Venona Cables - McCarthy absolved?

[VonNeumann]

Out of curiousity, what specific part of the Constitution do you feel would be contradictory for a communist to support?

Being too lazy, I'll try to shoot from memory here, instead of looking it up. I think the Communist Manifesto has some salient planks such as: religion is the opiate of the masses and should be eliminated; ownership of personal property that can be used as a capital good should be eliminated...

If I have that right, then the 'freedom of religion' human right guaranteed (in the sense that no law should be made to infringe it) by US Constitution would be contradictory with the Communist Manifesto. Also, the US Constitution protects the right of pursuit of happiness and the right of ownership of property (sorry, but right now I cannot think of what article and in what way), which would contradict the Manifesto's stand on ownership of capital goods.

It would seem to me that a communist in US government, who would lean toward capital goods being owned by the government and not in the hands of individuals, would have a dichotomy in trying to uphold ideals that are alien to his own mindset.

Do you disagree?

 

[VonNeumann]

Also, oddly enough, you don't have to swear to uphold the Constitution to be a citizen.

You do to join the military, though.

Don't new citizens have to pledge allegiance? That's probably as far as it goes.

 

[VonNeumann]

So a Communist is incapable of working within the system to make changes?

Huh? I was saying they would have a hard time being truthful when swearing in, so it would seem to me. Once inside, especially in number, why would they be incapable? More likely... they were quite capable and effective. It almost seems laughable that the US never rooted out Castro. The effort under JFK (Bay of Pigs)seemed incompetent, to me. I'm not saying that is due to an infiltration because I do not know. ...but it seemed like there was some sort of thing going on for which was never publically revealed.

 

[RandFan]

Was anyone who McCarthy specifically smeared found to be in the Verona Cables? I don't think so.

He might have been right in a big picture kind of way, but what he did probably aided and comforted the enemy more than threatened them by making everyone look suspicious.

And then there is the whole loyalty oath thing...

Thanks Luke,

JFK, Robert Kennedy, not fans of Communism. Whitiker Chambers? A spy.

McCarthy, someone who took the whole thing a bit too far, ok, waaaaay to far. Sorry Michele Malkin, I'd do you but your wrong about McCarthy.

 

[VonNeumann]

I'm a little over my head here, but it's an interesting topic. Since the answer to your question hinges on the veracity of the Verona Cables, can you point me to a good analysis or two of that issue? Thanks.

Personally, I do not have reason to doubt the veracity of Venona (not "Verona" in case you are googling the wrong thing). I did not do any research before I posted the OP of this thread. I was reading the "Loose Change" thread and seeing a lot of conspiracy theory references. It made me think about McCarthy and Venona. Please go google and read because I would have to do the same thing to try to point you to something.

 

[VonNeumann]

And that's what was so monstrous about McCarthy. There wasn't evidence against the bulk of the people he went after. The whole business of HUAC, and Senator McCarthy's hearings, is one of the reasons that even when there's a real threat, people start to worry about what civil liberties we're going to be asked to surrender, for how long, and to what effect.

Yes, this is the historical picture we were all given. Very few ever come to the defense of McCarthy and I think he was probably over-vilified. So are we going to keep promoting an exaggerated picture of the man?

BTW, I seem to remember that Nixon was a high profile congressman in the prosecution of Alger Hiss as a communist spy. From then on, Nixon was treated badly by the press as a right-winger type, even 20 years later when he was president. That never made sense to me since Nixon never seemed very conservative to me. What he said and what he did, did not match. Some ultra-liberal things emitted from his role as president: opening up to communist China; wage and price controls. Hardly "right-wing". But the press hated him anyway, like, they never forgave him for doing-in Hiss. Its very confusing, to me.

 

[Euromutt]

Its not. I would wonder how a communist could swear to uphold the US constitution. Seems contradictory, to say the least.

Oh, please. In principle, every religion claims that it is the one true path to salvation, and that adherents of other religions are infidels, heretics or at best to be tolerated as second-class citizens. By that token, it "seems contradictory" to expect any religious person to swear to uphold the constitution, in particular the first amendment.

 

[VonNeumann]

Not at all.

Were any of McCarthy's victims actually mentioned in the Venona cables? To the best of my knowledge, the answer is "no," but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

If I go hunting for bear and come back with a rabbit, it doesn't make me any better a hunter to point out that there actually were bears in the woods where I was hunting.

I think Rikzilla posted some interesting post in response to this one.

You say "not at all", you mean that you do not think McCarthy made any correct allegations at all?

 

[VonNeumann]

Harry Dexter White.


