McCarthyism alive and well...

[volatile]

Tony's recent thread reminded me of something that's been niggling me for a while.

Throughout the US election cycle, from the Democratic primaries forward, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama were accused of being "communists" or "socialists" by critics, or various of their rather centrist political and economic policies compared to Marxism. Rarely (in fact, almost never) were these comments, particularly those accusing communism or Marxism, were tempered with any qualification, or coupled with any extended thought as to why the particular idea being called socialist, communist or Marxist policy was actually bad -- just calling something "socialist" is often enough in American discourse to stand as sufficient criticism.

The word "socialist", and its more fundamentalist cousins, are deployed by media commentators, right-wing politicians and internet no-nothings alike as an insult, pure and simple. Why is that? Why are such accusations, when delivered by otherwise rather savvy, eloquent and intelligent individuals, so blunt, so harmful and so terse? Why do we so rarely see "Obama's tax plans - to "spread the wealth" - are socialist, and this is bad because...", or "Hilary Cinton's health care proposals were communist -- and this is bad because..."? Why, in short, is an accusation of socialism, communism or even, heaven forfend, liberalism in some cases, enough to stand on its own as a self-evident slur?

 

[corplinx]

3 percent higher taxes man, its pure Lenin.

I kid, but calling it McCarthyism is hyperbole on par with people casting these incremental policies as socialist/communist. McCarthyism had blacklists, congressional investigations, destruction of the livelihood of individual citizens. McCarthy wasn't dangerous because he thought people were commies, he was dangerous because he was in charge and could take action on his lunatic suspicions.

In a way, this is a sort of reverse smear. If someone paints an Obama policy as collectivist we can say "look, the neo-mccarthyists are at it again". Of course, silencing political thought through smears is what McCarthy did. McCarthyism wasn't just about rooting out imaginary Soviet spies, it was about silencing political thought as well. Communist ideas could lose you your reputation, job, and blacklist you from an entire industry.

 

[gtc]

Volatile, you really don't know why communism is a slur? Maybe you need to read up on the history of, say, the last 100 years?

 

[volatile]

Oh, I realise that. I'm not opposed to a little rhetorical hyperbole myself...

Although I did title this thread somewhat provocatively, I don't really think this is some kind of McCarthyist witch-hunt. But I am interested in why what are legitimate criticisms of communism and Marxism in particular are sidelined when such terms are used as self-contained insults.

There's so rarely any exposition, any justification, any theorising. It's just "that's socialist!" or "that's communist!", with no thought or explanation as to why this might be bad. The same thing happens from the Left, but it seems to me not with such frequency, nor such pointed brevity... is it just a rhetorical relic from the Cold War, or something more fundamental? Something to do with the way Americans do politics, do discourse, do public life?

I don't know - that's why I'm asking.

 

[jj]

I kid, but calling it McCarthyism is hyperbole on par with people casting these incremental policies as socialist/communist.

Such Hyperbole is how McCarthyism got started, Corps. That's how it got started. And we still, now, see people here on the board relentlessly pushing the same idea, over and over. I see the same thing elsewhere, a group of people who are willing to dishonestly, repeatedly, relentlessly push the idea.

jj

 

[corplinx]

Oh, I realise that. I'm not opposed to a little rhetorical hyperbole myself...

Although I did title this thread somewhat provocatively, I don't really think this is some kind of McCarthyist witch-hunt. But I am interested in why what are legitimate criticisms of communism and Marxism in particular are sidelined when such terms are used as self-contained insults.

There's so rarely any exposition, any justification, any theorising. It's just "that's socialist!" or "that's communist!", with no thought or explanation as to why this might be bad. The same thing happens from the Left, but it seems to me not with such frequency, nor such pointed brevity... is it just a rhetorical relic from the Cold War, or something more fundamental? Something to do with the way Americans do politics, do discourse, do public life?

I don't know - that's why I'm asking.

