McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

Palomar · 2005-01-31 15:12:18

*It's been awhile since I started a politically-related thread, but current trends in the U.S. worry me a great deal. Recent headlines that high school students think First Amendment rights are no big deal, 50% of Americans polled last month think persons of Arabic/Middle Eastern descent living in the U.S. should have their civil rights and freedoms decreased, etc., etc.

The issue of McCarthyism just came to mind about 5 minutes ago. No, I'm not trying to be an "alarmist" -- even I was surprised it came to mind!

Are we facing -- or soon to -- a situation in the U.S. akin to the 1948 - 1956 (roughly) McCarthy era (just with a different scapegoat(s))?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism]McCarthyism : From Wikipedia

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-31 15:37:56

On some level it seems Americans have grown too lazy for "McCarthyism".

But on another level we always have it in effect to some degree, though with varying scapegoats. For example, now you get shunned in Hollywood if you're not a communist! We've got many mini-McCarthyisms (say it three times fast) floating around, none of them anywhere near critical mass but some growing. For some it's too much free speech, for others it's immigrants. Religion, atheism, guns, God, rich, poor, fat stupid and lazy. Plenty of overzealous scapegoating to go around.

Eternal vigilance. Watch for approaching threats from all angles, from beside and behind you as well as in front from those on the other side of the partisan divide. And sometimes the object of such activity isn't a scapegoat at all, but a very real danger. SOmetimes the object is as dangerous as the zealots claim but they're even worse. Even labeling something as "McCarthyism" has become a favorite scapegoating ploy.

It's probably wise to examine not only what they throw but what they're sitting in.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-31 16:13:01

If it can prevent courses like this being offered at our colleges for my kids then I am all for it.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 … -3268r.htm

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-31 16:19:13

If it can prevent courses like this being offered at our colleges for my kids then I am all for it.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 … -3268r.htm

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 … -3268r.htm

If you have to take the class, you probably aren't. :laugh:

Par for the course at UofM, located in the heart of the Peoples' Republic of Ann Arbor.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1107209976

ERRORIST · 2005-01-31 16:25:01

Sounds like Reagan was a McCarthy supporter since he was responsible for tearing down the wall. McCarthy sounds like a good ole boy! :band: :band:

Palomar · 2005-01-31 16:29:37

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 … -3268r.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 … -3268r.htm
If you have to take the class, you probably aren't. :laugh:

*I really enjoy your wit and wisdom, Cobra. :up:

--Cindy

ERRORIST · 2005-01-31 16:37:50

Thats problem they are trying to force us to take the class.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-01 06:58:34

If you find yourself vehemently opposed to the class but you're not quite sure why, maybe you need to be there.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-01 07:12:09

If you find yourself vehemently opposed to the class but you're not quite sure why, maybe you need to be there.

On some level you might have a point there. But as the university in question is right in my "backyard" relatively speaking and after spending a fair amount of time there I can safely say that the local mood is not so much "tolerance" as "Leftist fundamentalism". The local shops have postcard racks with a "Fidel Castro" section. ??? I'm not kidding.

I can't get too worked up about it, it doesn't surprise me in the least. It's amusing more than anything else.

Palomar · 2005-02-01 07:37:27

Thats problem they are trying to force us to take the class.

*Okay, this thread has turned into a discussion about homosexuality?

How ironic that while anti-gay sentiment seems to be increasing in the U.S., so apparently is the demand for more (and more and more) lesbian pornography, based on related news (general media) items. I guess it's just wrong when two men <ahem>...

...and I suppose that's already enough said.

--Cindy

P.S.: ERRORIST, your profile says you live in Alabama. So how exactly is the U of M "forcing" you to attend a class hundreds of miles away? ???

