Charlie Chaplin : So was he a Commie?

So was he a Commie?

I'm just curious. Refusing to fight for England, siding with Russia ... it makes him sound like a Commie.

I'd also like to know because I'm tired of the historically inaccurate understanding of the McCarthy era. The Soviet Union did have many spies in high-ranking government and entertainment industry positions in the US, a fact supported not only by later open confession (usually posed indignantly to the idiotic, sympathetic ear of American hippies) but by the Venona Project. But because people like to believe the US is stupid or that we're always in the wrong, nobody hears about that. We just hear about 'witch hunts'.

Re: So was he a Commie?

Chaplin did not refuse to fight for England during WWI; all reports, apart from a few contemporary newspaper articles in search for scandal material, can confirm that Chaplin did enlist but was declared physically unfit for military service. However, he did his share of contribution by touring in the US with a Liberty Bonds-campaign in 1917-18 along with Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford; he even produced a short film entitled "The Bond."

As for him "siding with Russia," he claimed to have done so during WWII because he viewed them, for a time, as one of the few countries that could contribute in defeating Nazism. Listening to his speeches broadcasted on radio from this period, one may say he was rather naive in some ways, but they hardly confirm or suggest any communist sympathies.

As for the McCarthy-era, McCarthy cannot be defended even if one takes the political situation in the Soviet Union at that time into consideration. McCarthy used the fear of communism in the USA to his own benefit, taking advantage of it in order to get rid of people he personally disliked, often for other reasons than any actual communist-suspicion.

Re: So was he a Commie?

"Chaplin did enlist but was declared physically unfit for military service"

Sounds like you have an argument with Wikipedia, which claims he remained "nationalistically neutral" during both World Wars. This h da0 ardly backs the statement that he attempted to enlist.

"he viewed them, for a time, as one of the few countries that could contribute in defeating Nazism"

Really? Then why did he not support the war when the US entered?

"McCarthy cannot be defended"

Nonsense. It amazes me that people who so routinely insist that there is no black and white - it's "all grey" - routinely cast those they dislike in black and white relief. McCarthy can be both defended (for his actions against an existent Communist threat) and reviled (for his use of that threat to advance his own interests).

First we were supposed to hate McCarthy because it was all made up. Then we found out it was true, and we're supposed to revile him because he was opportunistic? We're talking about the longest-running and most influential ideological struggle in hundreds of years, one that had extremely high stakes. I'm really not all torn up that a few writers and directors had to get real jobs for a few years, particularly when we now know so many of them were guilty. Surely that offsets McCarthy's slanted legacy as well.

We rightly revile the Nazis for killing 6-10 million. Communism killed more than 20 million, and counting.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: So was he a Commie?

According to the English Wikipedia: "During World War I, Chaplin was criticized in the British press for not joining the Army. He had in fact presented himself for service, but was denied for being too small at 5'5" and underweight." David Robinson's thorough Chaplin-biography claims the same.

As for Joseph McCarthy, he used the fear of communism in the US merely to build his own political career. His name was virtually unknown to the common man until he began his accussation-campaign in 1950.

Re: So was he a Commie?

That's the problem with Wikipedia - the content changes. The sentence about him being 'too small' wasn't t 2000 here when I last checked it. I guess that's just as reliable as any other content on the site.

But McCarthy as a person has nothing to do with McCarthyism. It's perfectly fine to reject the person at the center of something, but for decades we have also been told to reject the idea. I notice you don't seem to have any issues with the many, many people who built their own careers - political and otherwise - off of vilifying McCarthy, such as Edward R. Murrow.

Regardless of who McCarthy was, his cause was right. This conclusion is borne out by the facts.

So was he a Commie?

Fenrir-5,

You asked if Charlie Chaplin was a Communist. No, he was not though he was left leaning politically as were many people. He raised millions of dollars for the War effort during W.W. I and made a public stand against the Nazis with the film, The Great Dictator.

Though I am not a fan of Senator McCarthy, he was not connected with the House Un-American Activies Committee, since he was a Senator not a member of the House. McCarthy was involved with looking for Communists who worked in the government especially the State Department and mistakenly targeted many people who were not involved with the party. HUAC was the group that targeted Communist in the media not Senator McCarthy.

Re: So was he a Commie?

"Regardless of who McCarthy was, his cause was right".

Yup, his "cause" - in effect, to turn the US into another Soviet Union, terrorizing and tormenting its own citizens on the basis of mere speculation at best, thereby creating a thick, poisoneous air of persecution that didn`t let up for years - was indeed mighty just and righteous. Whether or not a number of Soviet agents were discovered to have snuck in in hindsight, doesn`t change a goddamn thing. Catching one spy does not in any way or form justify destroying the lives and careers of thousands of people falsely accused. So, yeah, "mccarthyism" as a phenomenon was indeed and obviously more evil than one dumb, fascist swine.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: So was he a Commie?

That's as succinct and frenetic a reiteration of the leftist "point of view" (or, perhaps, "hysteria" describes it better) re the man and the period, as I have heard. Raw material for one, maybe two, new MSNBC expose's. Envisage it -- the machinery of the state grinding against select individuals for specious political reasons (the one universally accepted trademark of the fascist state); you know, like slick Willy's use of state agencies to attack the, so called, "bimbos" of more recent repute -- and their families, (defended by leftists then -- as today). Then again, this was an infraction of, shall we say, the light-hearted variety and not at all like McCarthy's more weighty idee fixe aimed at a phantom (a distillation of the leftist over-all POV re the Soviet Union) and overtly expansionist, nuclear-armed enemy responsible for killing 50 million of its own people and which, in addition, promised to "bury" us at an unspecified later date (I think the threat included liberals). Bimbos or nukes -- you decide the more compelling pretext -- if either? And the spies? Oh well, what are a few spies in the State Department, Defense Department, and the Armed Forces between friends?

"Thousands of ruined lives and careers"? Hmm. Really? . . .

Set aside the tired ol' conventional wisdom still nurtured in that left-wing parallel universe, and, for the truth instead about McCarthy and the era read Blacklisted By History by M. Stanton Evans (especially its documentation, which is extensive)! It's available on the net. Sorry I can't be as succinct or as verbally dramatic as the previous poster. An intelligent response in that same - too familiar - talking-point format could be neither accurate nor comprehensive enough, given the complexities of both the man and the era, to add substantially to the discussion. . . Read the book.

Re: So was he a Commie?

"What are a few spies in the State Department, Defense Department, and the Armed Forces between friends?"

Yes, for a certain more sociopathic element, they`re apparently indeed so important as to justify setting aside all lofty ideals of personal freedom, dignity etc and making a fascist country out of the good ol` US. Just like, more recently, a few terrorists running around in the Middle East are important enough to justify turning America, in effect, into the world`s leading terrorist organization (if it wasn`t that already), guilty of getting more innocent civilians killed, across the globe, than all b68 the Bin Ladens of this world combined.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: So was he a Commie?

I see -- KGB and 50 million graves - good, CIA and Lend/Lease - bad; Bin Laden - good, America - bad. . . I get it. I get it!

Btw, have you gotten your gold star from the Leftist Ministry of Propaganda yet? . . . Don't be nervous -- you're a shoo-in!

Re: So was he a Commie?

"I see - KGB and 50 million graves - good, CIA and lend/lease - bad; Bin Laden - good, America - bad... I get it".

What on earth does lend/lease have to with anything? But no, you don`t "see" nor "get" anything here; as a matter of fact, I`m not even sure who are you arguing with; just being childish with your black-and-white world view. And I should probably point out that fallacies such as strawman building & gross misrepresentation of the opponents opinions usually begin where reasoned arguments cease.

In the name of accuracy, I should also clear up a couple of things here - firstly, the Khrushchev quote about "burying" the US, which you mentioned, had got nothing to do with any military action and was in reference to some magical economic prowess that the primer dreamt would occur and surpass America (as a matter of fact, after 1953, Soviets never had any intention of initiating any nuclear wars, so it was an obvious exaggeration, used as propaganda to put fear in the common man and reap political profit from the paranoia. I mean, had they really wanted to nuke USA so bad, surely 1962 in Cuba would have been the time and place to do it). Secondly, it may be a cosmetic issue, but neverthelss bears mention that KGB was only formed in 1954, i.e. after Stalin`s death, so it cannot possibly be responsible for "50 million graves". When it comes to field work though, there`s indeed no difference between KGB and CIA, even if for the simple reason that you can`t wear silk gloves when the other guy has boxing gloves on. Plus, of course, CIA had its hand in political murders and tortures in a variety of places, supporting tyrannical regimes ranging from Chile to Iran.




