone "knows" that McCarthy was the most evil American of the 20th Century. But no one can tell you why -- other than the generalities they've heard: "Didn't he smear the reputations of a lot of innocent people by making unfounded and reckless charges about their character and Communistic associations?"
Ah, but is that true?
That's what the masses have been conditioned to believe, and since few people bother investigating the facts for themselves, they assume it to be true because they see it printed and hear it said so often.
ARE YOU READY NOW TO LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE "EVIL" JOSEPH McCARTHY?
There are only two groups of people "justified" in hating McCarthy: Communists & Socialists. That is such an important statement that I'm compelled to repeat it... There are only two groups of people "justified" in hating McCarthy: Communists & Socialists.
Unless you think it's a good idea to have Communists secretly working in sensitive departments of the U.S. Government, you ought to be appreciative of what McCarthy attempted to do before he was rendered ineffective by the Powers that be -- The Wizards Behind The Curtain. McCarthy was a good man who desired to save his country; he was a "great American patriot" (in the words of John F. Kennedy) who fought the forces of Collectivism and that's why the mainstream press still hates him to this day!
.
The absolute truth is that the Leftists did to McCarthy EVERYTHING they falsely accused him of having done to others! NO? You don't believe me? All it takes to know is a little reading and verifying. You might want to read the following books that vindicate McCarthy by revealing the truth that you'll NEVER get from the controlled mainstream media :
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Or...
Why not start with a cost-free examination on the worldwide web by clicking the following link?
.
Link:
.
THE REAL McCARTHY RECORD by James J. Drummey
.
After you've been thoroughly shocked by this truth, you need to consider how many other beliefs you might currently hold that are nothing more than the result of the controlled mainstream media's brainwashing! If they could fool you this badly about JOSEPH McCARTHY, couldn't they have fooled you just as badly about many other subjects as well? Give this some serious thought!
In the final analysis, HIGH NOON must be considered suspenseful but overrated. It's simple-minded entertainment at best, and downright un-American at worst (as John Wayne claimed).
As for me... I gotta go now. It's High Noon, and I hear my Mommy calling me to lunch. I think it's Peanut Butter & Jelly samwitch again. Oh boy!
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
2005, August
.
.
2Oth CENTURY HEROES
by American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
copyright: 2000
.
My family participates in a "Mystery Santa / Gift Theft" game every Christmas Eve. A few years back, I anonymously brought a copy of 20TH CENTURY HEROES for the game, hoping to swipe it for myself -- which I did. "Santa" knows what I like.
.
20TH CENTURY HEROES is a fine book, featuring well-researched and nicely written profiles of "25 extraordinary individuals [who] helped steer the course of history away from the tyranny of the Total State." These people were GREAT GIRAFFES, not POLITICAL TURTLES! The book is loaded with photographs and 5 to 10 pages are dedicated to each hero.
.
In his Introduction, Gary Benoit writes: "On the surface at least, the tragic history of the last century does not appear to offer much hope for the survival of our Christian-style civilization ... the 20th-century prologue to the new millenium could be described as the rise of the Total State -- the totalitarian "isms" (Communism, Nazism, Facism), under which the ruling elite exercise absolute power without any religious, moral, or legal constraints. ... Of course, none of the heroes honored in this book was perfect; all of them were sinners. Yet, by the grace of God, they were able to perform heroic deeds in spite of man's fallen nature and, in many cases, to rally their countrymen in defense of freedom."
.
The 25 individuals are profiled under the following categories...
.
MARTIAL VALOR:
Douglas MacArthur / George Patton / Draza Mihailovich / Henri Guisan
.
STATESMANSHIP:
Chiang Kai-shek / Francisco Franco / Antonio de Oliveira Salazar / Syngman Rhee / Moise Tshombe / Augusto Pinochet / Robert Taft
.
FAITH, COURAGE, CHARACTER:
Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty / John Birch / Charles Lindberg / Ezra Taft Benson / Booker T. Washington
.
SCHOLARSHIP, PHILOSOPHY, IMAGINATION:
Ludwig von Mises / G.K. Chesterton / C.S. Lewis / Taylor Caldwell / Yoey O'Dogherty
.
FREEDOM ACTIVISM:
John T. Flynn / Martin Dies / Joseph McCarthy / Dan Smoot / Robert Welch
.
I have an affinity for any book that sets the record straight concerning the calumny STILL being upchucked by the mass media about Senator Joseph McCarthy -- (TV Guide's Dec. 5-11, 2004 issue featured 'The 100 Most Memorable TV Moments!' Coming in at #39, "HAVE YOU NO SHAME?" [6/9/54]: "At the Army-McCarthy hearings, the lawyer's question for the senator finally shows who the real enemy is." *Anybody who believes that is in dire need of deprogramming!)