ERRORIST · 2005-02-01 15:16:54

u of m of michigan not U of M of Miami. I am not being forced to go to that class nor would I ever attend even if I was forced. I am sure THEY are trying to make that class mandatory in order to graduate from u of m if THEY have there way.Nope, Mars needs women and so does Earth.Thank God for them.

clark · 2005-02-01 15:19:00

bigotry is a beautiful trait. :laugh:

ERRORIST · 2005-02-01 15:30:35

In this case bigotry sustains life the other option does not.Life is our greatest gift.

Palomar · 2005-02-01 15:40:59

*I sure am hoping this thread doesn't degenerate into a mere troll-fest.

If it gets too far out of hand, I'll request the moderators lock the thread.

--Cindy

Trebuchet · 2005-02-01 18:58:42

I hereby derail the budding troll-fest by noting that the "brave insurgents" in Iraq have taken an http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickabi … 006]action figure hostage.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-01 21:56:02

Having looked up what The First Amendment actually says(! ), it is worrying that students, of all people, could be stupid enough to speak against it.
This is precisely the kind of human right the Coalition has fought to provide for the Iraqis.

As for depriving certain ethnic groups, religions or individuals of certain rights, this is easily equated with the Nazi treatment of Jews and needs to be treated with the utmost caution.
On the other hand, if there are religious extremists inciting their congregations to hatred and acts of violence, and if it's found that such incitement is taking place in more than one area, covertly, in places of worship, and in a language not commonly understood by the great majority of the populace, should governments take steps to curtail such activity?

It's a conundrum we face today because of Islamic extremism and its predilection for indiscriminate violence against anyone it perceives as an infidel. If we don't act, we leave ourselves potentially wide open to mindless bloodshed on our streets. If we take steps to restrict the freedom of Muslims to congregate however they may choose, we're fascists.

In the Roman Republic, before the advent of the emperors, power was held by a collegiate structure of magistrates, who consulted the Senate in all their decision-making. The chief magistrates, or Consuls, would occasionally appoint a Dictator, who assumed absolute power for a limited period (no more than 6 months) when the Republic was under serious external threat.
This was a remarkably sophisticated system, in that it allowed for a significant degree of consultation and input by the people for the most part, but deferred to the perceived advantages of absolute dictatorship when uncompromising and decisive action were essential to the survival of the state.

Of course, the world today is far more complicated and implementing a system exactly like Republican Rome's is impracticable. America's Patriot Act, as my limited understanding of it goes, might conceivably be regarded as a watered-down version of the old Roman response to a national emergency but it has led to fierce opposition. The magnitude of the threat to America and the rest of the world is hotly disputed, perhaps quite rightly, and many see its alleged exaggeration as an excuse for the covert advancement of a fascist agenda.

So, what do we do? Cling tightly to the letter of the law and rigorously apply democratic principles in all cases, no matter what the cost? Or do we countenance a temporary and limited curtailment of some of our cherished freedoms (somewhat like ancient Rome) when security seems to demand it?
???
[My forlorn hope is that, if this thread ever does get discussed in a sensible fashion, it doesn't degenerate into another game of political character assassination.
Some hope! :bars: ]

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 07:03:50

Having looked up what The First Amendment actually says(! ), it is worrying that students, of all people, could be stupid enough to speak against it.

These same "students" have also been taught about hate-crimes laws, "political correctness" and had an unhealthy dose of Left bent indoctrinating. In a sense, from their perspective the First Amendment is a farce to begin with, with the unwritten qualifier "as long as no one gets offended" tacked onto the end.

I suppose from that perspective government control over free speech for security reasons is perfectly natural, after all we're already controlling it to a degree to avoid hurting anyone's feelings.

Hell, in some schools they leave out the Second Amendment when covering the Bill of Rights! What a way to follow freedom of speech, with censorship of a politically contentious issue! :laugh:

They'll make good drones.

It's a conundrum we face today because of Islamic extremism and its predilection for indiscriminate violence against anyone it perceives as an infidel. If we don't act, we leave ourselves potentially wide open to mindless bloodshed on our streets. If we take steps to restrict the freedom of Muslims to congregate however they may choose, we're fascists.

