'Red Scare' domina la política estadounidense

'Red Scare' domina la política estadounidense

A medida que la elección presidencial de 1952 comienza a calentarse, también lo hacen las acusaciones y contraacusaciones sobre el comunismo en Estados Unidos. El "miedo rojo", la creencia generalizada de que el comunismo internacional estaba operando en los Estados Unidos, llegó a dominar gran parte del debate entre demócratas y republicanos en 1952.

El 27 de agosto de 1952, el New York Times La portada contenía tres historias que sugerían el impacto del susto rojo en las próximas elecciones. En la primera historia, el Subcomité de Seguridad Interna del Senado, dominado por los republicanos, publicó un informe en el que se acusaba de que el Gremio de Escritores de Radio estaba dominado por un pequeño número de comunistas. El Gremio, cuyos miembros eran responsables de producir más del 90 por ciento de los programas de radio, supuestamente había sido dirigido por una pequeña camarilla de comunistas durante al menos los últimos nueve años. Según el informe del subcomité, la subversión comunista del Gremio fue simplemente un paso en un esfuerzo mayor para controlar los medios de comunicación de los Estados Unidos, incluida la radio, la televisión, las películas y la publicación de libros.

La segunda noticia de primera plana fue un informe que la Legión Estadounidense exigía, por tercer año consecutivo, que el presidente Harry S. Truman destituyera al secretario de Estado Dean Acheson por su falta de vigor para enfrentar la amenaza comunista. El informe de la Legión declaró que el Departamento de Estado necesitaba desesperadamente "estadounidenses temerosos de Dios" que tuvieran la "fortaleza intestinal para no ser títeres políticos". La organización exigió un arreglo rápido y victorioso de la Guerra de Corea, incluso si esto significaba expandir la guerra a China. La tercera historia proporcionó una especie de contraposición a las dos historias anteriores. Se informó de un discurso del candidato demócrata a la presidencia, el gobernador Adlai E. Stevenson, en el que criticó duramente a quienes utilizaron el "patriotismo" como arma contra sus oponentes políticos. En una obvia bofetada al Subcomité del Senado y otros, como el senador Joseph McCarthy, Stevenson repitió las palabras del escritor Dr. Samuel Johnson: “El patriotismo es el último refugio de los sinvergüenzas”. El gobernador afirmó que era "impactante" que buenos estadounidenses, como Acheson y el exsecretario de estado general George C. Marshall, pudieran ser atacados por ser antipatrióticos.

Las tres historias relacionadas de la portada del Veces indicó cuán profundamente el miedo rojo había penetrado en la sociedad estadounidense. Las acusaciones sobre comunistas en las industrias del cine, la radio y la televisión, en el Departamento de Estado y el Ejército de los Estados Unidos, en todos los ámbitos de la vida estadounidense, habían llenado los periódicos y las ondas de radio durante años. Para 1952, muchos estadounidenses estaban convencidos de que los comunistas estaban trabajando en los Estados Unidos y debían ser desarraigados y perseguidos. Los republicanos y sus aliados obviamente planeaban usar el susto rojo a su favor en las elecciones presidenciales de ese año, mientras que los demócratas iban a tener que luchar contra la percepción de que habían sido "blandos" con el comunismo durante la administración del presidente Truman ( que asumió el cargo en 1945 tras la muerte de Franklin D. Roosevelt). Los republicanos finalmente salieron victoriosos, con Dwight D. Eisenhower anotando una victoria sobre Stevenson.

LEER MÁS: Cómo Eisenhower se opuso en secreto al macartismo


El sendero

El 20 de octubre de 1947, el notorio Red Scare se pone en marcha en Washington, cuando un comité del Congreso comienza a investigar la influencia comunista en una de las comunidades más ricas y glamorosas del mundo: Hollywood.

Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, la Guerra Fría comenzó a calentarse entre las dos superpotencias del mundo, los Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética controlada por los comunistas. En Washington, los perros guardianes conservadores trabajaron para convencer a los comunistas en el gobierno antes de fijar sus miras en los supuestos & # 8220Reds & # 8221 en la famosa industria del cine liberal. En una investigación que comenzó en octubre de 1947, el Comité de Actividades Antiamericanas de la Cámara (HUAC) interrogó a varios testigos prominentes y les preguntó sin rodeos: & # 8220¿Es usted o ha sido miembro del Partido Comunista? & # 8221 patriotismo o miedo, algunos testigos, entre ellos el director Elia Kazan, los actores Gary Cooper y Robert Taylor y los jefes de estudio Walt Disney y Jack Warner, dieron los nombres del comité de colegas que sospechaban que eran comunistas.

Un pequeño grupo conocido como & # 8220Hollywood Ten & # 8221 resistió, quejándose de que las audiencias eran ilegales y violaban sus derechos de la Primera Enmienda. Todos fueron condenados por obstruir la investigación y cumplieron penas de cárcel. Presionado por el Congreso, el establishment de Hollywood inició una política de listas negras, prohibiendo el trabajo de unos 325 guionistas, actores y directores que no habían sido autorizados por el comité. Entre los incluidos en la lista negra estaban el compositor Aaron Copland, los escritores Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman y Dorothy Parker, el dramaturgo Arthur Miller y el actor y cineasta Orson Welles.

Algunos de los escritores de la lista negra utilizaron seudónimos para seguir trabajando, mientras que otros escribieron guiones que fueron acreditados a otros amigos escritores. A principios de la década de 1960, después de la caída del senador Joseph McCarthy, la cara más pública del anticomunismo, la prohibición comenzó a levantarse lentamente. En 1997, el Writers & # 8217 Guild of America votó unánimemente para cambiar los créditos de escritura de 23 películas realizadas durante el período de la lista negra, revirtiendo & # 8211 pero no borrando & # 8211 algunos de los daños causados ​​durante el Red Scare.

& # 8220El Congreso investiga a los rojos en Hollywood. & # 8221 2008. El sitio web de History Channel. 20 de octubre de 2008, 11:54 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=51910.

Aaron Copland: Fanfarria para el hombre común

1774 & # 8211 El nuevo Congreso Continental, el organismo rector de las colonias de América, aprobó una orden que proclamaba que todos los ciudadanos de las colonias & # 8220desconvenían y desalentaban todas las carreras de caballos y todo tipo de juegos, peleas de gallos, exhibiciones de espectáculos, obras de teatro y otros diversiones costosas y entretenimiento. & # 8221

1803 & # 8211 El Senado de los Estados Unidos aprobó la Compra de Luisiana.

1818 & # 8211 Los EE. UU. Y Gran Bretaña establecieron el límite entre los EE. UU. Y Canadá para ser el paralelo 49.

1903 & # 8211 Una comisión conjunta falló a favor de los EE. UU. Con respecto a una disputa sobre la frontera entre Canadá y el Distrito de Alaska.

1935 & # 8211 Mao Zedong llegó a la provincia de Shensi después de su Larga Marcha que duró poco más de un año. Luego estableció el Cuartel General Comunista Chino.

1944 & # 8211 Las fuerzas aliadas invadieron Filipinas.

1952 & # 8211 El levantamiento de Mau Mau contra los colonos blancos comenzó en Kenia.

1967 & # 8211 Siete hombres fueron condenados en Meridian, MS, acusados ​​de violar los derechos civiles de tres trabajadores de derechos civiles. De los hombres condenados, uno era un líder del Ku Klux Klan y otro era un sheriff & # 8217s adjunto.