.
Although the man died before I was born, I feel an intense pain in my heart for McCarthy, and embarrassment for how this country turned its back on that truly heroic patriot. America was not worthy of him. Even less so now.
.
'The New American' magazine (an organ of the John Birch Society) is quite possibly the finest current events periodical in the country (see [link> www.thenewamerican.com). Since these essays first appeared in its pages, it is no surprise that John Birch and Robert Welch are included.
.
20TH CENTURY HEROES will be a valuable research tool in the bookshelf of any real American patriot concerned with the struggle between liberty and despotism, between the free enterprise system and State-controlled abject collectivism. However, my mind being devoid of Panglossian delusions, I am convinced that this book and the great truths it explores will remain largely ignored by this and future generations and to the detriment of global societies!
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
.
.
McCARTHY
by Roy Cohn
published: 1968
.
“I was beginning to feel scared and a little sick. We were being hounded, pushed into a blind alley... For a few brief moments I felt that the best thing would be to pack my bags and get away from Washington and its intrigues. But then a contrary emotion took over. When some people feel trapped, they have the instinct to turn on their foes and fight to a finish. The role of underdog, I discovered, can give one courage.”
~ Roy Cohn; McCARTHY, chapter 9.
.
ROY COHN, chief counsel for the Senate Investigating Committee under Senator Joseph McCarthy, opened his book, McCARTHY, with the following statements in his Prologue:
.
The full portrait of Joe McCarthy and the era in which he rose to such remarkable prominence and power must await the historian’s special training, insight, and distance from the events ... Emerson said, “Whatever games are played with us, we must play no games with ourselves, but deal in our privacy with the last honesty and truth.” To the best of my ability it is this I try to do in the pages that follow.
.
Roy Cohn’s honesty in recounting the good, the bad, and the ugly about the anti-Communist “McCarthy” years makes his book a truly compelling and essential account for anybody who wants to gain a clearer understanding of that monumental American epoch.
.
The full historical perspective that Cohn anticipated in 1968 is nearly upon us:
.
M. Stanton Evans, the historian considered by many to be the preeminent authority on Joseph McCarthy, is due to release his magnum opus, BLACKLISTED BY HISTORY: The Real Story Of Joseph McCarthy And His Fight Against America's Enemies in late March of 2007. I preordered the book 15 months ago, but the release date has been pushed back several times, and I’m now salivating on myself and champing vigorously at the bit. (My greatest fear has been that Evans will go to his grave with the book unfinished. I swear, if he dies before it’s done I’ll k!ll him!)
.
But I’m so eager now to get Evans’ definitive account into my hands that I recently decided to revisit my old copy of McCARTHY by Roy Cohn, and to post a review of it. (Quite frankly, I’m embarrassed that I’ve waited this long to review this important book while having previously posted junk for some silly stuff on this website. All I can say is -– for the godzillionth time -– “Uhp! I’m an idiot!”)
.
McCARTHY is the book that cemented Senator Joseph McCarthy in my mind as one of America’s greatest unsung heroes, and inspired me to adopt his last name as part of my pen name well before I began contributing reviews to Amazon.com (aka BigBitch.com). Certainly it’s the ultimate “insider” view of this chapter in our history -– it doesn’t get any more intimate and behind-the-scenes than McCarthy’s friend and confidant throughout the Army-McCarthy hearings and the Senatorial censure.
.
One might assume that Cohn’s relationship to McCarthy and his involvement in the war against Communism and our government’s cover-up would make him incapable of delivering an objective account. One would be surprised, however, by the degree of honesty presented here. The 14 years between the censure of McCarthy and the writing of Cohn’s book undoubtedly gave the author the distance necessary for the emotional impact to subside and make possible a limpid assessment. Cohn doesn’t flinch and shy away from calling attention to his and McCarthy’s shortcomings. For instance, of his first appearance in the Army-McCarthy hearing witness stand, Cohn calls his own testimony “rambling, garrulous, repetitious, brash, smug, smart-alecky, pompous, and petulant.”
.
He says of McCarthy, “His statements were frequently hasty and ill-prepared ... He played rough politics, occasionally took unfair advantage of people, and said harsh things in public ... I quarreled with him frequently [about his broad-brush approach] and stressed that by using this technique he sometimes placed himself in an indefensible position. But,” Cohn adds, “I never disagreed with the substance of his thesis. ... He had more real personal courage than almost any man I ever knew. ... When he became convinced that Communism was an evil, he took up the battle against its inroads into American life and fought the tough way he had learned how to fight early in life.”