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: So was he a Commie?

That's all very interesdting, and some of it's true (though not much). But, the principle lessons I get from your quasi-history lecture are:

1) You guys have no sense of humor ("Lend Lease"). And,

2) absolutely no cognitive capabilities. To wit, the Khrushchev quote was intended by Khrushchev exactly as you suggest it was (a silver star from me), but, that's not how the media and the vast majority of Americans took it when he said it. I was there. No one knew what he meant until he explained it -- years later.

Your "cosmetic issue" re the when of the KGB (Are you suggesting there was no equivalent of the KGB before 1954?) means nothing considering I'm making no suggestion that the KGB and the 50 million dead were "cause and effect". (But, glad, at least, you're finally acknowledging the reality of that tragedy. I know, I know, not as bad as a ruined reputation!)

You have less a clue as to what a "reasoned argument" is than you have of historical reality, its complexities, etc. A persistent characteristic of those of you living in that warm, simple, and convenient parallel universe you busily reinforce (as here) with distortions, "strawmen", and deliberate "misinterpretations" when confronted by facts (or hyperbole you're too dull to recognize). The left's rhetorical bomb shelter, I like to call it.

Oh, yes . . . I "get it" all!

Gotta go now -- the Reds (that's the baseball team) just beat the Dodgers! I'm gonna celebrate, so you can reset the grim face and go back to hating the US.

Good luck

Re: So was he a Commie?

"Gotta go now -- the Reds (that's the baseball team) just beat the Dodgers"

Good for them! Nothing like a chance to take the Hated Dodgers down a few pegs!

Re: So was he a Commie?

"The Khrushchev quote was intended by Khrushchev exactly as you suggest, but that`s not how the media and the vast majority of Americans took it".

Sure, a jokingly over-the-top statement made in the middle of an agricultural debate, just cries out to be interpreted as a warning of nuclear apocalypse. But knowing how the military industry needed feeding and the Americans` murderous meddling in other countries` affairs excusing, it was, of course, the perfect thing to say... Hell, it`s useful even now, 50+ years later, when making bogus arguments on IMDb!


"I`m making no suggestion that the KGB and the 50 million dead were "cause and effect"".

So, just like lend/lease, it was just another random, unrelated thing you decided to babble about for no reason at all? Besides, what happened to this "power of interpretation" thing you so vehemently promoted when it came to Khrushchev and burying stuff?


"But, glad, at least, you`re finally acknowledging the reality of that tragedy. I know, I know, not as bad as a ruined reputation".

Glad, at least, you`re finally acknowledging the reality of that tragedy of lives ruined by Nazis like McCarthy and others of his ilk. Besides, cut out the hypocritical use of the people murdered by Soviet Union as fodder for whatever confused argument it is you`re trying to make - it`s kinda offensive, being exploited by some jingoistic American armchair pseudo-historian.


"You hav b68 e less a clue as to what a "reasoned argument" is".

Coming from a guy who rarely seems to be able to put together a meaningfully coherent sentence or, for that matter, even make up his mind as to what it is he wants to argue (besides generally whitewashing American history - by means of denial, empty assertation and, mainly, childishly insisting that "Soviets were worse!"), that`s pretty funny.


"Go back to hating the US".

To you any criticism of the US is "hating", so what the heck. That much about being in touch with those various "complexities" you claim to appreciate.





"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: So was he a Commie?

Not sure, but that about four fifths of what you just said doesn't make any sense at all, but then, I'm not very bright, as you've repeatedly suggested (Ooops, forgot -- I'm an "evil Nazi", "murd 5b4 erous and meddling", too! God bless Papa Joe!!). Anyway, it's all quite hopeless -- as per usual. But, it has been fun, as always.

Thinking about it (and seeing this last post) -- yeah, it seems I've come pretty damn close - no, I'd say razor close - in my selection of the term "hating the US". I'll stay with that. Yup. Uh-huh.

Btw, two gold stars from "The Leftist Ministry of Propaganda", at least! You got the "Nazi" epithet in there with the others quite neatly to be sure. You're gettin' better, no question. Now, all you need is the "racist" and "moron" ad hominems and they'll make you a Minister. I'll bet the egg money on it! So, keep trying. . . (Ah, as your inspiration, I do expect to be invited to the dinner. And thanks in advance!)

Re: So was he a Commie?

Indeed most unfortunate you`ve got such limited comprehension skills - as well as this enormous difficulty keeping things even remotely on topic. More unfortunate still that you so readily identify with the very worst traits and deeds of your country.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: So was he a Commie?


I'm really not all torn up that a few writers and directors had to get real jobs for a few years, particularly when we now know so many of them were guilty.


Who cares what their political beliefs are? What's the worst they can do in Hollywood? Create a few propaganda films? Wow, scary! Venona was about the Communists in government positions which, is where the real danger came not from some poor, abysmal writers in Hollywood. Their feel to express any political ideologue they want. I don't like Communism either, I'm a Free marketeer! Either way though, their free to express what political view they have as, long as their not hurting anybody, or forcing it on you.



We rightly revile the Nazis for killing 6-10 million. Communism killed more than 20 million, and counting.


Two enemies the United States helped prop up in the first place by selling the necessary equipment, steel, oil, and weapons for them to have their war machines in the first place. Of course, not many want to hear that truth.....





“A ridiculously small group of my most incompetent and silliest troops awaits them."

Re: So was he a Commie?

McCarthy was on a witch hunt, plain and simple, and HUAC wasn't far behind. Were there some foreign agents in government? Most assuredly, just as there are American agents in foreign governments. But that didn't excuse the fact that many people who may have been members of the communist party or sympathized with them had their lives and careers destroyed, not to mention those that were totally innocent. Since when does being a member of a group some disagree with cause for prosecution? This is America, remember? Freedom to believe what you want to believe is a pretty fundamental right. Too many so-called patriots throw the Constitution out the window when they go up against people who have ideas different from theirs. And that shows them to be unAmerican.


This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

Re: So was he a Commie?


McCarthy can be both defended (for his actions against an existent Communist threat) and reviled (for his use of that threat to advance his own interests).

McCarthy cannot truly be defended. His war on communism was about as ethical as the rise of the Bolsheviks in their attacks against the Czars. Just because he led a crusade against a power we consider "wrong" doesn't mean that crusade was right, in the least.

He trampled on all that makes this nation great and harmed a lot of innocent people, just to try to ferret out the guilty ones. His exploits are the inspiration for many stories about dystopias and "how freedom can go wrong".

He was as evil as the powers he crusaded against.


----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

For a comprehensive and truthful account of Sen. McCarthy and the era, see M. Stanton Evan's book, Blacklisted By History. Should be of real value to anyone truly interested in what happened at the time. This excludes, I suspect, the Helen Kays on these boards. The parallel universe they determinedly live in rejects such facts when (and it is often) they tend to burst the sacred bubble, so to speak. And, I don't mean to be as judgemental as Helen Kay seems to be, but anyone who can say (about McCarthy) "He was as evil as the powers he crusaded against" either hasn't an historical clue, or certainly doesn't know any of the friends or relatives of the 50 million people murdered by that correspondingly (so called) "evil power".

Re: So was he a Commie?

I'm interested in reading any credible books and will check it out but your following comment displays your attitude:


This excludes, I suspect, the Helen Kays on these boards. The parallel universe they determinedly live in rejects such facts when (and it is often) they tend to burst the sacred bubble, so to speak.

Funny how a criticism of McCarthy, of all people, would bring out such arrogant insults. That says a lot about the validity of your points. If you really had some info which goes against the grain you could simply have said something like "McCarthy wasn't as bad as history has painted him, here is a book...."

I'll check the book out but anyone with that kind of attitude is probably on the side of BS, just like Joe was.



----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

Well, my comment was intended to "display my attitude". An attitude cultivated in a wealth of experience -- to say the least. Right here for example:

I see the shields going up already (to protect the "sacred bubble"). To wit, "I'll check the book out but anyone with that kind of attitude is probably on the side of BS, just like Joe was." Mind made up? Hmmm . . . why bother?

Re: So was he a Commie?


I see the shields going up already (to protect the "sacred bubble").

No b 111c ubbles here. You just don't engender a lot of faith in your expertise or genuineness.

You start off with an assertion defying most historical accounts, then you talk of sacred bubbles and laud your own virtues, insulting anyone not in immediate agreement with you? You're the one who needs to support his position. You're someone posting on a forum. You don't come in with any credentials. Your arrogance doesn't earn you any.