1986 & # 8211 El mercenario estadounidense Eugene Hasenfus fue acusado formalmente por el gobierno de Nicaragua de varios cargos, incluido el de terrorismo.

1993 & # 8211 La procuradora general Janet Reno advirtió a la industria de la televisión que limitara la violencia en sus programas.

1995 & # 8211 Gran Bretaña, Francia y los Estados Unidos anunciaron un tratado que prohibió las explosiones atómicas en el Pacífico Sur.

El Congreso crea la Asociación Continental

En este día de 1774, el Primer Congreso Continental crea la Asociación Continental, que pide una prohibición completa de todo comercio entre Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña de todos los bienes, mercancías o mercancías.

La creación de la asociación fue en respuesta a los Actos Coercitivos, o & # 8220Intolerable Acts & # 8221 como los conocían los colonos & # 8211 & # 8211, que fueron establecidos por el gobierno británico para restaurar el orden en Massachusetts después del Boston Tea Party.

Las Intolerables Acts fueron un conjunto de cuatro leyes: la primera fue la Boston Port Act, que cerró el puerto de Boston a todos los colonos hasta que se pagaran los daños del Boston Tea Party. La segunda, la Ley del Gobierno de Massachusetts, otorgó al gobierno británico el control total de las reuniones de la ciudad, tomando todas las decisiones fuera de las manos de los colonos. La tercera, la Ley de Administración de Justicia, hizo que los funcionarios británicos fueran inmunes al enjuiciamiento penal en Estados Unidos y la cuarta, la Ley de Acuartelamiento, exigía que los colonos alojaran y acomodaran a las tropas británicas a pedido, incluso en hogares privados como último recurso.

Indignada por las nuevas leyes impuestas por el Parlamento británico, la Asociación Continental esperaba que cortar todo el comercio con Gran Bretaña causaría suficientes dificultades económicas allí como para derogar las Leyes Intolerables. Fue uno de los primeros actos del Congreso detrás del cual todas las colonias se mantuvieron firmes.

& # 8220Congress crea la Asociación Continental. & # 8221 2008. El sitio web History Channel. 20 de octubre de 2008, 11:56 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=51322.

Califica esto:

En este día, 8-27-2008: Red Scare

Red Scare domina la política estadounidense

A medida que la elección presidencial de 1952 comienza a calentarse, también lo hacen las acusaciones y contraacusaciones sobre el comunismo en Estados Unidos. El & # 8220Red Scare & # 8221 & # 8211 - la creencia generalizada de que el comunismo internacional estaba operando en los Estados Unidos & # 8211 llegó a dominar gran parte del debate entre demócratas y republicanos en 1952.

El 27 de agosto de 1952, el New York Times La portada contenía tres historias que sugerían el impacto del susto rojo en las próximas elecciones. En la primera historia, el Subcomité de Seguridad Interna del Senado, dominado por los republicanos, publicó un informe en el que se acusaba de que el Gremio de Escritores de Radio estaba dominado por un pequeño número de comunistas. El Gremio, cuyos miembros eran responsables de producir más del 90 por ciento de los programas de radio, supuestamente había sido dirigido por una pequeña camarilla de comunistas durante al menos los últimos nueve años. Según el informe del subcomité, la subversión comunista del Gremio fue simplemente un paso en un esfuerzo mayor para controlar los medios de comunicación de los Estados Unidos, incluida la radio, la televisión, las películas y la publicación de libros. La segunda noticia de primera plana fue un informe que la Legión Estadounidense exigía, por tercer año consecutivo, que el presidente Harry S. Truman destituyera al secretario de Estado Dean Acheson por su falta de vigor para hacer frente a la amenaza comunista. El informe de la Legión declaró que el Departamento de Estado necesitaba desesperadamente & # 8220 estadounidenses temerosos de Dios & # 8221 que tuvieran la & # 8220 fortaleza intestinal para no ser títeres políticos & # 8221. La organización exigió un arreglo rápido y victorioso de la Guerra de Corea. , incluso si esto significara expandir la guerra a China. La tercera historia proporcionó una especie de contraposición a las dos historias anteriores. Se informó de un discurso del candidato demócrata a la presidencia, el gobernador Adlai E. Stevenson, en el que criticó duramente a quienes utilizaron el & # 8220patriotismo & # 8221 como arma contra sus oponentes políticos. En una obvia bofetada al Subcomité del Senado y a otros, como el senador Joseph McCarthy, Stevenson repitió las palabras del escritor Dr. Samuel Johnson: & # 8220 El patriotismo es el último refugio de los sinvergüenzas & # 8221 El gobernador afirmó que era & # Es sorprendente que los buenos estadounidenses, como Acheson y el exsecretario de estado general George C. Marshall, pudieran ser atacados con el argumento de que no eran patrióticos.

Las tres historias relacionadas de la portada del Veces indicó cuán profundamente el miedo rojo había penetrado en la sociedad estadounidense. Las acusaciones sobre comunistas en las industrias del cine, la radio y la televisión, en el Departamento de Estado y el Ejército de los Estados Unidos, en todos los ámbitos de la vida estadounidense, habían llenado los periódicos y las ondas de radio durante años. Para 1952, muchos estadounidenses estaban convencidos de que los comunistas estaban trabajando en los Estados Unidos y debían ser desarraigados y perseguidos. Los republicanos y sus aliados obviamente planeaban usar el susto rojo a su favor en las elecciones presidenciales de ese año, mientras que los demócratas iban a tener que luchar contra la percepción de que habían sido & # 8220suaves & # 8221 sobre el comunismo durante la administración del presidente. Truman (que asumió el cargo en 1945 tras la muerte de Franklin D. Roosevelt). Los republicanos finalmente salieron victoriosos, con Dwight D. Eisenhower anotando una victoria sobre Stevenson.

& # 8220Red Scare domina la política estadounidense. & # 8221 2008. El sitio web History Channel. 27 de agosto de 2008, 05:54 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2772.

1660 & # 8211 Los libros de John Milton fueron quemados en Londres debido a sus ataques al rey Carlos II.

1789 & # 8211 La Declaración de los Derechos del Hombre fue adoptada por la Asamblea Nacional Francesa.

1859 & # 8211 El primer pozo de petróleo fue perforado con éxito en los EE. UU. Por el coronel Edwin L. Drake cerca de Titusville, PA.

1894 & # 8211 El Congreso de los Estados Unidos aprobó la Ley de Tarifas Wilson-Gorman. La disposición incluida para un impuesto sobre la renta graduado fue luego derogada por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos.

1921 & # 8211 El propietario de Acme Packing Company compró un equipo de fútbol profesional para Green Bay, WI. J.E. Clair rindió homenaje a quienes trabajaban en su planta al nombrar al equipo Green Bay Packers. (NFL)

1928 & # 8211 El Pacto Kellogg-Briand fue firmado por 15 países en París. Más tarde, otras 47 naciones firmarían el pacto.

1945 & # 8211 Las tropas estadounidenses desembarcaron en Japón después de la rendición del gobierno japonés al final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

1979 & # 8211 Lord Louis Mountbatten murió en la explosión de un barco en la costa de Irlanda. El ejército republicano irlandés se atribuyó la responsabilidad.


El miedo rojo y las mujeres en el gobierno

En 1952, una administradora del gobierno llamada Mary Dublin Keyserling fue acusada de comunista. El ataque a ella también fue un ataque al feminismo.