HDW was the undersecretary of Treasury. He worked with the Silvermaster ring and placed other communist spies and fellow-travellers into sensitive jobs at Treasury.

I've read a couple books on VENONA, Elizabeth Bentley, and McCarthy himself. It is my opinion that McCarthy serves a historical purpose as America's "Ugly American". But seeing as how McCarthy was truly a miserable human being I believe that there are few interested in riding in on a white horse to salvage his legacy.

Can we leaven his record by pointing to VENONA? I believe we can...and maybe even (if we want to be honest in our history) we should. But are we ready to let go of McCarthy as bad example? I don't think so. Besides...as bad example McCarthy has finally assumed a role that has positive merit. Perhaps "bad example" is really all McCarthy is good for by now? Should we be so callous as to remove from him the one thing his life was actually good for?

As for me I had this discussion and I tried to ride to McCarthy's rescue since I thought (as did the OP) that old Joe had been wronged by history. I found that although he has been villified (unjustly in a few cases) he has earned much of his reputation. He was just not a good person...and when you ride to has rescue your pretty white horse gets very dirty.

-z

PS: Thanks Cleon...maybe I do need to participate in meaningless debates again? I feel a little better. Thanks friend.

Who is Cleon? ...someone who pointed you to this thread? I ask myself the same question about why I get into meaningless debates, but I am glad you registered a post here. Could you tell me what it was about McCarthy's personality or character that made him "bad", if we give him the benefit of the doubt?

 

[VonNeumann]

Oh, please. In principle, every religion claims that it is the one true path to salvation, and that adherents of other religions are infidels, heretics or at best to be tolerated as second-class citizens. By that token, it "seems contradictory" to expect any religious person to swear to uphold the constitution, in particular the first amendment.

That went over my head. First I would not be able to guess whether all religions in principle follow what you claimed - maybe most do - I dunno, but nevertheless the revelence I did not get. Are you focusing on the word "swear"?

 

[jj]

Your question about "who McCarthy specifically smeared" should be answered before we speculate further. Who did McCarthy smear? I assume by 'smear' you mean 'falsely accuse'. If he pegged a communist - that was his job.

Was it? Do you propose that all communists are enemies of the people? Is the mere fact that somebody believes in a political religion enough to make them somehow a criminal?

Why, you could say the same thing about atheists. Oh, wait, he did, he said atheists are "commies".

Of course, they aren't, but you seem to conveniently have forgotten that the cry "COMMIE" was nothing more than a way to ruin the life of anyone McCarthy didn't like.

The House Commitee on UnAmerican Activities, originated by Congressman Martin Dies of Texas, is often confused with McCarthy (McCarthy was a US Senator from Wisconsin). The HCUA was active from 1945 into the 70s. I think the Hollywood inquistion was run by HCUA, not by McCarthy. McCarthy was after State Dept and other high ranking US gov officials.

Err, HUAC, you mean?

You say "I think". Now, perhaps, you need to do something.
GO LEARN WHAT REALLY HAPPENED and get back to us.

Hint, the accusation of "commie" was a way to attack anyone who questioned whatever either Senator Joe or HUAC was doing. In fact, the similarity to how people went after anti-war people during 'nam, and how they go after anti-war people now by calling them "unamerican" is, well, more than striking, it's (rule-8ing) close to identical.

What do you mean about McCarthy possibly being "right in a big picture kind of way"? Do we know if he accused anyone that was NOT communist?

Well, let me put it the way that the burden of proof requires. DID HE EVER ACCUSE ANYONE WHO WAS REALLY AN ACTIVE SUBVERSIVE?

Not a "communist", but an active subversive. After all, he claimed that all commies (and fellowtravelers) were subversive after all. Despite the fearmongering of the day, much like the fearmongering of the present regarding other things, precious little evidence has emerged, then or now, that the people he attacked were subversives.

They were atheists, jews, people who belonged to the CPUSA (ok, perhaps such people are a bit, um, foolish, but do you say that about atheists in the present climate where atheists are less trusted than communists or Islamic people?), and mostly people who had the effrontery to stand up to him.

But where's the evidence that they were active subversives trying to make the USA into a communist state?

 

[jj]

Oh, please. In principle, every religion claims that it is the one true path to salvation, and that adherents of other religions are infidels, heretics or at best to be tolerated as second-class citizens. By that token, it "seems contradictory" to expect any religious person to swear to uphold the constitution, in particular the first amendment.

And communism's biggest objection to other religions is that they compete with communism's unsupported claims about human behavior that believers have to take on faith.