----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

Sorry to disappoint.

In this particular case (McCarthy) "most historical accounts" are in error.
And, since I do disappoint on the "expertise and genuineness" levels, and needing, thus, to "support my position", I gave you "Blacklisted By History", which title alone is a response to your comment - "defying most historical accounts".

Btw, exactly what "virtues of my own" have I "lauded"?

What you see, apparently, as "insults" are "observations" and from a man who knows what an insult is. I'd like to have a quarter for every time I've been called a "Nazi", "moron", "racist", and "Neanderthal" (having quoted Jefferson, or Madison, or Washington, et al) by compassionate, open-minded leftists on these boards. . . I'd say about 80% of the time. Do you know what it's like being called a Nazi? . . .

Btw, I never initiate political commentary on IMDB sites. I merely respond (after too much time ignoring same) to what I call "hit and run" comments by leftists -- which are rife here! Personally, I come to these boards to get away from politics.

Re: So was he a Commie?


In this particular case (McCarthy) "most historical accounts" are in error.

Which is the difficult position to take. Sometimes it's true, and there is more information to be had, but that's usually NOT the case.




I gave you "Blacklisted By History",

Fine. It will take time to obtain and read, provided it looks like a reputable work (I always like to challenge conventional wisdom), but the objection comes in where you assume anyone believing history is, in so many words, blinded.



What you see, apparently, as "insults" are "observations" and from a man who knows what an insult is.

Insults in that you chose to quickly launch insulting assumptions before even knowing the facts, and in the face of swimming against the flow, here. You can't always dismiss that as "just observations".

These, your own words, I ask, are "just observations"? -

This excludes, I suspect, the Helen Kays on these boards. The parallel universe they determinedly live in rejects such facts...

...And, I don't mean to be as judgemental as Helen Kay seems to be





Do you know what it's like being called a Nazi? . . .

Fact is, I do. Whenever you have certain unpopular opinions, it's bound to happen sooner or later.



I merely respond (after too much time ignoring same) to what I call "hit and run" comments by leftists -- which are rife here! Personally, I come to these boards to get away from politics.

You don't have to be a "leftist" (which is usually a term of derision started by the anti-left ilk of Limbaugh) to not appreciate McCarthy and the records against him are quite substantial. Debatable? Of course. Nearly anything is debatable if sufficient evidence is brought to bear.

Note that I called Limbaugh an "anti-leftist" because he seems more defined by defining the left by its extreme components and creating an ideology based on deriding that version. I appreciate many opinions on the right and the left, as long as they have substance.





----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

You're trying. That is good. But:

"... the objection comes in where you assume anyone believing history is, in so many words, blinded."

I never made that claim . . . and never would. It's about what you believe is history -- and why you believe it. If you do, in fact, read "Blacklisted ..." I'm convinced you'll be convinced that what you've "assumed" is history (not entirely - but substantially) . . . is not.

"Fact is I do. Whenever you have certain unpopular opinions ..."

I'm not asking you about nasty ad hominems, I'm asking you specifically about being called a Nazi. You're softening (changing the tenor) of my question. I can't think of anything more inaccurate in my case, or disgusting in any case than to be called a Nazi by a correspondent in polite conversation.

"Leftist" is not a "term of derision started by Limbaugh". It has been used by scholars, pundits, historians, etc. long before Limbaugh was born, and it means a person with a political philosophy left of center, just as "rightist" is a term describing someone with a philosophy to the right of center. Leftist is used by me (and many, many others) when describing a person advocating the principal tenet of all left-wing movements (liberal, socialist, communist, etc.). Aka, one favoring the prerogatives (or supremacy) of the state in preference to those of the individual.

Hope this can end it. . .

Best, as always

Re: So was he a Commie?


You're trying. That is good.

And so are you. Which is also good.



"... the objection comes in where you assume anyone believing history is, in so many words, blinded."

I never made that claim . . . and never would.

That statement was intentionally a little hyperbolic, to point out that you were doing so by implication, when making your comments to me about McC.



It's about what you believe is history -- and why you believe it.

That, I agree with. And that's precisely my point. Unless some rather esoteric work turns up (which I admit COULD be "Blacklisted"), there's really no reason to question at least reasonable accuracy of the accepted account. How he is excused of his persecution of innocents and his outlandish behavior, even in the face of a potential real threat, has yet to be seen. The point is that you have no reason to chide these interpretations. Only to say "there is more information, largely suppressed, which you should consider."

Now, I'm willing to check out that book, but given what we already know about McC which is not disputed, my guess is the book is going to be something analogous to a rapist's defense attorney saying "yes, he raped and beat the woman after she said no, but she really is a tease and an unscrupulous whore, therefore raping and beating her was OK." Not that we ought to argue it, now, until I read it, but I have done some observing, too, and that is my guess.




I'm not asking you about nasty ad hominems, I'm asking you specifically about being called a Nazi. You're softening (changing the tenor) of my question.

Not intentionally; you didn't make i 5b4 t clear you were referring to literal accusations.




"Leftist" is not a "term of derision started by Limbaugh". It has been used by scholars, pundits, historians, etc. long before Limbaugh was born

But Limbaugh popularized turning the term into one of derision by specifically defining it by its fringe and far-left elements, then essentially claiming that anything to the right must be "good", because to be leftist (or, more commonly, "liberal"), is so "bad". One can be left of center, especially in some ways, and still be a moderate, just as one can be moderate-right.



Leftist is used by me (and many, many others) when describing a person advocating the principal tenet of all left-wing movements (liberal, socialist, communist, etc.). Aka, one favoring the prerogatives (or supremacy) of the state in preference to those of the individual.

Although it's never so simple and linear. Sometimes the linear continuum of governmental size/authority is the smaller of the concerns in picking larger ideologies, especially when considering the masses of special interesting attached to modern political parties. Just because one CLAIMS to favor a certain ideology doesn't make him the best man for the job.

Many pundits (especially on the right, because in America most favor individual rights 5b4 , except for a minority dependent on the state) like to reduce the arguments to this continuum by gross oversimplification. I'm not saying who is right or wrong in the various arguments, but I find it rather misleading when these tactics are employed.



----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

I'm tired, so I'll be brief and a bit esoteric here:

Shouldn't even a rapist have a defense? And, isn't it possible to learn something valuable from that defense?

Limbaugh's technique or popularity were not what you were criticising. I respond to you, not what I think you may be thinking,

"Moderate" is meaningless in polemics except to describe an attitude. It simply does not speak to, nor does it contribute to, the search for truth. The nation is moderate. Look at where we are today.

Some things are "simple" and "linear", and especially so (and by definition) the sine qua non of a philosophy. That's what I gave you. And, if you look at 20th and 21st century American political & social history, the evidence for this left-right dynamic is manifest (almost without exceptions), layer upon layer and year after year (the same essential dynamic's been going on since Plato -- See Mark Levin's Ameritopia). The sine qua non of right-wing philosophy in America can be found in a single (simple and linear) sentence -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Thus, has the nation been defined for 200 years. No longer, I'm afraid. For the left -- "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." The community (thru the government) uber alles! -- with the insatiable, 20 trillion $, downhill-snowball being rolled over every individual (not to mention individuals not yet born) by -- guess who?

Not too cryptic . . . I hope.

Best, as always

Re: So was he a Commie?


Shouldn't even a rapist have a defense? And, isn't it possible to learn something valuable from that defense?

Sure, but that defense doesn't mean that the rape, if proven to have occurred, is justified. Just as I have never doubted that there were real dangers from Soviet infiltrations. I just don't believe in throwing out the principles of the USA in the hunting of the spies.



Limbaugh's technique or popularity were not what you were criticising.

Actually, his technique is exactly what I criticize about him. He makes very few salient arguments towards points, alone, but most of his arguments are based on various versions of the straw man.

As for his popularity, it's surprising, but that's his and 1c84 his fans' business.


"Moderate" is meaningless in polemics except to describe an attitude. It simply does not speak to, nor does it contribute to, the search for truth.
Well, we could speak at length about this topic. Suffice it to say these terms have become so convoluted as to have lost much of their meaning and what works in one metric may imply something else in another. In most cases "moderate" comes to mean someone not dogmatically stuck in either of the more extreme of the political camps.




The nation is moderate. Look at where we are today.

It's "moderate-ness" is not what is causing us to sink as much as the tug of war between various special interests, and no truly viable choices.



Some things are "simple" and "linear", and especially so (and by definition) the sine qua non of a philosophy.