.
McCarthy comes across in Cohn’s book as fully human, with all of his strengths and weaknesses on display, and if you can read it in its entirety and feel no sympathy for the Senator, then it is you whom I fear is not fully human.
.
Through this book you’ll come to know the “man” behind the myth, and you’ll see “the devil in the details” of his great political cause. I tend to think of McCarthy as a Western (Civilization) hero –- kind of a “John Wayne Goes To Washington” character.
.
There’s a great line in the Wayne Western THE UNDEFEATED, where The Duke shoots a villain after an argument erupts during a discussion. He rides back over to the group of people whom he’s protecting, and a properly “civilized” woman berates him, “You went out there to talk! Why did you have to shoot the man?” And John Wayne responds in that famous drawl, “Conversation kind of dried up, ma’am.” Likewise, Joseph McCarthy felt that the time for “nice” talk was over; it was time to take action against Communist infiltration in our government -– take action against communists determined to wreck our Constitutional Republic, to put the people of this nation in great peril and to overturn the American way of life.
.
Senator William Jenner, one of the 22 Republicans who voted against censure of Senator Joe McCarthy, told him, “Joe, you’re the kid who came to the party and pee’d in the lemonade.” In other words, McCarthy wouldn’t shut up and just go along to get along; he raised a ruckus when everyone else just wanted to “socialize.”
.
I urge EVERY American to read McCARTHY, no matter what you may think you already know about the Senator and “McCarthyism”. If all of your information has come from mainstream publications and movies, then trust me, you’ve seen only one side of a two-sided coin. You’ve examined the “Tales” side, now let’s also look at “Heads.” Roy Cohn’s McCARTHY is a great book.
.
While Cohn’s chapter titled “Why They Hated” is an interesting look at the philosophy espoused by the forces that opposed McCarthy, to get a better understanding of the macro view, let me also recommend the books, THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND by G. Edward Griffin, and THE NAKED CAPITALIST by W. Cleon Skousen.
.
“It has been a bitter lesson to come to Washington and see a reputation, gained at some effort, torn to shreds merely because I was associated with Senator McCarthy, who has become the symbol of hatred for all who fear the exposure of Communism.”
~ Roy Cohn; McCARTHY, chapter 16.
.
Senator McCarthy, wherever you are, I just want to say, “GOOD NIGHT, AND THANK YOU!”
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
.
.
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
directed by George Clooney; starring David Strathairn
2005
.
George Clooney’s GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK is a beautiful looking movie. It employs sharp, aesthetically appropriate black and white photography in order to capture the 1950s black and white television era, and to imaginatively incorporate period footage of Senator Joseph McCarthy and people related to the events for which he was famous. The cinematography and editing is first-rate, a real feast for the eyes, and I enjoyed the Ella-esque mid-century Jazz score.
.
Clooney’s movie is essentially a hagiography of the nearly humorless newsman EDWARD R. MURROW, played so woodenly by David Strathairn as to make Pinocchio seem like Gumby by comparison. (It may have been an accurate portrayal of his personality, but it doesn’t exactly make for captivating viewing.) There were a couple of nice performances in the movie, most notable is Frank Langella in the role of William Paley -- he had some real charisma.
.
Speaking strictly visually, the movie’s a winner. But GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK opens in 1958 at a banquet given to honor the television news commentator, MURROW. (It’s one of those types of affairs that my dear departed friend, Marty, once referred to as “a bunch of assholes patting themselves on the back.”) Of the many singularly wondrous works of Murrow that we’re informed of, one is that “He threw stones at giants ... not the least of which, his historical fight with Senator McCarthy.”
.
So, Murrow was David versus Goliath, eh? As McCarthy’s chief counsel, Roy Cohn, wrote in his fine book, McCARTHY: “All we had against us was the White House, the administration, the Democratic party, and the Republican party.” Wanna talk David and Goliath? So, enough about the movie’s artistic attributes, let’s talk FACTS since this is a one-sided demagogic attack on the dead Senator who was himself often labeled a demagogue by the print and broadcast media:
.
Our 1958 honoree tells his audience we need to get off our collective rear end and “recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us.” Well, guess what. It was, and still is! And so are magazines and movies ... just like THIS one. GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK (GN&GL) is simply more of Hollywood’s Socialistic brainwashing of Americonned citizens. (We are told in this movie that in the 1950s, Kent cigarettes filtered best; Liberace was giving thought to marriage; and McCarthy was slandering completely innocent people and ruining their reputations and their lives. Each one of those statements is only as true as the next.)