Republicans are still under the misperception that America loves rugged individualism and isn't a country of people looking for handouts paid for by other people.

 

[volatile]

Volatile, you really don't know why communism is a slur? Maybe you need to read up on the history of, say, the last 100 years?

Calling something "communist", with no further thought as to what the negative consequences of the particular target of your accusation might be, is indeed a slur.

Communism sucks, sure. But throwing it around as a cheap insult is still intellectually and politically lazy, particularly if that which you are accusing of being communist isn't actually communist at all.

Don't get me wrong, gtc - this isn't meant to be a thread about the benefits or deficits of communism. I'm simply intrigued as to how the words "communist", "socialist" and "liberal" have become shorthand for "bad", no matter what the political truth of that to which they are so freely attached.

In a way, this feeds into comments I made in the "Small vs. Big" thread, too - socialism might well be a bad thing for the quality of life of people in America, but that's not in and of itself self-evident. I would argue that being against "socialism" or even "communism" for ideological rather than purposive or practical reasons (being against the label qua the label) is silly for the same reasons that being for "big" or "small" government makes no sense until you decide what you want to achieve in terms of making people's lives better (the arguable purpose of governments). The important thing to consider is not the process or even the political means, so much, but the end point - the well-being of the country. It seems to me that responsible political discourse would mean that if you think a policy will negatively effect individuals or the nation, then explain why that is the case. Decrying something out of hand without this explanation is vapid.

 

[gtc]

It is semiotics.

Terms like McCarthyism, Inquisition, Socialism or Communist conjure images of the historically negative things associated with those terms. For the uninformed they just signify 'bad'.

Hence it is redundant to explain why McCarthyism was bad (unless the person you are addressing really isn't aware of the meaning of the term).

How it happens is probably explained in semiotics - probably a term is used so often it doesn't need to be explained anymore (like 9/11) and then it becomes easier to liken something to the term that everyone understands rather than having to explain it all over again (I haven't heard a phrase like 'a new 9/11' but it will come sooner or later).

 

[gtc]

In a way, this feeds into comments I made in the "Small vs. Big" thread, too - socialism might well be a bad thing for the quality of life of people in America, but that's not in and of itself self-evident. I would argue that being against "socialism" or even "communism" for ideological rather than purposive or practical reasons (being against the label qua the label) is silly for the same reasons that being for "big" or "small" government makes no sense until you decide what you want to achieve in terms of making people's lives better (the arguable purpose of governments).

I agree with what you say about big or small government. The term only makes sense in relation to what the government does. But I think people who use terms like Communism, Socialism and Liberalism negatively do have a purposive or practical reason for being against those ideas. It is simply implicit as the people making the statement and the audience for the term share the same understanding. Whether the underlying reasons for disliking the terms are valid is different, of course.

 

[volatile]

---

 

[corplinx]

Such Hyperbole is how McCarthyism got started, Corps. That's how it got started. And we still, now, see people here on the board relentlessly pushing the same idea, over and over. I see the same thing elsewhere, a group of people who are willing to dishonestly, repeatedly, relentlessly push the idea.

jj

McCarthy got started by falsely claiming to have a list of communist infiltrators in the federal government in the scared crapless days of the cold war. Not the 1980s good times watching McDonalds open in Russia days. The holy cow Chairman Mao, Russia just got the bomb, Alger Hiss days, communism on the march days.

If you want a good example of what would be modern McCarthyism, imagine if Senator Foo claimed to have classified documents about islamic terrorist infiltrators in the government in the days after 911. Imagine him using that sentiment to power a movement that would discredit and worse blacklist muslims from working Hollywood or being in the military. Imagine being hauled before congress for visiting a Mosque.

Those who don't remember McCarthy are doomed to misuse his name.

 

[CapelDodger]

McCarthyism isn't alive and kicking. Those who made live comments about "pro-" and "anti-" Americans got kicked to death.

