The incredulous prospect of Communists in high office in the United States government is still scoffed at today by liberals. The word “McCarthyism” still works like magic to dismiss any idea that traitors even exist, much like “Islamophobe” is used to laugh away the thought that murderous Muslims are in the government employ–or worse, that they have white liberal defenders in Congress, or yet worst of all, that they have a friend in the White House.
Chapter 6: “But Were There Communists In The State Department?”
People born in the ’50′s, the “baby-boomers,” are generally mis-education about American history, thanks to the liberal reconstruction of that history in public school textbooks. Liberals always win the media war. Imagination is their world. Propaganda is their forte. “Liberal hysteria has become historical fact,” says Coulter
Out of Joy Hakim’s A History of US, Vol. 10 (New York: Oxford University Press Children’s Books, 1999), we are told that McCarthy
“was a liar. Not your ordinary small-time fibber. No Senator Joseph McCarthy was an enormous, outrageous, beyond-belief liar.”
This little snippet was related to us in an article for Human Events by LeBarbera and Ryskind: “Popular Textbook Spews Venom at Reagan,” (1997). Coulter notes, too, that most modern academic (“scholarly”) history works on McCarthy rely on contemporary newspaper articles, and don’t involved primary sources or serious research. According to Coulter, it was liberal Commie types who were churning out the news articles to begin with. Much of that anti-McCarthy info was “recycled” from the Tydings Committee report–an ‘investigative’ effort designed by segragationalist Democrat senator Millard Tydings to destroy McCarthy’s investigations. Tydings father-in-law, in fact, the infamous Joseph E. Davies, was Roosevelt’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, and Davies loved Uncle Joe Stalin, like most everyone else in Roosevelt’s Democrat administration.
Historical facts were created by Commie advocates like journalist Isador Feinstein Stone, who supported Stalin in the ’30′s, and the Russian-backed “Progressive Party” candidate Henry Wallace in the ’40′s, and condemned the Vietnam effort in the ’60′s. Stone was lauded by all liberals as the icon of investigative journalists. Of course, Stone was a paid Soviet agent. Coulter cites at least three major research volumes which include information on Stone, one of which was published by Yale in 2002: John E. Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. One too many Russians spilled the beans on “Izzy.” Coulter goes into vomitable detail about Stone. (Coulter gives a courteous hat-tip to David Horowitz as one who came out of the Jewish-Communist culture.)
Communist journalist I. F. Stone, 1907-1989.
Liberal media, so satisfied with the McCarthy bit, so confident in its success, so completely deluded by it, actually tried to use it as a journalistic talisman when Kenneth Star began investigating Bill Clinton. Not that girly-man Kenneth Star was at all comparable to the gutsy Joe McCarthy, but liberals were terrified that Clinton would be irreparably damaged by any serious, truthful investigation. The whole liberal media machine was set in motion to defend Clinton. Coulter simply points out how they used their “McCarthyism” myth to discredit the whole notion that Clinton wasn’t a saint with an Arkansas accent.
The smear of McCarthy continued with rigour, focusing on a totally fabricated “fact”–exigent and earth-shaking. The accusers claimed McCarthy professed to have the names of 205 Communists in the State Department. McCarthy said he only had 57. His concern was about the other 148. It was Democrat Secretary of State James Byrnes who had admitted 205 ‘security risks’ at the State Deparment. The smear-mongering media accused McCarthy of “perjury.” Never mind the Communists. Let’s concentrate on McCarthy’s character. This is how the liberal mind works: dramatize the insignificant for ‘red herring.’ Works every time.
Spend all the time and effort on a completely insignificant side show, and make sure it is false in nature. That somehow always makes it more dramatic, and seemingly important, and true. A whole congressional committe investigated whether McCarthy had claimed to have 57 names (as he said) or 205 names. They finally had to admit the truth. He’d said 57.
The primary victim of outrageous persecution during the McCarthy era was McCarthy. Liberals hid their traitorous conduct by making McCarthy the issue. They did to McCarthy everything they falsely accused him of doing to them. The press didn’t mind trafficking the innuendo and smears when McCarthy was the target. Only when Communists spies and sympathizers were exposed did it qualify as a “witch hunt.”
They later accused McCarthy and assistants of being homosexuals–and this was post-mortem. Imagine that. Liberals, who we understand to be passionate supporters of homosexuality, are willing to accuse others–even the dead–of being homosexuals, it if will help discredit the accused. How’s that for consistency?
Of course, the tour de force, the “teachable moment” for liberal journalists, was when Joseph Welch stood up in the hearings and cried out against McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” This kind of emotionalism is the staple appeal of the liberal when exposed. It is considererd a moral crime to expose the immorality of the liberal. Coulter shows how the media forever aggrandized this Welch moment.
McCarthy suffered long under the abuse of the Democrats and their media. He did show the effects after months of attack. The constant diversion of the important issues, the perpetual dramatization of insignificance, the mockery of sincerity, all this would make the Welch moment seem the perfect projection. It was McCarthy’s enemies who had no sense of decency. They were deluded liars. Nothing more. And Coulter makes a lesson for conservatives out of the Welch moment:
Welch would say something vicious, McCarthy would reply, and Welch would start crying. This is why no woman worthy her salt ever loses an argument. She starts crying, making it unmanly to pursue your victory. With the exception of Senator Stuart Symington, whom McCarthy repeatedly referred to as an “alleged man,” McCarthy made the mistake of assuming he was dealing with men, not little girls.
Coulter points out that, despite the gigantic machinery operating against him, McCarthy was a cultural hero at the time. His popularity among Americans soared. By 1953, one liberal columnist admitted, “We had used up almost our entire bag of tricks against McCarthy, without marked effect.” (This is a quote from a book by Jack Anderson and James Boyd, Confessions of a Muckraker, 1979.)
Joseph Welch, left, and Joe McCarthy, right. Apropos.
So, today, when liberals accuse conservative media, what there is of it, we simply need to understand the background. Liberals have dominated media from the beginning. Their operations are long and well-established. They are demonstrable, if one makes the effort to research. In this regard, Ann Coulter’s Treason (2003) is probably the best work of its kind. That’s why there are entire blog sites dedicated solely to debunking the book. (Well, hey, liberals never, ever back down, or back off.)