Some things ARE. And when measuring those things, terminology makes sense. However, "right" and "left" in the political arena are no longer examples of such simple terms, representing only simple concepts. That is the problem where vernacular twists matters.



The sine qua non of right-wing philosophy in America can be found in a single (simple and linear) sentence -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

The honorific, ideological right, perhaps, but nowhere in the main American political parties do we see this.



Thus, has the nation been defined for 200 years. No longer, I'm afraid.

True, and no one seems to be fighting for that. No one with any real influence, at least.



For the left -- "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."

The true ideological left, based on the honorific concept, does believe this. It's also part of the poison pill which comes along with the American political "left", just as other poison pills come on the political right (which is not as dedicated to freedom of the individual as their talking heads would have us believe; they are not the answer to the leftist ideology which resides withing the Dem party)




with the insatiable, 20 trillion $, downhill-snowball being rolled over every individual (not to mention individuals not yet born) by -- guess who?


It gets worse with every administration, Dem and GOP alike. Save Clinton.



Best, as always

Same here.



----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

"... it doesn't mean that the rape is justified."

Of course not. But ... that's rape, pure and simple. A defense can justify an activity that looks like rape but isn't, and it can move perceptions of even a killing from pre-meditated murder to justifiable homicide. The conventional wisdom, endlessly re-inforced by the left, re McCarthy is just such a case. Read the book. It provides documentation unavailable prior to its publication (principally from Soviet archives obtained after the fall) revealing who was lying during the hearings (and after) and who was not, not to mention the real extent of the problem. I think you'll find the most destructive lies affecting our perceptions of the problem, the man, and the era have come from the left and not from McCarthy and the right.

What "strawman", for example, is Limbaugh responsible for? . . . He is a pundit, an entertainer, and a prognosticator -- just like his counterparts on the left -- but far more accurate, more often. His critics consistently criticise who he is and, virtually, never what he says.

"... moderate comes to mean someone who is not dogmatically stuck in either of the more extreme political camps."

Yeah . . . so, how does that contradict my assertion that "moderate" is "meaningless" when it comes to a search for the truth? It's purely "attitude", as I said. Ie., one doesn't know, or care, what one believes is the truth.

"Its 'moderate-ness' is not what is causing us to sink as much as the tug of war between various special interests, and no truly viable choices."

Couldn't disagree with you more. There always has been and always will be, in human interaction, "tugs of war". It's life. We are all self-interested almost all the time. Goes back to when we fell out of the trees. The moderates simply allow what is fashionable (good or bad) to continue, though, perhaps, more slowly. We don't need the ambiguity of moderates here (anything to avoid a debate or a rhetorical fight -- peaceful capitulation). Measured reaction is built into the republican system, except when the left (for left, read Obama & his minions) ignores, as they are want to do and often triumphantly announce, the Constitution. It's true the moderates are not "causing us to sink", but they are allowing us to sink. 2012 was our last opportunity, imo, to reverse course -- and we lost it.

It's not the "vernacular" that "twists" -- it's the passion of the left ("Hope and change" - any kind of change). And you do find the "honorific" simplicity of the Declaration expressed in "American political parties" -- many conservative politicans express it. Sadly, the mainstream media, unabashedly bias toward the left, never broadcasts those expressions without cynical rebut, unless forced by circumstances beyond their control to do so.* Academia just as guilty (or moreson) I'm afraid. (See Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society.

"... they are not the answer to the leftist ideology which resides withing the Dem party)"

No? So then, what is the answer? In my view, and begging your pardon, they are the answer -- they want to take us back to the genius of the Founders. There is, imo, nowhere else better to go. I think it's Leviticus which reminds us -- "There is nothing new under the sun".

Btw, "Clinton"? A narcissist with great political instincts. Moderate Obama-ite? I like what George Will said about him -- "Maybe not the worst president we've ever had, but the worst person ever to be president."

* Aldous Huxley believed - "... with H.G. Wells that we are in a race between education and disaster, and he wrote continuously about the necessity of our understanding the politics and epistemology of media. For in the end, he was trying to tell us that what afflicted the people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking." -- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves To Death


Thanks and

Best, as always

Re: So was he a Commie?


A defense can justify an activity that looks like rape but isn't, and it can move perceptions of even a killing from pre-meditated murder to justifiable homicide.

While that is true, we KNOW McCarthy persecuted many innocent people. It's not as though we can say "the rape didn't happen" in this case. It's there for all to see. The only thing left is "was it JUSTIFIED?" That's a tough thing to prove, as even the most dire threat rarely justifies the persecution of innocents and the usurping of justice.



The conventional wisdom, endlessly re-inforced by the left, re McCarthy is just such a case. Read the book.

This is something I find most interesting. The so-called right, supposedly espousing "individual freedom", seems to often be on the side of those freedoms being trampled, either by the state or other organizations. Why does that tend to hold? Seriously, I'd like to hear if you have a good answer to that.



It provides documentation unavailable prior to its publication (principally from Soviet archives obtained after the fall) revealing who was lying dur 238 ing the hearings (and after) and who was not,

That does catch my attention. Despite the unjust methodology, surely there were some McCarthy had in his broad net which were actually guilty of what he accused.




What "strawman", for example, is Limbaugh responsible for?

I don't recall specific examples but most of them revolve around demonizing everyone not in his political camp as a "liberal", which he also defines by the worst the left has to offer. Not to mention th 5b4 e assigning of leftist agendas to all people non-GOP.




just like his counterparts on the left -- but far more accurate, more often.

Depends on the lens you view it from. Of course, it depends if you try to find anyone as extreme, in which case you might find the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and, in those cases, I would agree Rush is more often accurate.



His critics consistently criticise who he is and, virtually, never what he says.

Depends on the critic. The vapid counterparts of his probably do that. I know a lot of people who make fun specifically of his arguments.



Yeah . . . so, how does that contradict my assertion that "moderate" is "meaningless" when it comes to a search for the truth?

As I said, this could get to be too long a discussion, but it's a matter of the way these terms have been tossed around and redefined, politically speaking. We can talk about philosophical continuums and the term may have a certain, accurate definition, there, but it's quite different in modern vernacular. In fact one of my pet peeves is when some pundits try to take someone's use of a term in one context and apply it to another, when anyone with connected brain cells knows that's not what they meant.



It's purely "attitude&q 16d0 uot;, as I said. Ie., one doesn't know, or care, what one believes is the truth.

Some may be that way. More often, it's someone who is not staunch about one political party. One can have very clear ideals without saying one political candidate or party is going to be THE one with the answers.




Couldn't disagree with you more. There always has been and always will be, in human interaction, "tugs of war". It's life.

Of course, but it's the particular nature of the extremes and knee-jerk reactions, where people are always making decisions against something they perceive as bad, as opposed to for something positive.



The moderates simply allow what is fashionable (good or bad) to continue, though, perhaps, more slowly.

I agree with you up to the point of using the term "moderate". Sure, in one way, these "wafflers" as I might call them might fall under the umbrella of "moderate" in the larger context, but that is not to say all so-called moderates are wafflers; they just are not dogmatic. Not dogmatic doesn't mean ambiguous, it just means not devoted to a particular organization, person or party. Again, terminology.


2012 was our last opportunity, imo, to reverse course -- and we lost it.

With what? Romney? This is where the problem lies. I'm not an Obama fan. But at the same time Romney embodied many of the problems the GOP had been getting mired in, as opposed to a "new hope" for the GOP, returning to its ideals instead of being puppets for big money.

Now, I don't have time or energy to re-hash the whole "Dem vs GOP" debate. It's been done to death. I don't see either party as having the answer, as they exist today. What I argue against is the Limbaugh-esque notion that anything Democratic is THE problem and that ANY candidate from the GOP is THE answer, and that to vote any other way is to embrace all that is negative on the left.

I would love to see the GOP have a viable alternative to the likes of Obama. They need to come up with something better, however, than candidates whose best attribute is "not Obama".



No? So then, what is the answer?

We don't have one on the table at the moment.



In my view, and begging your pardon, they are the answer -- they want to take us back to the genius of the Founders.

Fair enough. And, respectfully, I don't see the GOP as that, at all. Again, not to get into that whole debate, as it's huge, but I see the whole "freedom for the individual" and "return to the genius of the Founders" to be propaganda, pure and simple. It sounds great, but I don't see it being put in practice. If the GOP really were the guardians of such things, wouldn't it be idiocy of every independent person to go in any other direction?



For in the end, he was trying to tell us that what afflicted the people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking.