"Godless" did for Elizabeth Dole, so it's time commies stopped whining .

 

[CapelDodger]

Republicans are still under the misperception that America loves rugged individualism and isn't a country of people looking for handouts paid for by other people.

And what it is, of course, is something else entirely.

 

[Thunder]

This is nothing but 1950s style Red Scare McCarthyite fear mongering.

If anything...anything..happens to Obama..and the guy who does it mentions "Obama is a Commy"...I will blaim everyone who helped spread this lie.

 

[Coffee]

McCarthy got started by falsely claiming to have a list of communist infiltrators in the federal government in the scared crapless days of the cold war. Not the 1980s good times watching McDonalds open in Russia days. The holy cow Chairman Mao, Russia just got the bomb, Alger Hiss days, communism on the march days.

If you want a good example of what would be modern McCarthyism, imagine if Senator Foo claimed to have classified documents about islamic terrorist infiltrators in the government in the days after 911. Imagine him using that sentiment to power a movement that would discredit and worse blacklist muslims from working Hollywood or being in the military. Imagine being hauled before congress for visiting a Mosque.

Those who don't remember McCarthy are doomed to misuse his name.

I think the problem could be "modern usage". McCarthyism has come to mean something similar to "fear mongering through smear tactics".
What McCarthy did was much more than that. He was powerful politician who was in the right place at the right time and he took advantage of a fearful populace. Currently the political/social atmosphere in the US isn't fertile ground for a McCarthy type politician to grow into power. What we have are fear mongers who are upset that their party lost the election. It's not much different than any other election year.

 

[CapelDodger]

McCarthy got started by falsely claiming to have a list of communist infiltrators in the federal government in the scared crapless days of the cold war. Not the 1980s good times watching McDonalds open in Russia days. The holy cow Chairman Mao, Russia just got the bomb, Alger Hiss days, communism on the march days.

More importantly, McCarthy was a product of the show-trial era, as presented by Nazis and Soviets alike. McCarthy was a good pupil, but what he missed was that show-trials are an expression of powers-in-place, not a route to power for jumped-up Senators.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think the problem could be "modern usage". McCarthyism has come to mean something similar to "fear mongering through smear tactics".
What McCarthy did was much more than that. He was powerful politician who was in the right place at the right time and he took advantage of a fearful populace.

McCarthy wasn't actually a powerful politican. He had no impact on US policy, he was just a useful distraction while that policy was worked out. When he went too far (by turning on the Army) he was crushed like a bug.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Let's appeal to yet another vague symbol, a Godwin junior, and stop using critical thinking. Who the hell wants to champion critical thinking on Mr Randi's board, for fox ache?

Name calling and label shoehorning is so intellectually elite, Volatile. Pardon me whilst I vomit.

DR

 

[volatile]

Let's appeal to yet another vague symbol, a Godwin junior, and stop using critical thinking. Who the hell wants to champion critical thinking on Mr Randi's board, for fox ache?

Name calling and label shoehorning is so intellectually elite, Volatile. Pardon me whilst I vomit.

DR

Yet another thread where you seem so unwilling to offer anything substantive. What happened to you, Darth? You used to have so much to say. I'm not even sure what that invective sentence even means. If you have something to say, say it.

I think this is an interesting phenomenon. I think it merits some critical thinking, and I'd like the perspective of some Americans who live among it. This just doesn't happen in Europe (indeed, one may even claim the opposite is true), and I'm interested into why that my be the case, and what the political, historical and cultural reasons for it might be, because I'm really not sure. So help me out here - what are your thoughts on the question at hand?

Are you denying it occurs? Are you questioning that it's a problem? Or something else? That vague string of words above tells this board nothing at all. Where is all the critical thinking, indeed?

 

[gtc]

I am pretty sure fascism is thrown around in Europe in a similar way and the old caricature of the European lefty complaining about 'anglo-saxon' or 'bourgouise' Economic or cultural values.