Amendments and editorial to a recent post…
… Which I’m not quite undertaking yet. I thought (for once) I would consult with the readership for once and/or at least take it a little less hastily before committing to something (as much as I want to get other postponed blog items posted and out of the way).
On the face of things, recently Mark LaRochelle, associate editor of the National Journalism Center left a post on a recent blog entry, for the most part criticising my (brief) treatment of M. Stanton Evans’ Blacklisted By History. Now I’ll make something clear from the outset: while all the details at my fingertips (IP addresses, WHOIS look-up of the domain name of the website linked to etc) are in line with what I would expect if it were the real Mark LaRochelle, they are also in line with what I could expect from a not-overly ingenious attempt to impersonate the real Mark LaRochelle.
I remain agnostic on the true identity of the person claiming to be Mr LaRochelle. It could as far as I know, be a mischievous lefty propping-up a subtle straw-man for all I know (which could leave me with egg on my face if I made counter criticisms while alleging positive confirmation of identity). On the other hand, if it is the real Mr LaRochelle, then we have someone commenting from an informed position (M. Stanton Evans is the founder of the National Journalism Center) on a matter that I raised, hence which I should take seriously.
So I proceed cautiously and wherein I refer to “Mr LaRochelle” I am referring to whoever it was that made the comment. The real, or the impostor. It is the Internet over which this discussion is taking place after all.
Now, I can’t say that I’m in agreement with Mr LaRochelle although I do concede that there are certain things lacking in the way I addressed Blacklisted By History. My initial thoughts concerning my own words being thrown back at me, but with apparent meaning being somewhat different than I had intended and in a way that one can not blame Mr LaRochelle for. “John Morales” words on my immoderate use of language come to mind.
My post however, wasn’t about Blacklisted By History and indeed, I could excise mention of the book from my post and still validly draw the same conclusion (as mention of Blacklisted By History was auxiliary to another, more concrete example.) The mention of the book was largely rhetorical and entirely redundant to the post (which brings John’s mention of the word-count to mind).
I may very well excise the portion, however I what I won’t do is excise it and effectively pretend that it was never mentioned. I am in the process of trimming old blog entries (mostly from my old blog) but these are because I find fault with them, not because someone has picked me up on them however this case is clearly different.
I’m going to re-post the mentioned portion of The Political Correctness Conspiracy Theory in this post and then respond to a few of Mr LaRochelle’s points (and re-word or clarify a few of my own and perhaps make somewhat of a re-positioning). This serves to protect the original discussion from a potential source of red-herrings (which I would not be entirely blameless for) while giving those attracted to discussion of the book on this blog, somewhere to discuss it.
My decision as to excise or to amend the original blog entry will be pending what happens in the way of discussion in this thread.
The original, unedited, contentious portion of The Political Correctness Conspiracy Theory:
As I write this, AIA has as its featured book in its bookstore, Blacklisted by History by M. Stanton Evans. A book telling us how Joe McCarthy really was justified in the measures he used to out Communists, because the author, in five years of research using recently declassified documents, hasn’t found a single example where the accused were innocent of being communists.
This is negationism at its usual silly level. Two errors stand out immediately; firstly Evans’ proof is a positive conclusion from a negative premise – a logical fallacy. Secondly, just being a Communist isn’t enough to justify McCarthy’s antics, because just being a Communist per se doesn’t make one an enemy of the state unless of course you live in a totalitarian regime where free thought isn’t permitted.
It’s like saying that one is guilty of being a Capitalist. It’s not a crime! It’s freedom of association. You have to go further to find guilt than identify one’s political persuasion, i.e. the criminal means by which they attempt to attain their political goals – Iran-Contra anyone?
I’m not against the re-evaluation of history and being somewhat Popperian, you can gather what I think of historicism, but let’s not predicate revisions upon shonky reasoning (for obvious political motive). Whatever we may conclude about McCarthy’s character or that of his targets, one thing is still clear; McCarthy’s methods still violated first amendment rights and his motivation was right-wing political.
Of course, this negationism fits in just fine with AIA/AIM. Intervention to stop dissenting views is a common theme of their political ilk. McCarthy was justified (thus validating Lind’s “For the first time in our history…” line), government media ombudsmen are justified and the like of Bonner need to be run out of a job.
Now on to a few of the points (not all relating to Evans’ book) raised by Mr LaRochelle…
“Bruce, excellent commentary on political correctness. I am always astonished by the smug ignorance of people who use this term (Whatever happened to the insufferable Bill Maher?) with no appreciation of its historic roots in Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
Either through a lack of clarity on my part (which considering it was about 4am when I hit the “Publish” button, may not be far from the truth) or a mis-reading by Mr LaRochelle, but I’m not so sure that my point got across. Aside from not having an appreciation of PC’s roots in Maoism, I don’t have an appreciation of it being rooted in any form of Marxism (specifically that within the Frankfurt School), at least not the version of PC that we are talking about (i.e. the alleged policy/philosophical principal of political correctness).