Since we started with a discussion of McCarthyism let's look at in that context. On the one hand we could over-react and persecute anyone that even looks like a Muslim. Lock 'em up, deport 'em, whatever is easiest. Arguably the most effective, but wrought with all sorts of problems on multiple levels.

But then McCarthyism doesn't necessarily mean a paranoid outburst against innocent scapegoats. Sometimes there really is a communist plot, actual involvement of communists not withstanding.

:hm:

So how do we target the individuals that pose a threat and the places of worship being used as cover in a manner that doesn't enflame the entire Muslim community and the worms to whom any action against America's enemies is the height of evil?

Very carefully. Step one, if the enemy is militant Islam it logically follows to focus attention on Muslims. If certain quarters don't think it's fair, ignore them, they'll whine regardless. It's what they do.

Step two, get some people in those mosques. We can't get eyes in all of them all the time but we need to do better than we are. Whether Muslims or merely people with enough knowledge of the religion and the language to pass, we need to get some good old fashioned HumInt from the mosques in our own nation that may support terror cells, inadvertantly or otherwise.

Three, secure the damn borders. Know who's coming in and why, kick out anyone who doesn't belong here. Difficult, yes and we can't realistically do it one hundred percent, but the effort needs to be made. If law enforcement runs across someone here on an expired visa, arrest them and begin deportation procedures. If illegals are caught, kick 'em out. Anyone visiting our country that seems suspicious should be given appropriate scrutiny, anyone here illegally has already demonstrated criminal behavior.

None of these really solve the problem on their own, but that isn't the point. there is no "Terrorist Detector" that we can wave across a person and get a red light for "bad guy". But if we identify mosques involved in some degree with terrorist activity, and we identify someone who attends that mosque, and he's here on an expired visa from Saudi Arabia, maybe we should have a chat with him or just keep a close eye, depending on how much involvement we think there is.

We need not only to collect more information but sort it more efficiently. Find the enemy within our midst without succumbing to a witch-hunt mentality. McCarthyism Lite, under the radar and based on real evidence, even if directed at a specific group out of fear of wild conspiracies. We can't operate as though it were a military operation, but it isn't a criminal investigation either. We need to use the full capability of our intelligence services to locate the enemy operatives here to kill us. They see it as a war, if we look at it as a crime we bind our hands too tightly.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-02 07:48:29

I think this is a sensible and reasonable approach, CC.
So why am I thinking there'll be strong objections?
Or how could I imagine there wouldn't be?!!

clark · 2005-02-02 08:00:41

Sounds good to me.

Maybe we should get some HumIt from some of those Christian fundie groups that advocate murdering doctors and blowing up abortion clinics.

Do it for all of em, Budhists, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah Witness's, etc.

Then if any particular religious group complains of persecution by the State, Uncle Sam can say, "we persecute equally."

Perhaps we can go a step further and spy on any congregatipn of people, secular, religious, or otherwise. Maybe have kids report on their parents actions and words- what they say at home. Neighbors could form "neighborhood watch" programs where they report on their neighbors.

Yup, good idea.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-02 08:05:56

Hmmm.
Yeah, best do nothing then.

clark · 2005-02-02 08:16:28

But that would give in to the terroists who are actively plotting against us and our way of life!

Anyone who dosen't have the proper documentation should be deported. To further that end, we should require all people in the United States to carry federal ID cards, citizen or otherwise, that determines their eleigibility to be here.

This is not a safe world, and we are not safe. Our saftey will be ensured by allowing the federal government, and her agents, to effeciently assess each and every individual, there whereabouts, and their personal beliefs, opinions, and positions. This will further enable us to prepare and act on any new threats that may crop up in the future where we find new assoications that must be surveilled.

I'm on board.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 08:33:25

Black or white again I see, eh clark. Big Brother oppression or don't do jack. No sensible middle ground, realistically dealing with real threats in a manner that minimizes inconvenience and the potential for abuse. Grey is usually a more realistic place to be than black or white.