No hablamos a menudo de cómo el miedo rojo anticomunista después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial también fue un ataque a las mujeres, especialmente a las feministas. La carrera de Mary Dublin Keyserling (1910-1997) es un buen ejemplo. Como muestra el historiador Landon R. Y. Storrs: Su vida ayuda a contextualizar “nuestra comprensión de la trayectoria del feminismo del siglo XX y los efectos de género de las cruzadas anticomunistas. & # 8221

En febrero de 1952, el senador Joseph McCarthy acusó a Keyserling, que trabajaba en el Departamento de Comercio, de ser miembro de diez grupos del frente comunista. (En la forma típica de McCarthy, esos supuestos diez grupos se aumentarían más tarde a un "número ilimitado"). McCarthy también nombró a Leon Keyserling, el principal asesor económico del presidente Truman y esposo de Mary & # 8217, como simpatizante de Red.

Los cargos contra Leon se desvanecieron, pero Mary tuvo que tomar una licencia mientras era investigada por una junta de lealtad. “Mary habría despertado la atención anticomunista incluso si no estuviera casada con Leon, & # 8221 escribe Storrs. & # 8220 Desde principios de la década de 1930, había pertenecido a una red flexible de mujeres expertas y activistas que defendían el uso del estado para atacar las desigualdades sociales, en las relaciones de clase, género y raza, que argumentaban que no solo eran injustas sino nocivas para la economía de la nación. y política ".

Los antecedentes anteriores de Keyserling & # 8217 muestran el tipo de ideales que algunas mujeres New Dealers trajeron a su trabajo. La joven Mary Dublin “se sumergió en actividades políticas y culturales de izquierda”. Una "joven sociable científica social en la era de la depresión en Londres y Nueva York", se movía en círculos que "incluían progresistas, socialistas y comunistas", una alianza conocida como el Frente Popular, que luchaba contra la creciente amenaza del fascismo en la década de 1930.

Según Storrs, el & # 8220-feminismo de izquierda & # 8221 que Keyserling trajo a su trabajo en el gobierno muestra que las décadas de 1930 y 1940 no fueron & # 8217t los & # 8220doldrums & # 8221 del movimiento de mujeres & # 8217s que el feminismo no sólo tomó un descanso después la aprobación de la Decimonovena Enmienda en 1920. "El feminismo de izquierda estaba más cerca del poder de lo que pensábamos (aunque no tan cerca como sus enemigos temían o pretendían temer)". Hasta que mujeres como Keyserling fueron expulsadas de posiciones de poder e influencia.

Boletín semanal

Mary Dublin Keyserling fue absuelta en enero de 1953, justo a tiempo para la presidencia de Eisenhower, que no la quería ni a ella ni a su marido en el gobierno. No volvería a tener un empleo en el gobierno hasta la administración de Lyndon Johnson en 1964, momento en el que ambos Keyserlings eran liberales. En su audiencia de confirmación para la dirección de la Oficina de la Mujer en el Departamento de Trabajo, una senadora estadounidense planteó las viejas acusaciones de deslealtad, pero esta vez con menos efecto.

Storrs concluye que "los ataques anticomunistas contra las mujeres en los círculos gubernamentales y políticos frenaron tanto el feminismo como el potencial socialdemócrata del New Deal". Ella escribe: "al forzar a una generación de feministas del Frente Popular a desaparecer, o reinventarse a sí mismas como liberales, el miedo rojo dejó un legado de género que limitó tanto la política social como el feminismo moderno", temas que se exploran más a fondo en el libro de Storrs & # 8217, El segundo susto rojo y la ruptura del New Deal Left.


El susto del estado rojo: llega la lista negra

Si usted no es parte de Twitter, y de los medios de comunicación de Twitter, será afortunadamente ignorante de una GRAN controversia hoy. El sitio web de noticias y comentarios políticos Politico le pidió al comentarista conservador Ben Shapiro que editara como invitado la edición de hoy de su artículo matutino Playbook. Shapiro está completamente dentro de la corriente conservadora, pero eso no impidió que el personal de Politico se asustara. Erik Wemple es el El Correo de Washington columnista de medios:

Dije & # 8220 benditamente ignorante & # 8221, pero realmente, deberías estar al tanto de cosas como esta. Este es el nuevo mundo en el que vivimos.

Primero, esto muestra que vivimos en un mundo en el que las instituciones dominadas por la izquierda (por ejemplo, los medios de comunicación) son tan intolerantes que creen que no deberían tener nada que ver con los conservadores en su línea de trabajo.

En segundo lugar, muestra que su rabia reprime la disidencia interna (a nadie le importará un carajo el personal de Politico que ha sido intimidado para que guarde silencio).

En tercer lugar, dependiendo de cómo Politico& # 8216 si la dirección reacciona, podría revelar que el personal tiene poder de veto sobre las decisiones editoriales & # 8212 en otras palabras, que, como en los eventos del año pasado en Los New York Times y el Philadelphia Inquirer, la mafia del personal maneja efectivamente el periódico.

Si cree que esto se limitará a los medios de comunicación, está muy equivocado. En otras instituciones dominadas por la izquierda, incluidas las empresas cuyos departamentos de Recursos Humanos son conservadores, tendrán dificultades para entrar por la puerta. Hay una medida en curso por parte de profesores y estudiantes de la Universidad de Michigan para que un regente republicano del sistema sea destituido no por nada de lo que dijo, sino por lo que ha dicho. no dijo (que la elección presidencial no fue & # 8217t robada). Si has estado activo en los College Republicans o en cualquier otro grupo conservador en la universidad, es mejor que no lo pongas en tu currículum. Estamos bien encaminados hacia una lista negra real. No serán simplemente conservadores, sino izquierdistas que no sean lo suficientemente radicales. Me llegó la noticia de que un profesional político demócrata al que sigo en las redes sociales fue despedido esta semana porque como un progresista que valora la libertad de expresión, expresó su preocupación por otorgar a las corporaciones el derecho de castigar a las personas por disidentes políticos (me acerqué a él y él confirmó el despido).

Los investigadores han creado un sistema de aprendizaje automático que, según afirman, puede determinar el partido político de una persona, con una precisión razonable, basándose solo en su rostro. El estudio, de un grupo que también mostró que la preferencia sexual aparentemente se puede inferir de esta manera, aborda con franqueza y evita con cuidado los escollos de la "frenología moderna", lo que lleva a la incómoda conclusión de que nuestra apariencia puede expresar más información personal de la que pensamos.

El estudio, que apareció esta semana en la revista Nature Scientific Reports, fue realizado por Michal Kosinski de la Universidad de Stanford. Kosinski fue noticia en 2017 con un trabajo que descubrió que la preferencia sexual de una persona se podía predecir a partir de los datos faciales.

¡Podrías pensar que esto es una locura & # 8212 frenología del siglo XXI! & # 8212 pero el equipo de Kosinski & # 8217s encontró que su software podía adivinar correctamente casi tres de cada cuatro veces. Lejos de ser perfecto, es cierto, pero resulta que los humanos adivinan correctamente solo el 55 por ciento de las veces. Los algoritmos están viendo algo que realmente está ahí. Los científicos que trabajan en el proyecto aún no saben qué variables son las clave. Pero obtener este resultado no requiere invertir en software sofisticado:

El algoritmo en sí no es una tecnología muy avanzada. El artículo de Kosinski describe un proceso bastante común de alimentar un sistema de aprendizaje automático con imágenes de más de un millón de rostros, recopiladas de sitios de citas en EE. UU., Canadá y el Reino Unido, así como de usuarios estadounidenses de Facebook. Las personas cuyos rostros se utilizaron se identificaron como políticamente conservadores o liberales como parte del cuestionario del sitio.