Not that I think that Marxists don’t engage in these various things that people call “political correctness”, I just don’t think that it (PC) has been demonstrated to be either an articulated Marxist theory, nor uniquely Marxist in nature. Attempts to argue that it is fall back onto double standards and unfalsifiable allegations of plotting (in the case of Accuracy in Academia, complete with the hackneyed cliché of supposedly scheming Jews).
As for Bill Maher, well a quick search of RichardDawkins.net reveals that he’ll be coming to a screen near you with Religulous. I’ll have to check it out. It looks irreverent.
“However, your comments on Blacklisted by History fall so far short of your usual rigor, it’s hard to believe you gave the book the careful reading it deserves. You write, for example, that author M. Stanton Evans tells us that “Joe McCarthy … was justified in the measures he used to out Communists.” Where?
I’ll openly confess, that my depth of understanding of the book comes from a single reading taking place at the start of this year and that if I were to write an in-depth critique of the book I would want to both read it another couple of times (as I did with Dawkins’ The God Delusion) and to have access to source documentation (and not just that possessed by Evans.) Ideally, I’d also probably want to be a historian.
That being the case (and quite frankly from first readings suspecting that it wasn’t going to be conclusive based on a positive conclusion drawn from a negative premise) I’m not inclined to read further into the book itself or perform a detailed critique. This isn’t to say that I’d right it off or not welcome further academic investigation, nor that I wouldn’t become more interested if such investigation did take place.
Furthermore (and I am remiss for not articulating this for the first time around) my criticism was intended to be more about the culture surrounding the book; as inferred by such as the way it is received by the faithful, the way the book is marketed and the way Evans speaks about it on talk-back shows.
Now the full title of the book is Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies (emphasis added). Even the very title portrays McCarthy as a heroic crusader and while the tone of the text didn’t give me quite that impression, I don’t think that it would be an exaggeration to say that the book took a somewhat approving tone.
That being said, my wording and approach is perhaps in error and said “approving tone” should be directed not towards the justification of McCarthy’s “antics” (which are in dispute) but rather just McCarthy’s outing of communists and response of the culture (Evans’ readers) which approves of the outing of communists per se. While the mentioned FBI and East bloc archives may vindicate McCarthy in that his targets were people of interest, I don’t concede that any of this evidence that Evans provides proves guilt in any of the mentioned cases (and Evans has been running around claiming proof).
For example, Evans states here that from said documentation he could “sum up the relevant data proving McCarthy was right about the case“. This is wrong. If you presume innocence, then you could only at best say that McCarthy’s approach was right (and of course nobble a few of his critics in the process). One could not state that McCarthy was right about the case unless it went through due process (and went through due process with the lost evidence of course).
Evans is simply substituting his own interpretation for the level scrutiny and nuance afforded by due process (they way trial by media often does) and you won’t find me credulous to the notion of him as a neutral party. I’d like to give you more examples by way of YouTube, with citations marked by time-stamp, but sadly Firefox 3 is now giving me the same hassles that Jeremy has been experiencing (pause at two seconds). It was working yesterday.
“If McCarthy’s “motivation was right-wing political,” what’s wrong with that? If one is entitled to be a Communist, surely one is entitled to be a right-winger.
The thing is, I didn’t state that there was anything inherently wrong with being McCarthy’s motivations being right-wing, nor was it my point to do so. I’d ask one to consider that my comments were in the context of a criticism of a conspiracy theory that claimed that the censoriousness of political correctness was intrinsically of left-wing origin (something that was clearly overlooked in Mr LaRochelle’s comments if you recall).
“Finally, can you support your charge that “McCarthy’s methods … violated first amendment rights”? Making such a charge without supporting evidence would be an egregious example of “McCarthyism.””
Touché ! The riposte would be more ironic if I was actually making a critique of McCarthyism (or at least the idea of “McCarthyism”) though. Such (albeit minor) fetishism with the notion of McCarthyism, does show that at least in some capacity it can resonate with the mind of the right.
Still, I think I may retract the criticised statement. Though primarily for two reasons not mentioned.
Firstly, it may appear to some that I may be referring purely to legal principle, rather than the broader spirit of the first amendment (that of freedom of expression.) I’d really need some legal precedent for that and I don’t. Secondly, my post after all was in response to the PC conspiracy theory, which while claimed as a means to destroy America, was also alluded to be a broader attack on the west. I shouldn’t be confining myself to a nation-specific implementation of the broader principle I intend to address.
In any case. In-lieu of the missing evidence Evans dug up, how did McCarthy proceed?