True. And that is why the tug-of-war is so caustic these days. Both with their twists in the media and very little substance to offer.



----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

Thanks. Most of your post I can agree with, except:

... I hear the squeak o 2000 f the shields going up again. Eg., "We KNOW McCarthy persecuted many innocent people", and "Was it JUSTIFIED?". Again, read the book. The documentation therein proves that everyone called by the committee was called with legal and moral justification. To wit, it was justified, and you do not "KNOW" that McCarthy persecuted "many innocent people" -- the left has been telling you that for 50+ years. The book will convince you, I'm sure, as it has most historians, that your conception (the leftist cultivated, conventional wisdom) is false. There has been no book written since this book's publication which disputes its historical accuracy or any of its sources.

I'll answer your question (about "the right" and individual liberty) this way: McCarthy was hardly flawless. Who is? His technique was brutal, but his detractors have been moreso. The left makes the case that McCarthy's objectives were 1) the product of paranoia and political opportunism; 2) cultivated in the eyes of the public an unnecessary fear of communist (Soviet connected) influence within the federal government; and 3) the hearings were a right-wing sponsored "witch hunt" rife with "innocent" victims. Not so. Communism and its inexorable spread (mandated by Marx himself) is the greatest threat to individual liberty yet invented by Man. The US government is the only government on the planet conceived entirely to preserve the sanctity of individual liberty as a "natural right" bestowed upon us by God, or nature, whichever you prefer. The opposite of communism. Deliberate infiltration, through lies and cunning, by the former into the government of the latter represents a greater threat to those liberties than the sometimes brutal, though legal, methodologies of the committee. The objective of the book is to penetrate the shield I talk about (without naming it so, of course) which has been so successfully raised by the left and its minions over the course of many, many years.


(Btw, Romney was a man with "big money". He was not "a puppet for people with big money" alone but, as our system prescribes, a puppet for all Americans, equally, who earn an honest living. And, yes, Romney (and the GOP certainly) is not without fault -- either.) Ah, and what's wrong with "anybody but Obama"? Can't think of anybody worse.

That was a good post. Thanks,

Best, as always

Re: So was he a Commie?


Again, read the book. The documentation therein proves that everyone called by the committee was called with legal and moral justification.

But unless the book can establish everyone who was blacklisted was GUILTY, then it's tough to try to claim it was justified. It might have been justified (MIGHT) to call them in the first place, because there was room to suspect, but was it right to ruin careers and reputations in the process?

What is not in question is the result of McCarthyism. Can even the book say that only the guilty suffered?



To wit, it was justified, and you do not "KNOW" that McCarthy persecuted "many innocent people" -- the left has been telling you that for 50+ years.

Are you claiming it's only the false claims of "the left" that anyone innocent suffered? That they were ALL guilty?




McCarthy was hardly flawless. Who is? His technique was brutal, but his detractors have been moreso.

Maybe. But the point is, that's why we can hold ourselves to be different from them. It doesn't serve to become as bad as what we fear. That's why fear was so caustic in this case.




The left makes the case ...

Why do you always say "the left"? As if it's some leftist conspiracy to distort the truth? Are you really saying there's no room for serious, non-partisan interpretation of the events as anything negative regarding McC?




...that McCarthy's objectives were 1) the product of paranoia and political opportunism;

Just because there really was a threat doesn't mean we weren't being paranoid.

Was he being an opportunist, though? Very likely. That's a tough call to make, though, without uncovering documents from the man himself admitting to it.



2) cultivated in the eyes of the public an unnecessary fear of communist (Soviet connected) influence within the federal government;

Some claim that, but most of the more rational interpretations seem to believe that the threat was real.



3) the hearings were a right-wing sponsored "witch hunt" rife with "innocent" victims.

That's a tough one to address without all the cards on the table but, again, just because there might have been a threat doesn't mean there weren't those using that threat to pursue their own agendas.



Communism and its inexorable spread (mandated by Marx himself) is the greatest threat to individual liberty yet invented by Man.

I don't know about "THE" greatest, but it's certainly up there.



The US government is the only government on the planet conceived entirely to preserve the sanctity of individual liberty as a "natural right" bestowed upon us by God, or nature, whichever you prefer.

I agree that we're the only true force standing against them, even though we sometimes find ourselves going awry. At least our conception was the greatest force of good we have ever known.



Deliberate infiltration, through lies and cunning, by the former in 238 to the government of the latter represents a greater threat to those liberties than the sometimes brutal, though legal, methodologies of the committee.

Problem is, you don't want to destroy the ideology of the USA in the process of dealing with the threat. We can no longer be that sanctuary of liberty if we trample it, even to deal with a serious threat. Sometimes you have to be willing to die, true to your principles, rather than live by corrupting them.




(Btw, Romney was a man with "big money". 5b4 He was not "a puppet for people with big money" alone but, as our system prescribes, a puppet for all Americans, equally, who earn an honest living.

Without re-hashing all the arguments for and against him and the current GOP direction, I'll just leave it with "I don't see him that way at all." His policies always disproportionately favored the rich and favored a system which further divides those who honestly want to work for a living from those born to privilege and incredible luck.



Ah, and what's wrong with "anybody but Obama"? Can't think of anybody worse.

That's probably what they were saying about Nicholas and the Czars just before... awww, you know the rest.



That was a good post. Thanks,

Same here.



----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

I like you Helen, and you're a very thoughtful and polite poster. But:

"... unless the book can establish everyone who was blacklisted was GUILTY, then it's tough to try to claim it was justified."

Hearings are designed to gather information and try to find out if someone is guilty of something which may lead to some form of prosecution (that's "prosecution" not "persecution", btw). The questioners sometimes accuse, sometimes defend, or sometimes do neither depending on the evidence, pre-discovered, before them. How can any committee guarantee before the questioning begins that everyone questioned is "GUILTY" of something? . . . The Committee didn't "blacklist" -- others did the blacklisting (like the motion picture industry) based on their interpretations of the questions and answers. The blacklisting that took place within the picture community was its own device, based on what it believed the public (its customers) wanted. I was old enough to sense the tensions of the period. I remember facing a wall in my elementary school classroom and putting my head between my knees practicing for a possible nuclear attack. Fear, rooted in a Cold War mentality (justified by Soviet ideology, 50 million of their own dead, virulent international expansionism and overt threats concerning the use of nuclear weapons), was everywhere. (God bless Ronald Reagan, who ended the nightmare). When the Cuban missile crises took place, my parents, and I, figured we were near the end -- and we could, quite easily, have been. As Cronkite often said then, "and that's the way it is (was)".

"... can the book say that only the guilty suffered?"

No, and it doesn't. Can anyone say after any committee hearing that only the guilty (if there are any) suffered? Of course not. True even, and often, in trials.

Every politician appearing at a federal investigation tries to make political "hay" when he's "downstage-center". McCarthy was no exception. Neither was he alone, by any historical reckoning, in being a politician.

"Just because there really was a threat doesn't mean we weren't being paranoid."

Sorry, I don't get that one at all.

"That's a tough one to address without all the cards on the table."

All "the cards" are in the book.

"... you don't want to destroy the ideology of the USA in the process of dealing with the threat."

That's a good philosophy and worthy of a lengthy discussion all its own. In this case, however, the ideology of the USA wasn't threatened. The ideology of the left was! (Very sympathetic to Marxism -- and to Stalin, its "holy father" at the time). Read the book. You'll find that the left then as now, is less interested in McCarthy's methodolgy as it is in the fact that it was directed at their friends and their ideological kinsmen. None of the, so called, accused were devotees of Thomas Jefferson. Hence, the interminable use of the word "witch-hunt" on their part. Had it been G.W. Bush in front of the committee, do you think the left would have been as insensed? If you do, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

I don't care to get into contemporary politics either, so I'll simply suggest you're looking through the telescope from the wrong end. Your Obama/Romney dynamic should be reversed if you want an accurate picture of things as they are, not advertised in the media. You'll find that out over time. . . They were wrong about the Czar. I am not about Obama.

Almost all the questions you've been asking me will be answered in detail by simply reading the book.


Best, as always

Re: So was he a Commie?


Hearings are designed to gather information and try to find out if someone is guilty of something which may lead to some form of prosecution (that's "prosecution" not "persecution", btw).

A hearing, reasonably based on evidence sufficient to examine a person, would be quite reasonable. If it were left there, and prosecution be made when evidence dictated, and not turned into "persecution", then it wouldn't have been objectionable.