El algoritmo se basó en un software de reconocimiento facial de código abierto, y después del procesamiento básico para recortar solo la cara (de esa manera no se introducen elementos de fondo como factores), las caras se reducen a 2,048 puntajes que representan varias características, al igual que con otros reconocimientos faciales algoritmos, estos no son cosas intuitivas necesarias como "color de cejas" y "tipo de nariz", sino más conceptos nativos de la computadora.

¿Qué es lo que evitará que una corporación en el futuro ejecute una imagen facial de los empleados o solicitantes a través de este algoritmo para asegurarse de que no se contrate ni ascienda a ningún conservador? Todo por el bien de hacer del lugar de trabajo un espacio seguro, por supuesto.

Hemos tenido un susto rojo en la historia de este país. Ahora vamos a tener un Red State Scare. En su webcast de hoy, Ben Shapiro citó a CNN & # 8217s Don Lemon diciendo que todos los votantes de Trump & # 8212 70 millones de sus compatriotas & # 8212 están aliados con el KKK y los nazis. Lemon realmente dijo que & # 8212 el clip está ahí.

Los magnates de Internet utilizaron la ideología de la monotonía para absorber el valor de las empresas locales, los minoristas nacionales, toda la industria de los periódicos, etc., y a nadie pareció importarle. Este atraco, mediante el cual un pequeño grupo de personas, utilizando el cableado de la planitud, podría transferirse a sí mismos enormes activos sin ningún retroceso político, legal o social, permitió a los activistas progresistas y sus patrocinadores oligárquicos llevar a cabo un atraco propio, utilizando el mismo cableado. Se apoderaron del hecho de que el mundo entero ya se estaba adaptando a una vida de planitud práctica con el fin de impulsar su ideología de planicidad política—Lo que ellos llaman justicia social, pero que históricamente ha significado la transferencia de enormes cantidades de poder y riqueza a unos pocos elegidos.

Debido a que esta cohorte insiste en la igualdad y la pureza, han convertido las partes que alguna vez fueron independientes del complejo cultural estadounidense en una tubería de validación mutua para conformistas con puntos de vista aprobados, que luego se acreditan, promueven y se casan entre sí. Un joven estudiante de la Ivy League obtiene A al repetir como un loro el evangelio interseccional, lo que a su vez significa que sus profesores lo recomiendan para un trabajo de nivel de entrada en un grupo de expertos o publicación de Washington que también se dedica a estas ideas. Es probable que su capacidad para promover ampliamente esos puntos de vista en las redes sociales atraiga la aprobación de su próximo posible jefe o del lector de su solicitud para la escuela de posgrado o de sus futuros compañeros. Su éxito en limpiar esos barrotes abrirá a su vez oportunidades futuras de amor y empleo. Hacer lo contrario tiene un efecto inverso, que es casi imposible de evitar dada la rigidez de este sistema. Una persona que está decidida a renunciar a tales tentaciones mundanas, porque es especialmente inteligente, rica o terca, verá solo ejemplos de personas aún más talentosas y exitosas que han visto sus carreras aplastadas y su reputación destruida por atreverse a poner un dedo del pie. el laberinto de líneas rojas que se multiplica cada vez más.

Entonces, en lugar de reflejar la diversidad de un país grande, estas instituciones ahora se han reutilizado como instrumentos para inculcar y hacer cumplir la agenda estrecha y rígida de una cohorte de personas, prohibiendo la exploración o la desviación, un régimen que irónicamente ha dejado sin hogar a muchos, si no la mayoría, de los mejores pensadores y creadores del país. Cualquiera que esté realmente interesado en resolver problemas sociales y económicos profundamente arraigados, o Dios no lo quiera con crear algo único o hermoso, un proceso que es inevitablemente complicado y que a menudo implica explorar herejías y cometer errores, chocará contra una pared. Si son jóvenes y remotamente ambiciosos, simplemente apagarán esa parte de sí mismos desde el principio, estrangulando la voz que saben que los meterá en problemas antes de que hayan tenido la oportunidad de realmente escucharlo cantar.

Esta desconexión entre la política ordenada culturalmente y las preferencias reales demostradas de la mayoría de los estadounidenses ha creado una enorme reserva de necesidades insatisfechas y una oportunidad generacional. ¡Construye cosas nuevas! ¡Crea un gran arte! Comprender y aceptar que la información sensorial es el alimento del cerebro y que Silicon Valley nos la está privando sistemáticamente de ella. Evite quedarse completamente ciego a los árboles. Haz un amigo y no hable de política con ellos. Haz cosas que generen amor y atención de tres personas que realmente conoces en lugar de cientos que no conoces. Abandone la arruinada Ivy League, por favor, se lo ruego. Iniciar una editorial que publique libros que enfurezcan, sorprendan y deleiten a las personas y que les hagan querer leer. Sea lo suficientemente valiente para hacer películas y programas de televisión que atraigan al público real y no a 14 personas en Twitter. Establezca un periódico en el que las personas puedan verse y sostenerlo en sus manos. Regrese a una casa de culto, todas las semanas. Renunciar a nuestras instituciones actuales, ellos ya nos abandonaron.

Léelo todo. Estas dos citas no pueden hacerle justicia.

Los acontecimientos de la semana pasada han dejado en claro que no hay un futuro alcanzable para la mayoría de los conservadores dentro de las instituciones tradicionales. En La opción Benedict, Escribí que llegará el día en que los conservadores religiosos tendrán que depender de sus propias redes para obtener empleo y sustento, o emprender carreras en las que las creencias políticas y religiosas de uno no importan. Ese día ya está aquí para algunas personas, y el número de los que están bajo su sombra se está acelerando rápidamente.

Como dice Alana Newhouse, esto crea una gran oportunidad. Pero no queremos crear una versión espejo de la derecha de la misma conformidad fanática que vemos en las instituciones dominadas por la izquierda. En ese sentido, aquí & # 8217s un correo electrónico que recibí hoy. Retengo el nombre del autor a petición suya:

Su artículo sobre fuerzas diabólicas realmente dio en el clavo. Hace un tiempo, te escribí sobre el fraude electoral. No voy a dejar constancia sobre el lugar o las personas específicas porque he trabajado duro para ganarme la confianza de varias personas en esta historia, y en este momento se encuentran en un estado delicado. Quiero protegerlos personalmente y ministrarles con sinceridad y amor, y la vergüenza pública no servirá de nada.

Algunos amigos de amigos habían sido testigos de algunas irregularidades electorales crudas y asombrosas en una ciudad importante durante su tiempo como observadores. Inicialmente estaba cauteloso ya que mi amigo era un trumpista incondicional. Como muchos de los partidarios acérrimos de Trump, se había aislado socialmente durante mucho tiempo, estaba profundamente infeliz y era cada vez más político. La política le dio un sentido de significado y propósito en su vida. Sin embargo, me convencí de algunas de las acusaciones de fraude cuando los detalles clave de las historias de sus amigos estaban siendo corroborados no solo por otros trumpistas (hablé con al menos siete testigos principales diferentes), sino a través de un video que se publicó después de que terminé de entrevistar. ellos que confirmaron varias afirmaciones sorprendentes.