He may have had good reason to suspect these people based on this evidence, but he still had to take this evidence through a due process. The evidence had to be scrutinised along with everything else at the time (and the accused cross-examined in light and aware of the evidence brought against them). Clearly, McCarthy couldn’t have done this (through no fault of his own).
Given that as Mr LaRochelle states, “Where Truman went after private citizens, McCarthy only went after Federal officials; whereas Truman tried to throw people in jail, McCarthy only sought to get them out of government”, one has to consider both what McCarthy was left to prosecute with (allegations of people being communists) and the consequence of a guilty finding (loss of officialdom).
Now the last time I checked, loosing your job (even if in a government job) based on political expression (essentially what McCarthy was left with in lieu of the lost evidence) acts as a suppressant on free expression. People, not just communists, were generally in fear of persecution at the time.
I’m not saying that I’m buying the popular narrative relating to McCarthy, it’s more the McCarthy fetishism that I was interested in (at least in as far as it related to my post). As for Truman, I have no interest in defending his reputation!
“I hope you have time to confront directly the evidence presented by Evans in Blacklisted by History in a future blog post. I would be interested in what you have to say about the actual substance of the book.”
I think I’ve already answered this. More public discussion by people more competent than myself is required before I’m confident to go any further in-depth.
As for “actual substance”, this is ironic considering how the “actual substance” of my post in question was entirely missed!
Now What?
Now, you can probably see how my decision to mention Evans’ recent book has the potential to generate red herrings, at least in the context of the original discussion. It is my hope that any such red herrings stay in the comments for this post.
Now it’s over to you the reader though. What amendments if any do you think I make? Should I excise the reference to Evans’ book, leaving all discussion thereof for this post?
~ Bruce
The political correctness conspiracy theory post is very good, and Mark’s lengthy musings on/apologies for McCarthy seem a bit of a derailment. Mark seems utterly unable to make the 19th Century distinction between political liberalism and radicalism, and seems to seriously believe the culture studies in universities are continuing Mao’s project.
There’s a breed of right-winger (usually US-based) who shouts from the rooftops that Gramsci and the Frankfurt school are indoctrinating children and taking over all institutions. They aren’t. In a general sense, one could maybe describe Mao’s tactics as fostering a political correctness – but then, one could say much the same thing of many a dictator and demagogue.
The gist of your post, as I understood, was to tackle some of the falsehoods peddled by Lind and co. To that end, the Evans reference is probably unnecessary, as are Mark’s digressions in Evans’ defence. Still, I’d be interested to hear some challenges of the material Evans puts forth.
Bruce, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my comment.
Yes, I am really me. Although I am no longer at the National Journalism Center, I was indeed associate editor (and later editor) there in the past. I am currently manager of information services at the Education and Research Institute.
I apologize if I introduced any Straw Men or red herrings into the discussion. That was not my intention. I didn’t mean to suggest that I thought you were aware of the specific Maoist origin of “political correctness”; I meant only that Prof. Chen agreed with your general point regarding the ignorance with which people feel free to pontificate about the subject.
Your comment about the subtitle of Evans’ book is well taken. Evans wasn’t happy with it either, but New York publishing houses pay their marketing whizzes a lot of money, so they have to give them something to do. I agree with you that the part of the book Evans did control, the text, conveys a different tone. I think “somewhat approving” is right. While Evans highlights McCarthy’s various errors, he finds no support for the conventional notion that he lied, something that cannot be said for his antagonists.
You seem to argue that one cannot prove that McCarthy was right about the case of Annie Lee Moss except by due process of law. I have to disagree. This was a case in which the credibility of FBI undercover operative Mary Markward was under attack. Markward had testified that she saw the name of Pentagon code clerk Annie Lee Moss on the membership roster of the Communist Party of Washington, DC. The roster itself corroborates Markward’s testimony.
Not only are congressional hearings not governed by due process provisions, they are explicitly exempt. “Due process” governs the means by which the government may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. Moss was at risk of none of these. At worst, she could have been discharged from her post at the Pentagon (as she eventually was), which was in legal terms a privilege rather than a right.
The presumption of innocence refers to innocence of a crime. In loyalty investigations, no crime is alleged; the standard is therefore quite different: Under the Hatch Act and P.L. 135, Civil Service Commission rules stated, “All doubts are being resolved in favor of the government.” Far from proving its case “beyond a reasonable doubt” (as in criminal trials) or even based on a “preponderance of the evidence” (as in civil torts), the Truman loyalty program required that any Federal official be discharged if “reasonable grounds exist for belief that the person involved is disloyal to the Government of the United States.”
You write that McCarthy “had to take this evidence through a due process…. (and the accused cross-examined in light and aware of the evidence brought against them). Clearly, McCarthy couldn’t have done this (through no fault of his own).”