As I have stated, the only possible defense to the persecution (in lieu of legit prosecution) is if all the individuals given that heavy-handed treatment WERE guilty. I will have to see what the book tries to claim, but I don't see how it will have an answer to this one.



The Committee didn't "blacklist" -- others did the blacklisting (like the motion picture industry) based on their interpretations of the questions and answers.

Set a fire, and the fire burns. Do you blame the people with the burning tree or the ones with the matches?



I remember facing a wall in my elementary school classroom and putting my head between my knees practicing for a possible nuclear attack. Fear, rooted in a Cold War mentality (justified by Soviet ideology, 50 million of their own dead, virulent international expansionism and overt threats concerning the use of nuclear weapons), was everywhere.

Interesting you mention that, because it's one of the stranger parts of American history and reaction. I can't proclaim to know what all the motivations were behind the "duck and cover" campaigns, but the notion that kids will save their lives by diving under a desk or covering the back of their necks with their textbooks is laughable. We were talking nuclear war, not a tornado drill. Those drills did more to drive it into the American psyche than they actually did any good helping kids to prepare.




(God bless Ronald Reagan, who ended the nightmare).

He got lucky the Soviets played the same game. He was involved in nuke buildup before the USSR collapsed.

I'm not trying to take away from the role he did play in that drama, but it's not he, singularly, who "ended it". He played his part, but he was certainly not an anti-nuke guy.




Can anyone say after any committee hearing that only the guilty (if there are any) suffered? Of course not. True even, and often, in trials.

And with any hearing or trial, it's how it's conducted which matters. I've seen the gavel pounding and the "you are out of order you are out of order you are out of order" histrionics. Sorry, no matter what else was going on, that was over the top.



"Just because there really was a threat doesn't mean we weren't being paranoid."

Sorry, I don't get that one at all.

Meaning that paranoia is a state of mind, individually or collectively. You've heard the adage "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not really out to get you." This is a play on the converse, which is to say that just because they're really out to get you, doesn't mean you're not paranoid.

The point being that the cultivation of paranoia is harmful, whether or not there was a genuine threat. What is HEALTHY is a PROPORTIONATE fear and reaction to the real threat.

At any rate, McCarthy's shenanigans actually hurt his own cause, because people could reduce the threat to his (and other such characters) politics and games. A more reasonable approach could have actually exposed the threat for what is was, and good could have come from it.



All "the cards" are in the book.

I don't know about all, but that's partly what I'm getting at and recognizing what is pointless to discuss at this juncture.



That's a good philosophy and worthy of a lengthy discussion all its own. In this case, however, the ideology of the USA wasn't threatened.

Which is where we disagree, and where the book will have a tough time making that case.



The ideology of the left was! (Very sympathetic to Marxism -- and to Stalin, its "holy father" at the time).

The "true" left was, indeed, threatened by any blow against socialism, but that doesn't mean that was the ONLY reason to object to McCarthyism. I find what he did violates the ideals of individual liberties. I have no sympathy to socialism / Marxism. But it's the RIGHTIST in me which has the problem, here, with what happened.



Read the book. You'll find that the left then as now, is less interested in McCarthy's methodolgy as it is in the fact that it was directed at their friends and their ideological kinsmen.

Which does interest me in the reading. Even if I end up disagreeing with numerous conclusions the book makes (i.e. McCarthy did little wrong), it's still a worthwhile read to see what various interests on the true left may have done to slant public image. That "just because.... doesn't mean...." philosophy works in both directions. In this case, just because McCarthy may have had a horrible approach doesn't mean the true left didn't try to vilify him even further.



Hence, the interminable use of the word "witch-hunt" on their part.

Makes you wonder, though, had there really been a couple witches in Salem, would the trials, and how they were conducted, have been any more "right"?




Had it been G.W. Bush in front of the committee, do you think the left would have been as insensed?

There are always prejudices when someone adopts a "side", dogmatically. Of course, some would be cheering.

Me, I have a lot of problems with W and his special interests, but even I wouldn't just assume the man was guilty of working against the interests of the nation. On the contrary, I think he always had the interests of the USA at heart.



Your Obama/Romney dynamic should be reversed if you want an accurate picture of things as they are, not advertised in the media.

I'm not going to say that Obama is "good", only that I can't get behind Romney, either, and over W the pendulum swung too far in favor of big-money interests. Now, of course, we're getting a very strange dynamic, because Obama is getting some of his way, but big money is still very much in the driver's seat of the economic sphere. It's going to be interesting (and scary) to see how things will play out. I think Obama has been a true disappointment, but at the same time I don't see big-money-butt-kissing to be the approach the GOP should continue to hold onto. After all, had they come up with a different approach in '12, maybe we could have had a viable alternative to Obama.




They were wrong about the Czar. I am not about Obama.

I don't think they were wrong about the Czar. He was pretty bad for the people and the people needed a change. What they were wrong about was what they chose as an alternative, especially in the long run. Which is why the notion "anybody is better than ___" is a very dangerous one. There's ALWAYS someone worse; or, at least, there's always a worse ideology which can be manifested.

Personally, I'd rather see someone else other than the DemoPublicans next time around. As unrealistic as they can sometimes be, I wouldn't mind seeing what the Libertarians would do. At least they seem to have a comparatively less-corrupted ideology, vs the main two.



----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

"A hearing, reasonably based on evidence sufficient to examine a person, would be quite reasonable."

You've just described the McCarthy hearings. Read the book.

The ones "supplying the matches" were the Soviets and their fellow travelers. I blame them.

The "drills" were the best we could think to do at the time (beside bomb shelters), and they were "motivated" by one thing -- the instinct for survival. They couldn't have "driven" anything into the American "psyche" that wasn't already there (the "motivation" for the drills, as I said) - in spades. The Soviets put it there, btw, not the parents or the schools' principals. I suggest you also read Witness by Whitaker Chambers (the Alger Hiss business. Hiss, as you know, was the convicted spy whom the left has been claiming for decades was just "another innocent victim" of McCarthy and his minions and who's guilt was confirmed with the opening of the old Soviet archives.) to get a real understanding of the times and of the depth of the Soviet's infiltration into the government. It was one of the four books David Mamet read which converted him from a passionate liberal activist to a passionate conservative.

Reagan was "anti-nuke" enough to end the threat of nuclear war. That's enough for me. Saying you're anti-nuke and screaming for unilateral disarmament buys (and bought) nothing but more fear, more capitulation of one kind or another and less security everywhere. peace thru strength works. Peace thru weakness and incessant talk gets us precisely where Obama's got us in the Middle East today -- ignored, laughed at amd faci 238 ng an ever strengthening terrorist threat. Speaking of which:

Re Obama and "anybody but ..." -- "... there's always a worse ideology which can be manifested."

Today, in the US and realistically, there is no worse ideology than Obama's which can harm this nation and erode its historical identity (the principles in the Declaration) more than his. And, I'm afraid - no, convinced - it will have ended, over time, the American Republic as we know it (Obama-care is the poisoned pill, hmmm - so to speak). 1c84 There, sadly, I've conceded the war. The battle of 2012 ended it. I think it's safe to assume you're an Obama supporter. As I like you, I take no pleasure in suggesting that you'll experience nothing like what you're expecting from him but, rather, more like what you deserve, ipso facto.

Did you ever stop to think, if you'd checked-out the book from your public library and started reading, in the time we've spent on these posts you'd be half-way through the damn thing by now?!

I've enjoyed your last post very much. Thanks

Best, again, and as always

Re: So was he a Commie?

Strange. I wrote a response to this a while ago but it must not have gotten posted. I will re-create an abbreviated version:



"A hearing, reasonably based on evidence sufficient to examine a person, would be quite reasonable."

You've just described the McCarthy hearings.

Perhaps I should have added that if they were conducted reasonably, from there, with truth being the main goal, and treating those without sufficient evidence against them with respect.



The ones "supplying the matches" were the Soviets and their fellow travelers. I blame them.

OK, maybe the Soviets, in that analogy, could have been said to have supplied the matches. But who lit them and used them to set the fires?



The "drills" were the best we could think to do at the time (beside bomb shelters), and they were "motivated" by one thing -- the instinct for survival. They couldn't have "driven" anything into the American "psyche" that wasn't already there

Problem is that whole campaigns were built around that notion. Not everyone would have been foolish enough to think that "duck and cover" would make a nuke exchange survivable. It struck me as being motivated by more; especially by those who wanted to instill the notion that such an exchange WAS survivable.




Reagan was "anti-nuke" enough to end the threat of nuclear war. That's enough for me.