 

[VonNeumann]

I'm sorry. I still don't understand. McCarthy was right or wrong about what?

Simply stated:
McCarthy tried to prove the US Government was infiltrated in high positions by communist sympathizers and spies.
McCarthy was censured.
History made McCarthy the icon of false accusation.
The presumption is that McCarthy was wrong about US Gov being infiltrated with communists.
But in 1995, Freedom of Info Act revealed that the encrypted cable grams that went back and forth between Soviets who had permission to be in the US, and the Kremlin, were being intercepted by the US. These cablegrams are called Venona Cables. The transcripts of these decrypted cablegrams were kept secret for 50 years. When they were revealed to the public in 1995, it became apparent that the Soviets had accomplished more infiltration of US gov with Soviet sympathizers, spies, etc than the average American ever would have thought. After all, didn't we learn in school that McCarthy wrong?

I posited that McCarthy was correct.... but obviously unsuccessful. Correct because Venona revealed what it did about communists in US office.

I think it is like the fact that we all know that Emelda Marcos 'had 3000 pairs of shoes'. But how many of us realize that the US lost a huge military position? The US military bases in the Phillipines (think of US presence close to China) were reduced by a huge factor. ...average America Joe only knows about the shoes...

How many people know about Venona? ...average America Joe only knows McCarthy was a bad dude and don't ever go
'looking for communists under every bed'...

That sort of thing...

 

[Euromutt]

That went over my head. First I would not be able to guess whether all religions in principle follow what you claimed - maybe most do - I dunno, but nevertheless the revelence I did not get. Are you focusing on the word "swear"?

No, it's not about the swearing. It may come as a surprise, but it is legally acceptable to state an affirmation rather than swear an oath in the United States.

My point is that it is not in the nature of religions to tolerate the existence of other religions, and especially not "the free exercise thereof." Also, quite a few religions have the tendency to place limits on freedom "of speech, and of the press" (such as prohibitions on graven images and taking the Lord's name in vain). So if you looked at the demands of religious doctrine, and assumed that every adherent would rigidly adhere to that doctrine, you couldn't trust a single monotheist to uphold the constitution. Yet somehow, people do; every time there's an election, for starters. The last time there was any genuine widespread concern that a candidate for office might have divided loyalties was with JFK.

Well, apparently JFK was capable of putting his loyalty to the constitution before his loyalty to the Pope. Maybe an American communist could put his loyalty to the constitution before his loyalty to the teachings of Marx.

And communism's biggest objection to other religions is that they compete with communism's unsupported claims about human behavior that believers have to take on faith.

Absolutely. Arguably, communism is, for all practical purposes, a religion. There are certainly some parallels to be drawn between "Scientific Marxism" and premillennial Christian eschatology; you've got your Second Coming (the Revolution), your Tribulation (the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) and your Kingdom of God on Earth (the Classless Society). And, of course, you've got your infidels ("counter-revolutionaries") and heretics ("revisionists").

 

[VonNeumann]

Was it? Do you propose that all communists are enemies of the people? Is the mere fact that somebody believes in a political religion enough to make them somehow a criminal?

Why, you could say the same thing about atheists. Oh, wait, he did, he said atheists are "commies".

Of course, they aren't, but you seem to conveniently have forgotten that the cry "COMMIE" was nothing more than a way to ruin the life of anyone McCarthy didn't like.

Err, HUAC, you mean?

You say "I think". Now, perhaps, you need to do something.
GO LEARN WHAT REALLY HAPPENED and get back to us.

Hint, the accusation of "commie" was a way to attack anyone who questioned whatever either Senator Joe or HUAC was doing. In fact, the similarity to how people went after anti-war people during 'nam, and how they go after anti-war people now by calling them "unamerican" is, well, more than striking, it's (rule-8ing) close to identical.


Well, let me put it the way that the burden of proof requires. DID HE EVER ACCUSE ANYONE WHO WAS REALLY AN ACTIVE SUBVERSIVE?

Not a "communist", but an active subversive. After all, he claimed that all commies (and fellowtravelers) were subversive after all. Despite the fearmongering of the day, much like the fearmongering of the present regarding other things, precious little evidence has emerged, then or now, that the people he attacked were subversives.

They were atheists, jews, people who belonged to the CPUSA (ok, perhaps such people are a bit, um, foolish, but do you say that about atheists in the present climate where atheists are less trusted than communists or Islamic people?), and mostly people who had the effrontery to stand up to him.

But where's the evidence that they were active subversives trying to make the USA into a communist state?