No podía ignorar esos datos, por lo que comencé a investigar sus afirmaciones. Muchas de sus afirmaciones de fraude eran legítimas, pero extraer la verdad fue un proceso lento y agotador. La razón no fue porque estos testigos de fraude estuvieran mintiendo, sino porque muchos de ellos estaban cautivos por teorías de conspiración y creían sus mentiras. Cuando los entrevistaba, tenía que hacer una distinción constante entre lo que presenciaban y lo que era un rumor. Para ellos, la narrativa de la teoría de la conspiración se había vuelto más importante que la evidencia real del fraude electoral que poseían.

Eventualmente tuvimos cierto éxito en hacer llegar el mensaje de fraude legítimo a las autoridades correspondientes, e incluso algunos de los testigos fueron cubiertos por Fox y otras fuentes de derecha, pero muchos de esos testigos no se hicieron ningún favor. En lugar de controlar sus impulsos de conspiración, muchos mezclaron la verdad con la teoría de la conspiración en su testimonio para parecer ridículos. El pequeño fraude que observaron confirmó falsamente todas las teorías de la conspiración que apreciaban.

Si bien el artículo que escribí mostró que hubo un fraude claro y masivo, no mostró que hubo suficiente fraude concluyente significativo para cambiar el resultado de las elecciones (creo que Biden fue el ganador legítimo de las elecciones). Eso fue demasiado difícil de tragar para la mayoría de estos testigos, y resolvieron una aparente disonancia cognitiva yendo más abajo en la madriguera de la teoría de la conspiración. Últimamente, me han estado enviando historias locas: funcionarios asesinados o capturados en redadas de la CIA en Alemania, Trump arrestando a Biden por traición, trucos chiflados para usurpar una elección democrática y últimamente una teoría de la conspiración con respecto a un golpe militar. Las historias se están volviendo cada vez más extremas y, dadas las encuestas que publicaste recientemente, nos dirigimos hacia un futuro violento e inquietante.

Debemos persuadir a nuestros hermanos y hermanas sobre el derecho a entrar en razón y evitar la violencia, pero la historia dice que las perspectivas de éxito serán bajas. Sin embargo, ahora es el momento de seguir fortaleciendo nuestras instituciones. Soy afortunado de ser parte de una iglesia que ha sido fiel en estos tiempos malos y ha identificado y resistido tal mal de izquierda y derecha.

Al menos, debemos alegrarnos de que la idolatría del poder para personas como nosotros haya sido destruida en su mayor parte. Aunque la opresión probablemente vendrá sobre nosotros, somos libres de amar a un mundo caído y ser testigos del evangelio. Esa es nuestra esperanza y ese es nuestro gozo.

Seguir adelante, no vivir de acuerdo con las mentiras de la izquierda o la derecha, será una de las cosas más difíciles de hacer para cualquiera de nosotros. Pero, ¿qué opción tenemos?


Susto rojo (pódcast)

Susto rojo se anuncia a sí mismo como un podcast de comentarios culturales presentado por "holgazanes bohemios" [8] Dasha Nekrasova y Anna Khachiyan, y se graba desde sus casas en el Bajo Manhattan, Ciudad de Nueva York. Nekrasova es una actriz nacida en Bielorrusia, que se hizo conocida como "Socialismo marinero" [9] [10] después de una entrevista con un InfoWars La reportera se volvió viral en 2018. Emigró a Las Vegas, Nevada, con sus padres acróbatas cuando tenía cuatro años. [11] Khachiyan es una escritora nacida en Moscú, [12] crítica de arte [13] [14] e hija del matemático armenio Leonid Khachiyan. [15] Se crió en Nueva Jersey. [7] The two women met over Twitter, [7] and started the podcast in March 2018 after Nekrasova relocated to New York City from Los Angeles.

Early episodes were produced by Meg Murnane, who would also appear as the show's third co-host. She disappeared from the show in October 2018, and episodes have been self-produced since then. On an episode released on December 5, 2018, Dasha and Anna officially announced that they had parted ways with Meg "amicably and mutually". [dieciséis]

The show covers current topics in American culture and politics and is a critique of neoliberalism and feminism in a manner both comedic and serious in tone. [7] The hosts are influenced by the work of Mark Fisher, [17] Slavoj Žižek, [18] Camille Paglia, and Christopher Lasch. [19] [20] [21] Recurring topics include Russiagate, the #MeToo movement, [12] woke consumerism and call-out culture, the death of Jeffrey Epstein and the Presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, whom both supported in the 2020 Democratic primaries. [22]

Several writers, artists, social commentators and cultural figures from all sides of the political spectrum have appeared on Red Scare, including Elizabeth Bruenig, Angela Nagle, Juliana Huxtable, Ariana Reines, Tulsi Gabbard, Simon Reynolds, Ross Douthat, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Steve Bannon, [23] Slavoj Žižek, [24] and Adam Curtis.

Nekrasova and Khachiyan have hosted several episodes of the show live, most notably broadcasting on NPR at The Green Space at WNYC and WQXR, as well as interviewing social media influencer Caroline Calloway at the Bell House in Brooklyn. [25] Khachiyan has been interviewed by Bret Easton Ellis and Eric Weinstein on their respective podcasts. [26] [27]

Format and availability Edit

An episode of Red Scare is typically between 50 and 80 minutes long. The show's theme song is "All the Things She Said," the 2002 single by Russian pop duo t.A.T.u. Weekly free episodes of the show are available via iTunes and Spotify. Subscribers who contribute at least $5 per month via Patreon gain access to additional weekly premium bonus episodes. As of June 2021, the show has generated over $42,000 per month from over 9,900 subscribers. [28]

Episode guide Edit

As of April 24, 2021, 238 episodes of Red Scare have been released. [29] [30] [31] The show's most frequent guest is photographer Dan Allegretto at seven appearances, followed by Amber A'Lee Frost of Chapo Trap House at six appearances, and writer Patrik Sandberg, at five appearances.


Red Scare (1919–1920)

In the United States, the First Red Scare (1919–1920) began shortly after the 1917 Bolshevik Russian Revolution. Tensions ran high after this revolution because many Americans feared that if a workers’ revolution were possible in Russia, it might also be possible in the United States. While the First Red Scare was backed by an anti-communist attitude, it focused predominately on labor rebellions and perceived political radicalism.

While Arkansas was not immune to the Red Scare, it did see comparatively little labor conflict. Nationally, 7,041 strikes occurred during the 1919–1920 period Arkansas contributed only twenty-two of those strikes. This was not because Arkansas had a weak labor movement. In fact, Arkansas was home to the Little Rock Typographical Union, railroad unions, and sharecropper unions, among others. The lack of strikes was due in part to the positive labor legislation that existed in the state at that time. For example, in 1889, the state government forced railroad employers to pay wages in full to workers after they completed a day’s work. Laws such as this created a more progressive work environment for union workers—most of whom tended to be white, as non-whites were typically not allowed to join. Also, farms in Arkansas were generally small and family owned. While they did employ a system of sharecropping and tenant farming, most of the farms in Arkansas were too small to see the industrial strife that came with larger farms and big businesses across the rest of the country. Too, labor disputes in the agricultural sector, due to the prevalence of African Americans in the workforce, were easily racialized and, as a consequence, often brutally suppressed. A noteworthy example of this was the Elaine Massacre of 1919, during which members of the Progressive Farmers and Household Union of America were systematically killed and persecuted for attempting to resist labor exploitation.

Anti-Bolshevik Legislation
Though Arkansas did not exhibit the same level of labor conflict as the rest of the nation during the First Red Scare, it did follow the national trend of passing anti-Bolshevik or Criminal Anarchy laws.On March 28, 1919, Arkansas joined the majority of states in the union by passing Act 512, which read:

“An act to define and punish anarchy and to prevent the introduction and spread of Bolshevism and kindred doctrines, in the State of Arkansas.