I think I'll start a new political movement, militant pragmatism or something. We'll wear grey shirts, have a platform of viable solutions that don't quite fit anyone's principles, subject to revision without notice. Whenever someone tries to label us we'll just shrug and say "sort of" then engage them in debate, try to turn them to the grey side.

One of us us, one of us, one of us. Or close enough.

clark · 2005-02-02 09:01:43

Honestly Cobra, I don't understand. I'm agreeing with you. Isn't all the the stuff I mentioned part and parcel of making America safer?

You were the one that suggested that we monitor Muslim places of worship, and I think that makes sense. Dosen't it also then make sense to monitor other worship centers, since they could be (and in some instances are) used for plots against the saftey of Americans and our way of life?

Now, I would suspect that monitoring all of these places and people is going to take massive resources, so wouldn't it also make sense to enlist the patriots of this country to keep their eyes and ears open? Shouldn't neighbors watch neighbors, because afterall, Uncle Sam can't be everywhere, and the terroists and evil-doers are not always easy to find.

Maybe using children to actively spy on their families is a bit much, but shouldn't we make it an option- say at local schools, children can report on any suspicious activites they see at home. It's just one more step in securing America.

Now, the whole Fed ID thing, I figure you would be on board for that. How else are we going to determine if someone should be here or not? We have millions of undocumented illegal aliens amongst millions of actual citizens. If everyone who should be here legitimetly has an ID card, then police or other federal agents merely need to demand to see that ID to easily ferret out whose who. You have a better idea for screening?

BWhite · 2005-02-02 09:07:04

Retinal scan database. Yup, that would solve everything.

Oh yeah, and every citizen gets a wi-fi chip sewn into their shoulder. That would be good for Intel and AMD, no?

= = =

By the way, the police already can gain access to the tollway authority records for those prepaid wi-fi tollway boxes and track where you drive. Go the next step and require Detroit to embed wi-fi chips in every automobile.

Then, we will be safe!

BWhite · 2005-02-02 09:10:34

David Brock nailed it, IMHO:

Newt [Gingrich] understood that conservatism thrives only when it has an enemy, and in the Cold War's wake, Newt declared war again, this time on the domestic enemy, the Democratic Party and the "corrupt liberal welfare state" it supported. Newt's analogy of American liberalism to world Communism made it possible for us to continue to divide the world into white hats and black hats, to channel our fears in a new direction. No longer would the Democrats simply be opposed; they would be destroyed.

Take away their scapegoats:

Muslims, the United Nations, liberals, gays, SpongeBob, and they are powerless.

Scapegoats are the Right's source of energy.

Therefore McCarthyism is inevitable.

= = =

And this why the old sci-fi plot of inventing a fake alien invasion fleet is so appealing. Lets hate some "Other" out there and if the "Other" is fiction, so much the better.

Edited By BWhite on 1107357571

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-01-31 15:12:18

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#2 2005-01-31 15:37:56

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#3 2005-01-31 16:13:01

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#4 2005-01-31 16:19:13

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#5 2005-01-31 16:25:01

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#6 2005-01-31 16:29:37

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#7 2005-01-31 16:37:50

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#8 2005-02-01 06:58:34

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#9 2005-02-01 07:12:09

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#10 2005-02-01 07:37:27

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#11 2005-02-01 15:16:54

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#12 2005-02-01 15:19:00

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#13 2005-02-01 15:30:35

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#14 2005-02-01 15:40:59

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#15 2005-02-01 18:58:42

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#16 2005-02-01 21:56:02

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#17 2005-02-02 07:03:50

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#18 2005-02-02 07:48:29

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#19 2005-02-02 08:00:41

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#20 2005-02-02 08:05:56

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#21 2005-02-02 08:16:28

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#22 2005-02-02 08:33:25

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#23 2005-02-02 09:01:43

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#24 2005-02-02 09:07:04

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#25 2005-02-02 09:10:34

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

Board footer