As you recall, his first term and then some saw nuclear escalation. Sure, the USSR fell during his term, but that was a result of their own foibles more so than US intervention.

I don't want to take away from the role he did play, and it's tough to say too much, as, in the end, it was a positive result. I just don't think of Reagan as "anti-nuke", overall. He was, however, fervently anti-Soviet.

Alas, though, our nuke fears are not over; just the threat of a large exchange.



Saying you're anti-nuke and screaming for unilateral disarmament buys (and bought) nothing but more fear, more capitulation of one kind or another and less security everywhere.

Unilateral disarmament was the opposite extreme from nuclear proliferation. Neither was a good idea.



peace thru strength works.

Yes, but in the case of nukes, we were sufficiently strong to ensure "MAD". Best to move towards smart weapons (which, of course, we did)



Peace thru weakness and incessant talk gets us precisely where Obama's got us in the Middle East today -- ignored, laughed at amd facing an ever strengthening terrorist threat.

While Obama hasn't helped matters much, that position in the Middle East stems back 10 years, fighting the wrong wars in the wrong places in the wrong ways. Just as with the economy, best to look at where the problems started, not just who is failing to get us out.



Today, in the US and realistically, there is no worse ideology than Obama's which can harm this nation and erode its historical identity (the principles in the Declaration) more than his.

I don't see it nearly as extreme. There are known to be a number of people in the Democratic Party, for instance, who are a lot more socialist than he. Certainly, carried too far, some of his policies could cause great harm, but so can numerous caustic policies on the side of the current GOP, too.



And, I'm afraid - no, convinced - it will have ended, over time, the American Republic as we know it (Obama-care is the poisoned pill, hmmm - so to speak).

I always find it interesting that health care is where many have decided to draw the line. I would have much rather seen this kind of passion levied against the current state of welfare, where whole generations are learning to become veritable baby factories to maintain their life of systematized dependence, whining about their "victim" status they work so hard to maintain the illusion of.



There, sadly, I've conceded the war. The battle of 2012 ended it.

While Obama is certainly disappointing and far from ideal, I don't see where the war would have been won with Romney, of all peop 2000 le. I was hoping that the GOP would have learned from its mistakes and put up a candidate more in keeping with honorific conservative ideals, rather than the current "NeoCon" direction (I use the term to differentiate the modern Republican from a genuine conservative ideal). If the GOP had posted a better, more reasonable, less corporate-ass-kissing candidate, I think they could have won and the nation might have turned for the better. Instead we had to choose between a failed rectifier and the priorities which caused our current mess in the first place.




I think it's safe to assume you're an Obama supporter.

No! Not at all! I just don't find him quite as bad as you do, nor do I find the likes of Romney to be quite as good, to put it simply. I had better hopes for him, initially, but he's been a disappointment and I would just as soon vote elsewhere. If anything, I'd like to see the Libertarians have a shot, instead of the Demo-Publicans. They may seem unrealistic in some ways, but at least their ultimate ideals seem less corrupted than the other two.




Did you ever stop to think, if you'd checked-out the book from your public library and started reading, in the time we've spent on these posts you'd be half-way through the damn thing by now?! []


Hah. Yes, I looked but it was checked out of the local branch. I'm next in line, though.


----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

You're going to read the book! Hurray!! I suppose I should just stop here then. Love to hear from you after. Possibly a PM.

You're a thought-provoker. That's good, so one or two smaller points re this last:

Depends on what kind of "fires" you're talking about. There are physical fires, fires of conscience, fires of awareness, etc.

Yes, more "respect" would have helped. Questioners were not without fault, certainly. The bigger and undead issue resides in the word "witch-hunt". There's the beef, so to speak.

Actually, the USSR didn't fall during Reagan's term. It fell under Bush #1. Reagan's approach ("star wars", in a word) was to raise the stakes, not fold his hand. In a kind of perverted sense, "proliferation" met head-on did it, not conciliatory talk with its inevitable and interminable concessions. That had been going on for years; eg., Carter. In short, Reagan believed freedom could always beat totalitarianism -- especially in economic terms. The proliferation was largely about the where-with-all to continue it. Check out Reagan's diary. Fascinating reading.

Best we skip the Middle East. Suffice it to say, the US didn't start the violence to which the Bushs responded. Violence has been a part of the region's history since the third millenium BCE (or before), up to and including the first WTC bombing, USS Cole, taking of hostages, etc., etc. It is, also, a part of Islam - or perhaps better said, certain movements within the faith (the ones on the march today).

No. No one in the Dem. Party is further to the left than Obama -- including that self-described Socialist from Vermont. I've read Obama's books, heard his speechs including the ones which were not supposed to have been recorded, but were.

Simply not possible for a libertarian to be elected today. That's reality, I'm afraid. And don't forget, the libertarian view of foreign policy is virtually identical to that of the Democrat Party (the principal difference between conservatives and libertarians). I think it's close to impossible for a conservative to be elected, too. The country has changed (the media and academia responsible). It wants Santa Claus now, not an administrator or a statesman. Save the white beards, that's the liberal Democrat or Republican. Alas, all good things must come to an end. Tragically, that includes the American Republic:

"I want to imagine with what new features despotism could be produced in the world: I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls.... Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate.

So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of it from each citizen....

Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one's acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid industrious animals of which government is the shepherd."


Alexis de Tocqueville -- circa 1830

Sound familiar? I think you implied a drift in this direction yourself in your post. It's not Orwell's 1984 steamship were embarking on, it's Huxley's Brave New World luxury yacht.

Best, again, and . . . good reading!

Re: So was he a Commie?


You're going to read the book! Hurray!! I suppose I should just stop here then. Love to hear from you after. Possibly a PM.

Sure. And I believe it's worth a look-see since it's a major event and it's always good to get all sides.



You're a thought-provoker. That's good, so one or two smaller points re this last:

Thanks. As with your comments, I always appreciate thoughtful comments, even if I don't always agree with everything. That's how we expand our own POV.



Depends on what kind of "fires" you're talking about. There are physical fires, fires of conscience, fires of awareness, etc.

Yes, in the original metaphor, I was referring to a fire of social attitude and stigma.




Yes, more "respect" would have helped. Questioners were not without fault, certainly. The bigger and undead issue resides in the word "witch-hunt". There's the beef, so to speak.

Which is, of course, the matter of colloquialisms which are apropos or not. Pardon the over-use of "which". But it seemed to work in this case




Actually, the USSR didn't fall during Reagan's term. It fell under Bush #1.

I wrote hastily. I meant the initial avalanche and was thinking about the Wall, etc




Reagan's approach ("star wars", in a word) was to raise the stakes, not fold his hand.

But SDI was never considered workable even by its proponents. I recall using the analogy, at the time, of getting fired at with a machine gun and having a shield which would stop 80-90% of the bullets. Sure, that sounds great, but if you have to cripple your own finances to pay for the shield, you kind of think "why bother, if I'm being fired at with a machine gun, I'm dead anyway, seems there are better ways to spend my money to protect myself."

Of course, I wouldn't want to give up the dozen or so M-16's I already have in my own footlocker, either, in the hopes that my adversary would do the same.




The proliferation was largely about the where-with-all to continue it.

Which is amazing that it worked at all, since it was mostly puffery. Once you're well-past the MAD threshold, the number of warheads is just bragging rights. No need to cripple your economy over keeping up.



Suffice it to say, the US didn't start the violence to which the Bushs responded.

No, and SOME form of response was in order, especially post-911, it's just the response was misdirected.



Violence has been a part of the region's history since the third millenium BCE (or before),

Exactly! Unless we gear up and occupy the entire region (at a huge cost of money and lives), it's not going to end. We're not going to just "stabilize" the region by toppling one regime or the other, and we'll never be able to keep up with all the human rights violations, short of such an occupation.



It is, also, a part of Islam - or perhaps better said, certain movements within the faith (the ones on the march today).

Agreed. And I always find it amusing how many Muslims are quick to march to say "don't judge us, you're being unfair", but how slow they are to march against the violence committed in the name of Islam.



No. No one in the Dem. Party is further to the left than Obama -- including that self-described Socialist from Vermont. I've read Obama's books, heard his speechs including the ones which were not supposed to have been recorded, but were.

VERY interested to know where I could find more of that. He was always too left for my tastes, but I had not seen him as that radical. His policies thus far are not as radical as you describe, but if his ideology is, then it's certainly worth noting.



Simply not possible for a libertarian to be elected today. That's reality, I'm afraid.