This is factually wrong. McCarthy twice summoned Moss to confront her accuser Markward, and twice her attorney begged off. She and Markward were in fact cross-examined by the minority. The Truman loyalty order explicitly provided for loyalty investigations to make use of classified information such as FBI files without breaching security, stating: “the investigative agency may refuse to disclose the names of confidential informants,” and requiring “an effective security control system for protecting such information generally and for protecting confidential sources of such information particularly.”
But even if Moss had been accused, indicted and convicted of a crime (She clearly perjured herself when she denied her Communist Party membership), would that prove the case? Of course not. Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury under due process of law, and his conviction affirmed on appeal. Yet the Tony Hisses, Navaskys and Lowenthals of the world refuse to accept this verdict. The fact is that the standards of historical proof are different than those of legal proof. (Think the Dreyfus case, Sacco and Vanzetti, the Scottsboro boys.)
You write, “I didn’t state that there was anything inherently wrong with […] McCarthy’s motivations being right-wing, nor was it my point to do so.”
I obviously misunderstood your point, and I therefore retract that comment. When you wrote, “Whatever we may conclude about McCarthy’s character or that of his targets, one thing is still clear … his motivation was right-wing political,” I jumped to the conclusion that you were suggesting that if “his motivation was right-wing political,” that should somehow color our judgment of McCarthy regardless of what we conclude about his “character or that of his targets.” I confess that I still can’t see any other way to read this statement.
If the First Amendment means that those who have “Membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means” have a right to positions in the Federal government, the primary culprit here is not McCarthy, but Truman.
I don’t blame you for not defending Truman, but isn’t it interesting that the phenomenon is called “McCarthyism” rather than “Trumanism”; and that the Oshinskys, Reeves and Schreckers who condemn McCarthy in one breath praise Truman in the next.
Finally, you write, “People, not just communists, were generally in fear of persecution at the time.” As you probably know, this statement is highly contested. Library of Congress Cold War historian John Earl Haynes has argued forcefully that the notion that non-Communist Americans spent the ‘50 cowering in fear is a revisionist myth. Irving Howe, Sidney Hook, and even Edward R. Murrow agreed that McCarthy was being denounced everywhere in the ’50s by the most powerful institutional voices in the culture, and even Venona-identified Soviet intelligence sources like I.F. Stone and The New Republic’s Michael Straight publicly savaged him with impunity. As Howe put it, people in a reign of terror do not speak of the terror; in the ’50s, he said, it seemed they talked of nothing else.
Cheers, Mark
The presumption of innocence refers to innocence of a crime. In loyalty investigations, no crime is alleged; the standard is therefore quite different: Under the Hatch Act and P.L. 135, Civil Service Commission rules stated, “All doubts are being resolved in favor of the government.” Far from proving its case “beyond a reasonable doubt” (as in criminal trials) or even based on a “preponderance of the evidence” (as in civil torts), the Truman loyalty program required that any Federal official be discharged if “reasonable grounds exist for belief that the person involved is disloyal to the Government of the United States.”
Aside from the fact that burden of proof and standards of proof are conflated in this statement, my statement wasn’t in relation to what standards McCarthy was subject to administratively, but rather what standards I’d want to see in order to be convinced of guilt. I think that the same standard should have applied, rather than was applied.
You write that McCarthy “had to take this evidence through a due process…. (and the accused cross-examined in light and aware of the evidence brought against them). Clearly, McCarthy couldn’t have done this (through no fault of his own).”
This is factually wrong.
Again, it wasn’t so much a statement of historical fact as an epistemic statement. I was commenting on what I think would be necessary to establish actual guilt, rather than satisfy the standards of the hearings.
I don’t blame you for not defending Truman, but isn’t it interesting that the phenomenon is called “McCarthyism” rather than “Trumanism”[?]
Yes. It might make good inspiration for movies like The Majestic and Good Night and Good Luck, but historicism has its frustrating quirks and obfuscations as well.
Finally, you write, “People, not just communists, were generally in fear of persecution at the time.” As you probably know, this statement is highly contested. Library of Congress Cold War historian John Earl Haynes has argued forcefully that the notion that non-Communist Americans spent the ‘50 cowering in fear is a revisionist myth.
Oh, I wasn’t suggesting that all, or even most of non-Communist America was quaking in its boots, just that Communists didn’t have a monopoly on feeling that way. Exactly how many did or didn’t feel fear, I’m pretty much agnostic to.
I suspect that the further away we all get from these parts of history, the less likely anyone is going to be able to convince me of anything. It’s already too easy for urban myths to be propagated and for truths to be passed off as urban myths.
Um. You guys are in over my head.
Um. You guys are in over my head.
Which probably means that nobody else is going to comment…