§1. Unlawful to attempt to overthrow present form of government of the State of Arkansas or the United States of America.

§2. Unlawful to exhibit any flag, etc., which is calculated to overthrow present form of government.

§3. Laws in conflict repealed emergency declared effective after passage .”

Such a crime was a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of between $10 and a $1,000, and the perpetrator could be imprisoned in the county jail for up to six months. This anarchy bill was originally introduced as House Bill Number 473, and, on March 6, 1919, it was read in the House of Representatives. The House moved that the bill be placed back upon second reading for the purpose of amendment. The motion was passed, and the following amendment was sent up: “Amend House Bill No. 473 by striking out the words ‘association of individuals, corporations, organization or lodges by any name or without a name,’ as found in lines 2 and 3 of section 2, of the bill.”

This amendment was suggested for the protection of labor unions. The bill was then placed on final passage. This bill passed the House with little opposition. Eighty-two legislators voted in the affirmative, and only one voted in the negative. Only forty-two votes were necessary to pass the bill, and with eighty-two affirmative votes, the bill was passed.

On March 12, 1919, House Bill 473 was read the third time and placed on final passage in the Senate. None voted in the negative, although ten were absent. There were twenty-five votes in the affirmative, with only thirteen necessary for the passage of the bill, and thus it passed. On March 28, 1919, Governor Charles Hillman Brough signed the bill, making it Act 512. Brough was a popular speaker at the time and spoke often of his dislike for Germans and radicals.

Criminal syndicalism laws were also commonplace during the First Red Scare. Criminal syndicalism addressed and punished acts of violence or acts of advocating violence as a means of bringing political change. Many of these laws were in response to the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, or Wobblies) and their attempts to organize minorities working in the fields. However, Arkansas was not one of the states that passed anti-syndicalism legislation.

Effects of Anti-Bolshevik Legislation
Though the First Red Scare ended in 1920, both the state and federal legislation passed during that time lasted much longer. These anti-Bolshevik laws were used against socialist, communist, and union organizers in Arkansas a number of times in the 1930s and in 1940. The Communist Party of Arkansas reached its peak in the 1930s. Some examples include the 1934 arrest of George Cruz, who was an activist involved in an organization called the Original Independent Benevolent Afro-Pacific Movement of the World (OIBAPMW) the 1935 arrest of Ward Rodgers, who was a member of the Southern Tenant Farmers’ Union (STFU) the 1935 arrest of Horace Bryan, a labor organizer and the 1940 arrest of Nathan Oser, who was the director of Commonwealth College.

Due to some positive labor legislation that existed in the state, the rural isolation of many of the state’s citizens, and the focus on racial issues rather than ideological conflict, the scare in Arkansas did not turn into the hysteria felt by most of the rest of the nation, despite the anti-Bolshevik laws and resulting arrests.

Para informacion adicional:
Dowell, Elderidge Foster. A History of Criminal Syndicalism Legislation in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1939.

Franklin, F. G. “Anti-Syndicalist Legislation.” Revista estadounidense de ciencias políticas 14 (1920): 291–298.

McCarty, Joey. “The Red Scare in Arkansas: A Southern State and National Hysteria.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 37 (1978): 264–277.

Kern, Jamie. “The Price of Dissent: Freedom of Speech and Arkansas Criminal Anarchy Arrests.” MA thesis, University of Arkansas, 2012.


Sociedad Histórica de Pensilvania

The Cold War was sparked by the immediate aftermath of World War II. The Allied Forces were divided by ideology and quickly separated into two camps: the Western democracies, led by the United States, and the Communist nations, dominated by the Soviet Union. This alignment served as the basic framework of the Cold War over the next fifty years, from 1947-1991. As America positioned itself in opposition to totalitarian regimes, American citizens were forced to confront realities of what "freedom" meant, or should mean.

The Red Scare was a period during the 1940s-50s when Americans became anxious that Communists had infiltrated the home front. The public backlash against communism led Senator Joseph McCarthy to spearhead a series of public restrictions and trials on charges of treason. Groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned McCarthy's campaign as an attempt to unjustly restrict civil liberties and free speech.

This lesson will foster class discussion of the American definition of freedom and the appropriateness of governments in restricting civil liberties in the pursuit of peace and stability. Students will be asked to connect these larger themes to past events, such as the Salem witch trials and the WWII Japanese internment camps, as well as contemporary events, such as the post-9/11 response to American Muslims.

Temas

Big Ideas

Essential Questions

What role do multiple causations play in describing a historic event?

Why is time and space important to the study of history?

Concepts

Learning about the past and its different contexts shaped by social, cultural, and political influences prepares one for participation as an active, critical citizen in a democratic society.

Historical comprehension involves evidence-based discussion and explanation, an analysis of sources including multiple points of view, and an ability to read critically to recognize fact from conjecture and evidence from assertion.

Historical causation involves motives, reasons, and consequences that result in events and actions. Some consequences may be impacted by forces of the irrational or the accidental.

Competencies

Analyze the interaction of cultural, economic, geographic, political, and
social relations for a specific time and place.

Contrast multiple perspectives of individuals and group in interpreting other times, cultures, and places.

Evaluate cause-and-result relationships bearing in mind multiple causations.

Background Material for Teacher

National Archive's collection of the correspondence between Senator McCarthy and President Truman

The Historical Society of Pennsylvania's Preserving American Freedom annotated entries for an anti-Communist y un anti-McCarthy publicación

Good Night and Good Luck, a 2005 docudrama about journalist Edward R. Murrow's challenge to Sen. McCarthy's anti-Communist crusade.

End of Unit Assessment

Students are to write a 2-3 page response paper, contrasting the two groups (HUAC and ACLU) and their points of view. They should use evidence drawn from the two primary documents as well as knowledge culled from class discussion and the Good Night and Good Luck film.

Other essay topics might include a summary of the short- and long-term effects of McCarthyism or an analysis of Edward R. Murrow's quote, "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."

Students could also research and write a biography of a famous American who was blacklisted following investigation by McCarthy or the HUAC.


Contenido

Philippines Edit

In the Philippines, red-tagging poses threats to the lives or safety of its targets [10] and impinges on the right to free expression and dissent. [11] Red-tagged individuals also tend to become vulnerable to death threats [12] and allegations of terrorism. [11] The United Nations warn that red-tagging is a “criminalizing discourse” that undermines the value of the work of human rights defenders and places them at risk of violence and various forms of harassment. [13]

Communism has generally been viewed with disfavour and particular distrust by large sectors of Philippine society ever since the country gained independence from the United States on July 4, 1946. Shared ideological preferences with the United States, resulting from more than four decades of assimilation and exacerbated by the onset of the Cold War, has resulted in Filipinos being understandably predisposed to suspecting groups and individuals of Communist sympathies. [14] [15] This predisposition makes redtagging an effective tool used by players in the political arena, given that it authorizes law-enforcement agencies and the military to act on the taggings. [16] [15] [17] [18] [19]

Redtagging is almost never employed against foreigners, including members of ruling communist parties, owing to the principle in international law of noninterference in another country's domestic affairs. This can be seen especially in the government's cordial relations with the Lao People's Revolutionary Party and the Communist Party of Vietnam, [20] [21] both of which are ruling parties of ASEAN member states. ASEAN itself strongly upholds the principle of noninterference, [22] [23] given Southeast Asia's long and traumatic experience of division along colonial lines. One of the notable exceptions to the nontagging of foreigners was US citizen Brandon Lee, an ancestral-domain paralegal in the Cordillera Region. Lee was tagged as a Communist and automatically therefore an "enemy of the state", and was subsequently shot four times. [24] Liza Soberano and Catriona Gray, US and Australian citizens respectively, have also since been publicly threatened, the former with assassination and the latter with rape. [25] [26]