Your response is pretty emotional. I never said anything about athiests.

Economically, I do not like communism because I think individuals should own the means of production, not states. I'm not sure that corporations are such a good idea even.

Also, I recognize that communism is really a bait and switch scheme - the thing about having a temporary administration that redistributes the wealth and then withers away. What a laugh. The administration is not temporary - it is the whole reason for communism. The international conspiracy to take over the world is the same bait and switch on a universal scale. It is a cunning idea to screw people - but fools fall for it over and over.

To find evidence of subversives wanting to reconstruct USA as a communist state, I can only think of one admission to that, off the top of my head. That was E.M.House, in commenting later about his novel "Philip Dru: Administrator". His influence is dismissed generally by history - but it looks to me that W. Wilson was his puppet.

Who knows?

 

[VonNeumann]

My point is that it is not in the nature of religions to tolerate the existence of other religions, and especially not "the free exercise thereof." Also, quite a few religions have the tendency to place limits on freedom "of speech, and of the press" (such as prohibitions on graven images and taking the Lord's name in vain). So if you looked at the demands of religious doctrine, and assumed that every adherent would rigidly adhere to that doctrine, you couldn't trust a single monotheist to uphold the constitution. Yet somehow, people do; every time there's an election, for starters. The last time there was any genuine widespread concern that a candidate for office might have divided loyalties was with JFK.

Well, apparently JFK was capable of putting his loyalty to the constitution before his loyalty to the Pope. Maybe an American communist could put his loyalty to the constitution before his loyalty to the teachings of Marx.

OK, I think I see. I noticed one time, reading a list of presidents of the US that most (many?) listed their religion as Unitarian. I don't know but isn't that a religion that is very tolerant of other religions? It is like they state that as their religion so as to avoid the conflict you posit.

 

[valis]

Communism is hostile to competing religons. Communism is a religion in and of itself. It merely attempts to replace God with a man made system.

 

[UrsulaV]

Being too lazy, I'll try to shoot from memory here, instead of looking it up. I think the Communist Manifesto has some salient planks such as: religion is the opiate of the masses and should be eliminated;

Ah. We haven't read the Communist Manifesto recently, have we? Marx's critique of religion is not as an evil unto itself, but as a symptom of greater oppression--it's what the proletariat use to soothe the fact of their oppression. Religion is the opiate, not in the War on Drugs sense that Opium Is Bad, but in the sense that it blunts the pain of the user. Marx's critique is ultimately that one needs to remove the need for religion--i.e., the suffering of the worker. It's not religion that needs to be eliminated, it's the NEED for religion.

If one was a Communist, I suspect it would be perfectly possible to embrace this philosophy that religion would be a nice thing not to need, while being perfectly aware that it's an imperfect world out there, and until the revolution comes (if ever) one can be perfectly content to work in a system that still dispenses opium to those in pain. It'd be nice if nobody needed painkillers, but this does not mean outlawing painkillers, it means working to eliminate pain!

So in that sense, were I a Communist, I'd have no problem with freedom of religion myself. You can take whatever brand of painkiller works for you until we find a way to eliminate your pain. Certainly the bit about seperation of Church and state would be something of which a Communist would very much approve.

You're also making the assumption that all communists must follow the Manifesto to the letter, and are uniform in their beliefs, which certainly they do not, any more than Catholics and Protestants and Unitarians are all following the Bible to the letter and are uniform in their beliefs.

 

[Cleon]

Who is Cleon?

That would be me.

...someone who pointed you to this thread? I ask myself the same question about why I get into meaningless debates, but I am glad you registered a post here. Could you tell me what it was about McCarthy's personality or character that made him "bad", if we give him the benefit of the doubt?

Rik and I got into a heated discussion about this, as my grandfather found himself at the wrong end of McCarthy's blacklist, despite not being a communist and especially not a spy. Rik was taking a, shall we say, contrarian position that (in essence) McCarthy was fundamentally correct, and the non-communists who got fingered were collateral damage who, since they were mainly liberals or left-wingers, had it coming anyway.

 

[grizzled56]

If McCarthy was right about the government being infested with communists, why couldn't they stop McCarthy? Obviously, they didn't have McCarthy's power. McCarthy wasn't stopped until a coalition of more powerful people joined together. I've heard that Eisenhower, overseer of the pinko love nest that was our government at the time, was one of the coalition.

Was America taken over by the Soviet Union? No.
Did the Soviet Union win the Cold War? No.
Were innocent people injured by McCarthy? Yes.

What did McCarthy contribute in a positive way to our country?