No, I agree. And I think they'd be very dangerous if they did get in, in time. As I mentioned, they're sometimes unrealistic. I'd just like to see a t term or two to shake up the current power structures.



I think it's close to impossible for a conservative to be elected, too.

Although I haven't seen a true conservative in a while. Which frightens me, because, while I was hoping the GOP might eventually learn a lesson and we needed to get away from W-politics, the fact is staying too long on Obama-tics will soon become disastrous, especially with the various special interest leeches riding his coattails.



The country has changed (the media and academia responsible).

That is a discussion unto itself. I see a lot of polarization in the media. This is a way people like Rupert Murdoch have not helped. Sure, I understand, somewhat, what he was going for. He saw a left bias in the media. But instead of balancing it with an reasonable alternative POV, he ushered in the era of clearly biased, partisan media, with FOX on one side and its counterpart, MSNBC, on the other, neither of which is convincing to anyone not already indoctrinated to their respective side.

Now, academia, I've not been as plugged into over recent years, even though the reports I've gotten from friends with kids in public schools have been scary.



It wants Santa Claus now, not an administrator or a statesman.

The Santa mentality is a huge danger on the Dem side, no doubt.



Sound familiar? I think you implied a drift in this direction yourself in your post.

I never would like a drift in 2000 that direction. I just fear that such a society can be yoked either by the state, or by certain so-called "private" interests. What I see is that we're in danger from both sides, on that one. The Dems threaten to quash the greatness in society via the power of the state, but the GOP, in the guise of being our salvation from that ominous "gummint", is feeding a private sector oligarchical beast which threatens us in the same way.

ANY power, too great, has the same potential. Government or corporate. I'm for the power of the individual.



It's not Orwell's 1984 steamship were embarking on, it's Huxley's Brave New World luxury yacht.

I like that statement!



Best, again, and . . . good reading!

Thanks



----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

Thanks, again, for a nice post.

Btw, I hope you made note of the Tocqueville quotation. Since Obama-care passed and the Supreme Court inexplicably (and unconstitutionally) re-wrote it, approving its own re-write, we are living in an authoritarian system (the Declaration and Constitution being relegated to quaint remembrances): Santa Claus with an iron boot (with a velvet toe -- the velvet supplied by the media). . . Obama was right when he said, "It's here to stay" .... "it's the law". In three or four years, this will become, sadly, apparent to all, I'm afraid. The only difference between Tocqueville's time and ours is that, then, we would have been called "subjects" and not "citizen dependents".

Best

Re: So was he a Commie?

"His war on communism was about as ethical as the rise of the Bolsheviks in their attacks against the Czars".

How was the revolution unethical? After all, Russian Empire had effectively collapsed in throes of extreme poverty & general misery brought on by a number of things, most of which can be directly blamed on the Czar & aristocracy. Lots of blood was shed in the course of the revolution, but that`s not exactly unusual. Of course, what nobody could foresee, was that the replacement regime will turn out even more brutal...



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Re: So was he a Commie?

"Ethical"? Such a weak word. Doesn't really apply here, does it? Revolutions may be measured qualitatively by just two considerations -- by what they're trying to replace (the status quo) and by what they're trying to (and ultimately do) replace the status quo with. A revolution (of the kind you're discussing) without (some) blood seems problematic at best.

Btw, many people could, and did, see how it would turn out.

Your ol' "Nazi" friend

Re: So was he a Commie?


"Ethical"? Such a weak word. Doesn't really apply here, does it?

Not "weak". Just hard to define. It's only "weak" if it's being used as the sole justification in an action, but not so much as a discuss like in this forum. (Are you a pre-law student by any chance?) Ethics always apply when it comes to the fate of generations of an entire nation of people, not to mention the effects of that nation upon other nations.



Revolutions may be measured qualitatively by just two considerations -- by what they're trying to replace (the status quo) and by what they're trying to (and ultimately do) replace the status quo with.

You can also add the results of the revolution into that equation. What someone TRIES to do is one aspect of any action. The RESULTS are always another.

Most revolutions wind up being so awful because the people in the lead often convince the people that they're replacing the status quo with something better, but what the people get is usually worse (good examples are Russia, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Iran, and many others)



Btw, many people could, and did, see how it would turn out.

On that point, I agree with you. They might not have seen the exact magnitude of Stalin's regime, but they knew it wasn't beneficent for the people.



----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

You seldom hear someone on one side saying, "A revolution now would be 'unethical'!" Or, someone on the other side saying, "To allow this regime to continue another day would be 'unethical'!" Rather, they would use terms like "unjust", "unbearable", "intolerable", etc. That's what I mean by "weak" in the context of revolution. But, it's your word and your thought.

("Unethical", it seems to me, applies more to someone adding a buck to the price of a baseball because he knows the kid's father is rich.)

"You can also add the results of the revolution into that equation."

I did -- "(and ultimately do)".

My days as a student (formally) are long gone.

Thanks and best

Re: So was he a Commie?


How was the revolution unethical? After all, Russian Empire had effectively collapsed in throes of extreme poverty & general misery ...

... Of course, what nobody could foresee, was that the replacement regime will turn out even more brutal...

That's the point I was making. I'm not saying that "A" revolution wouldn't have been a bad idea. The problem is that what replaced the old regime was even worse.

It's analogous to McCarthy's persecutions in that while it might be argued that something ought to have been done about the infiltration of Soviet spies in the USA, his methods trampled over the very principles he was claiming to be protecting.


----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007

- GW Bush

Re: So was he a Commie?

Was Chaplin a communist? Probably not. He definitely was on the left side of the spectrum, politically, but he always denied that he was a communist, insisting that he had never been aligned with ANY political party. No evidence for his being a Communist Party member has ever been found. His beliefs, based on my reading of his autobiography and the themes found in his movies, were probably much closer to humanism and anarcho-syndicalism than communism.

As others have said, he did try to enlist during WW1, but was turned town for being too short.

By your "siding with Russia" comment, I assume you're referring to his support for a second-front in Russia during WW2. It was unfashionable at that time to see the Russians as allies in the fight against Hitler, but Chaplin believed they WERE our allies, that we needed to join forces with them to defeat Hitler...and guess what...he was probably right.

As for McCarthy, even if there were Soviet spies, most of the McCarthy-era, HUAC deal was overblown. McCarthy was mainly just looking to help his own career and punish his enemies. Many people innocent of communist ties were dragged through the mud, and many ex-communists got the same. The thing is, whatever your opinions of communism are, this is a free country, and people are free to have their own opinions, however unpopular. I'm not a communist, and I think communism is misguided and unrealistic. But do I think communists deserve to be hunted down, rounded up, and tarred and feathered? No. For all the fear-mongering during the McCarthy era, for all the overblown talk of "saving America from the commie threat", all that was done during the time was to instill fear, ruin lives and careers, and persecute people for holding a belief, or allegedly holding a belief, contrary to what the government found acceptable. And I, for one, don't trust the government to decide for us what beliefs are acceptable. Maybe it's the libertarian in me, but that's how I see it. I think the term "witch hunt" still applies to at least 98% of what was done during that period. Being a spy, and hurting people or stealing information that could be harmful to the country, that is a crime, and, if found, should be prosecuted. But holding a certain belief-system, in and of itself, is not a crime, and, by and large, all that McCarthy and his cronies did was hunt people down for holding a certain belief-system.

Re: So was he a Commie?

ZildjianDFW,

Good post. I only differ from you in that I believe that anyone who was connected to Joseph Stalin and who in any way had ties with the Russian communists, did, indeed, pose a threat to their own country (the USA.) It doesn't matter if Communists were in the military, or it they were among the ranks of public servants throughout the land, or if they were only Hollywood types or even just one of the guys with a push broom -- in my estimation, at least: If any of them were consorting with our Cold War enemy, then those who were exposed of such activities got what was coming to them. We are talking treason here, not just party affiliation with some home-grown American chapter of Communist Party with no connection to the USSR or Stalin's regime.

Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!

Re: So was he a Commie?

Very true, but with the exception of Communist party leaders or government agents I highly doubt any real Hollywood star, writer, producer, or director had any direct contact with Uncle Joe. Unless, you've got some info I don't know?


Other than that I agree.



“A ridiculously small group of my most incompetent and silliest troops awaits them."

Re: So was he a Commie?

Many artists of the 20th century were infatuated by Marxism. Chaplin always was a man who wanted to defend the little guy. He stood up for the poor. I'd say he was a Marxist. Not as criticism though. But if in America being "commie" means wanting to destroy the country, no he wasn't.
Top