Estados Unidos Editar

Siglo XX Editar

Red-baiting was employed in opposition to anarchists in the United States as early as the late 1870s when businessmen, religious leaders, politicians and editorial writers tried to rally poor and middle-class workers to oppose dissident railroad workers and again during the Haymarket affair in the mid-1880s. Red-baiting was well established in the United States during the decade before World War I. In the post-war period of 1919–1921, the United States government employed it as a central tactic in dealing with labor radicals, anarchists, communists, socialists and foreign agents. These actions in reaction to the First Red Scare and the concurrent Red Terror served as part of the organizing principle shaping counter-revolutionary policies and serving to institutionalize anti-communism as a force in American politics. [9] [27]

The period between the first and second Red Scares was relatively calm owing to the success of government anti-communism, the suppressive effects of New Deal policies on radical organized labor and the patriotism associated with total mobilization and war effort during World War II. [27] Red-baiting re-emerged in the late 1940s and early 1950s during the period known as the Second Red Scare due to mounting Cold War tensions and the spread of communism abroad. Senator Joseph McCarthy's controversial red-baiting of suspected communists and communist sympathizers in the United States Department of State and the creation of a Hollywood blacklist led to the term McCarthyism being coined to signify any type of reckless political persecution or witch-hunt. [6]

The history of anti-communist red-baiting in general and McCarthyism in particular continues to be hotly debated and political divisions this controversy created continue to make themselves felt. Conservative critics contend that revelations such as the Venona project decryptions and the FBI Silvermaster File at least mute if not outright refute the charge that red-baiting in general was unjustified. [28] Historian Nicholas von Hoffman wrote in El Washington Post that evidence revealed in the Venona project forced him to admit that McCarthy was "closer to the truth than those who ridiculed him". [29] Liberal critics contend that even if someone could prove that the United States government was infiltrated by Soviet spies, McCarthy was censured by the Senate because he was in fact reckless and politically opportunistic and his red-baiting ruined the lives of countless innocent people. [30] Historian Ellen Schrecker wrote that "McCarthyism did more damage to the constitution than the American Communist Party ever did". [31]

Siglo XXI Editar

In the 21st century, red-baiting does not have quite the same effect it previously did due to the fall of most Marxist–Leninist governments, [7] but some pundits have argued that events in current American politics indicates a resurgence of red-baiting consistent with the 1950s. [8] The United States government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program were not only criticized as corporate welfare but red-baited as a "gateway to socialism". [32] [33] [34] [35] Political activist and author Tim Wise argued that the emergence of red-baiting may be motivated by racism towards President Barack Obama and fear that the progressive policies of his administration would erode white privilege in the United States. [8]

Some commentators argue that red-baiting was used by John McCain, Republican presidential nominee in the 2008 presidential election, when he argued that Obama's improvised comments on wealth redistribution to Joe the Plumber was a promotion of "socialism". [9] Journalist David Remnick, who wrote the biography The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, [36] countered that it should now be obvious that after one year in office Obama is a center-left president and the majority of his policies are in line with the center-left Democratic tradition. [37] In July 2011, The Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Barlett argued that an honest examination of the Obama presidency must conclude that he has in fact been a moderately conservative Democrat and that it may take twenty years before Obama's basic conservatism is widely accepted. [38] Similarly, author and columnist Chris Hedges argued that the Obama administration's policies are mostly right-wing. [9] [39]

In April 2009, Representative Spencer Bachus claimed that seventeen of his Congressional colleagues were socialists, but he would only name Senator Bernie Sanders, who has been openly describing himself as a democratic socialist for years. [40] Sanders countered that American conservatives blur the differences between democratic socialism and authoritarian socialism and between democracy and totalitarianism. He argued that the United States would benefit from a serious debate about comparing the quality of life for the middle class in the United States and in Nordic countries with a long social-democratic tradition. [41]

In May 2009, a number of conservative members of the Republican National Committee were pressing the committee and by extension chairman Michael Steele to officially adopt the position that the Democratic Party is "socialist". Over a dozen members of the conservative wing of the committee submitted a new resolution, to be eventually voted on by the entire committee, that would call on the Democratic Party to rename itself the Democrat Socialist Party. Had this resolution been adopted, the committee's official view would have been that Democrats are "socialists". [42] The resolution stated as follows:

RESOLVED, that we the members of the Republican National Committee call on the Democratic Party to be truthful and honest with the American people by acknowledging that they have evolved from a party of tax and spend to a party of tax and nationalize and, therefore, should agree to rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party. [43]

On Wednesday 20 May 2009, supporters of the resolution instead agreed to accept language urging Democrats to "stop pushing our country towards socialism and government control", ending a fight within the ranks of the Republican Party that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice such as the one expressed by the Tea Party movement. [44] Frank Llewellyn, national director of Democratic Socialists of America, argued that Republicans never really define what they mean by socialism and are simply engaging in the politics of fear. [45]

In July 2009, talk show host Glenn Beck began to devote what would become many episodes on his TV and radio shows, focusing on Van Jones, a special advisor in President Obama's White House Council on Environmental Quality. Beck was especially critical of Jones' previous involvement in radical protest movements and referred to him as a "communist-anarchist radical". [46] In September 2009, Jones resigned his position in the Obama administration after a number of his past statements became fodder for conservative critics and Republican officials. [46] Tiempo credited Beck with leading conservatives' attack on Jones, [47] who characterized it as a "vicious smear campaign" and an effort to use "lies and distortions to distract and divide". [48]


How Hollywood Thrived Through the Red Scare

A young Richard Nixon started asking studio executives why they didn’t produce anti-Communist movies. The studios quickly responded with anti-Red films.

On December 2nd, 1954, Joseph McCarthy was censured by the U.S. Senate, a punishment for what many considered a reckless crusade against communists. McCarthy’s crusade had largely focused on the U.S. State Department and military, which he said were compromised by communist influence at the height of the Cold War. But the culture of suspicion he nurtured ended up targeting suspected communists in Hollywood as well.

According to historian Larry Ceplair, the attacks on Hollywood came in waves, the first of which was during the initial Red Scare of 1919, just two years after the success of the Russian Revolution. Then, in 1934, the Production Code Administration exerted pressure on productions that never saw the light of day because of alleged subversive content. For example, a production of Sinclair Lewis’ It Can’t Happen Here, about a fictional fascist takeover of the United States, was cancelled by MGM after its script was critiqued by the group.

When Stalin made an alliance with Hitler in 1939, the powers that be in Hollywood became more overtly anti-communist. Walt Disney prepared a campaign against communist agitators, but became sidetracked as American involvement in World War II began. As a young actor, Ronald Reagan was elected leader of the Screen Actors Guild on a platform of purging communist influence. Famously, in 1948, the “Hollywood 10” challenged a U.S. House committee. These writers, directors, and producers declined to answer whether they were communists. They were blacklisted, unable to land jobs in the movie industry.

As the Cold War began, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee descended on Hollywood with a young Republican congressman named Richard Nixon asking studio executives why they didn’t produce anti-Communist movies. The studios quickly responded with anti-Red films such as Iron Curtain (1948) and The Red Menace and I Married a Communist, both released in 1949. None did well at the box office.