.
GN&GL touches on the most famous moments in the McCarthy “Communist Hunt.” (He was looking for Communists who had infiltrated sensitive departments of our government and who were being protected from exposure and removal by highly-placed government officials. Contrary to popular belief, he was NOT hunting witches.) But unless the viewer is familiar with the history, he or she will not likely grasp the relevance of certain details.
.
Murrow insists that “ninety-nine percent of the time”, McCarthy is wrong about the people he names as being security risks. Do you know what became of the 110 people in the State Department whom McCarthy named before the Tydings Committee -- but did not name publicly -- as possible security risks? (Pardon me, I forgot that you’re an Americonned citizen. Here’s an easer question for you: Who got kicked off SURVIVOR last week?) Well, 81 of those people were eventually dismissed or resigned from government service due to their Communist affiliations. Mr. Murrow, that’s nearly 74% proven right, not 99% wrong! (And here I thought I was bad at math.)
.
Watching GN&GL, the Americonned viewer will come away with the idea that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was falsely accused by McCarthy of being a subversive Communist front organization. Yes, the same ACLU founded by Roger Baldwin, who served as its executive director for 30 years, and who wrote 12 years after founding the organization: “I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” (Book: THE ACLU VS. AMERICA) You may not have known this fact, but I’ll bet you know who won the last American Idol competition.
.
In one scene, we see McCarthy’s Investigating Committee questioning the poor, old Black woman, ANNIE LEE MOSS, who was employed in the Pentagon’s Code Room. She denies ever having been a dues-paying Communist party member. The Great Murrow makes a heroine of the poor beleaguered woman, insisting that it’s a case of mistaken identity and irresponsible McCarthy charges. What you WON’T learn in GN&GL is that it was later proven using the Communist party’s own records that THIS “persecuted” woman (who lived on R Street in Washington D.C.) had indeed been a dues-paying Communist. Yes! Watch GN&GL, watch her lie, and watch Team Murrow defend her!
.
The scene that nearly made me laugh out loud has Team Murrow fretting, anxiously awaiting with bated breath the morning edition of the New York Times to see whether or not their television attack on McCarthy the night before will meet with the approval of the ultra-liberal but influential newspaper. Yes, the stridently anti-McCarthy New York Times -– THAT newspaper. That’s fairly analogous to tossing a bag of T-bone steaks into a kennel and then worrying that the dogs might resent it!
.
But what of EDWARD R. MURROW? Along with William Paley, he was a member of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (CFR), an organization whose principal founder, Edward Mandell House, wrote that he essentially favored “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” House further wrote, “For a long time it had seemed to me that our government was too complicated in its machinery and that we had outgrown our Constitution.” (Book: PHILIP DRU: ADMINISTRATOR) According to 16-year CFR member, U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Chester Ward, the primary goal of the CFR is “to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States ... to a one-world all-powerful global government.” This will be global, totalitarian Socialism. (Book: KISSINGER ON THE COUCH) Today, the CFR even offers an “Edward R. Murrow Fellowship Award” and the Time-Warner company, distributor of GN&GL, happens to be a CFR corporate member.
.
What did MURROW do besides fight McCarthy’s attempts to expose Communists hidden in our government? He defended J. Robert Oppenheimer who was fired as a security risk after it was shown that he had lied about his significant monetary donations to the Communist party. MURROW produced a highly complimentary “documentary” on Fidel Castro which aided the Communist dictator in his coming to power in Cuba. MURROW was an ardent defender of convicted Soviet agent Alger Hiss, and of Owen Lattimore, determined by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee to have been “a conscious articulate agent of the Soviet conspiracy.” MURROW also was a board member of the Institute of International Education, which encouraged young American school teachers to train at the University of Moscow. (Book: NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON: 25 YEARS LATER) Of course, you Americonned citizens wouldn’t know any of this because you’ve been busy watching C.S.I. Miami.
.
Shakespeare’s Juliet said, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.” Well, if it looks like a red rose, smells like a red rose, and is growing amongst red roses, I don’t care if it’s called a “courageous newsman” or a David who “threw stones at giants”, I say it’s a red rose. (And I gotta believe that GN&GL’s writer / director is planted in that same damned garden!) I’ve seen raw meat less “red” than Edward R. Murrow was.
.
If you wish to wake up and throw off the shackles that have brainwashed you about Senator Joseph McCarthy, read James J. Drummey's excellent overview of McCarthy's political career, 'The Real McCarthy Record', by clicking HERE. If, on the other hand, you wish to remain an Americonned citizen, then just go back to your episodes of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