Author Jon Lewis argues, however, that Hollywood’s response to the various Red Scares actually solidified the business. While the Red Scare created negative headlines for the short-term, the long-term results were actually favorable to the business side of the movie industry.

According to this view, the blacklist served more than an ideological purpose. Lewis writes that the U.S. House committee which investigated communists in Hollywood helped corporate interests, based in New York, assert power over the movies. He notes that committee members were openly suspicious of Jewish interests in Hollywood, ready to believe anti-Semitic arguments that Jews were hostile to mainstream American life.

The Red Scare and subsequent blacklist, according to Lewis, weakened the influence of two forces working against corporate influence over Hollywood. The old, mostly Jewish, entrepreneurs who dominated Hollywood in the 1930s began to fade as corporations dictated policies, echoing the way corporations began to dominate much of the rest of American economic life in the 1950s.

This assertion of corporate control successfully fended off the growth of unions which threatened profits. As the federal government grew more confident in Hollywood’s ability to fight the Red Menace, it allowed the movie industry to go its own way, waiving possible anti-monopoly actions and allowing the business to establish its own rating systems, fending off calls for government censorship of content.

Through it all, the patriotic American public continued to show up at the box office throughout the Cold War. McCarthy died in 1957, his memory largely disgraced by his overreach, and the seeking out of communists in the movie industry evaporated by the 1960s.


Republicans Resurrect The Red Menace

Republicans have decided not to craft an official party platform at their convention this week, so in lieu of a detailed agenda for the country, its top minds delivered a simple message on Monday night: The GOP is for Donald Trump, and Democrats are for socialism.

Fox News personality Kimberly Guilfoyle repeatedly decried the “socialists” running the Democratic Party, along with the “socialist Biden-Harris agenda,” which apparently would include shipping American jobs to China, welcoming sex traffickers across the Mexican border, the “policies that destroyed places like Cuba and Venezuela,” and, for good measure, “closed schools.”

“Their vision for America is socialism,” declared former Trump United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, adding that socialism is an experiment that “has failed everywhere.”

“They will turn our country into a socialist utopia,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) warned.

“President Trump is fighting against the forces of socialism,” intoned multimillionaire gasoline distributor Maximillian Alvarez.

This apocalyptic potpourri seems ludicrous to liberals and moderates who associate socialism with centrally planned economies, gulags and the Soviet Union. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are career moderates who have spent their time in public office defending the same neoliberal turn in economic policy that Republicans have pursued for the past 40 years, and they won their spots on the Democratic ticket by crushing their party’s progressive wing.

But to students of history, there is a certain paranoid logic to the latest Red Scare. Socialism is not, and never has been, a consistently defined economic program. It is a malleable political term whose meaning has been shaped through American history predominantly by its enemies, rather than the practitioners of any concrete doctrine. To the conservative economist Milton Friedman, progressive taxation was a socialist policy. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) once claimed that same-sex marriage was part of a socialist plan to attack “individual liberty” by extending government benefits to LGBTQ families.

Such Red Scare tactics were de rigueur during the Cold War, as they could be used to associate Stalinist butchery with whatever it was the right was upset about. Conservatives seeking to beat back the civil rights movement would rail that Marxists had infiltrated the NAACP, or attack Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a devotee of “socialism and sex perversion.”

The attempts to link socialism with efforts to dismantle American racial hierarchy go back much further than the Cold War, however. After World War I, hard-right members of both parties ranted against the supposed flood of “Judeo-Bolshevik” immigrants from Eastern Europe who planned to overthrow America. When white mobs besieged Black neighborhoods in several American cities in the summer of 1919, The New York Times and other news outlets portrayed the violence as a response to “widespread propaganda” from labor unions to convert Black families to socialism. “Reds Try To Stir Negroes To Revolt,” read a Times headline on July 28, 1919. Similar newspaper headlines accompanied strikes and other labor activism in the 19th century.

In American history, freakouts over “socialism” aren’t really about socialism. They’re about democracy ― and everything about democracy that makes American conservatives uncomfortable. Too many rights for the wrong people not enough social distance between the elite and the rabble.

And yet even on the hard right, the idea of America as a democratic beacon of hope to the world, founded on core democratic principles, is too deeply cherished for a conservative political party to openly declare itself an enemy of democracy. They need a different word. Frequently, they choose “socialism.”

In this light, “socialism” can be understood as any political movement or policy agenda that threatens the existing racial and economic order. And the right’s targets in this project have often been individuals and organizations who really were trying to bring radical change to that order.

The wave of immigration that swept into American cities in the early 20th century did include many people from eastern and southern Europe who brought their left-wing politics with them. The NAACP was not packed with Soviet spies, but it was founded by, among others, W.E.B. Du Bois and William Walling, who both identified as socialists. And while Martin Luther King wasn’t trying to convert the country to queerness, in 1952 he wrote to his future wife Coretta Scott that he was “more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic.”

Was the right’s objection to King really about the prospect of nationalized industry bringing an era of weak economic growth? Por supuesto no. Nor are Mark and Patty McCloskey afraid that Biden will take over Facebook and Comcast and destroy so many hard-earned dividends. The McCloskeys ― two wealthy lawyers who earned an invite as RNC speakers after being charged with a class E felony for threatening Black Lives Matter protesters with guns in June ― were quite explicit about their concerns. They’re afraid that wealthy white neighborhoods will be integrated with everyone else.

“They want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning,” Patty McCloskey told RNC viewers on Monday. “These are the policies that are coming to a neighborhood near you. So make no mistake: No matter where you live, your family will not be safe in the radical Democrats’ America.”

Monday night was not an aberration. Republicans will be screaming “socialism!” for the rest of the convention and the rest of the campaign.

In their own way, they mean it. Trump’s constant praise for dictators isn’t for show he’s serious about his authoritarianism. So long as he is running the GOP ― and so long as the GOP’s entire agenda is “elect Trump” ― the party’s chief organizing principle will remain its antipathy to democracy.

Zach Carter is the author of “The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes,” now available from Random House wherever books are sold.


The Red Scare: How Joseph McCarthy’s Anti-Communist Hysteria Left a Mark on the U.S.

During a 1950 speech to the Women’s Republican Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, Senator Joe McCarthy made a bold accusation: Communists, he said, waving a piece of paper in his hand, had infiltrated the U.S. State Department.

“I have here in my hand a list of 205 — a list of names that were made known to the secretary of state as being members of the Communist Party, and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department,” he said.

No one in the Republican Party had expected the speech to make headlines. Unaware of the content of McCarthy’s remarks, the party sent him to Wheeling as part of a nationwide celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, an assignment that signaled his lowly status. But that speech propelled him to fame as a central figure in the anti-communist movement that came to be known as “the Red Scare.”

Starting in the late 1940s, America became obsessed with rooting out Communists and Communist-sympathizers, using allegations that were often founded on tenuous evidence or outright lies. Deeply destructive, the Red Scare not only ruined lives and movements, but pushed the country deeper into an era of gossip, paranoia, and a struggle between national security and individual rights.

At the time of McCarthy’s speech, Americans felt especially threatened by the rising tide of communism amid the Cold War. Communist Russia had become a nuclear power and China had fallen under Communist rule. During this tense moment, McCarthy’s genius as a demagogue and manipulator shone through.

El autor de Demagogue: The Life and Long Shadow of Senator Joe McCarthy, Larry Tye, tells Vogue adolescente that the senator had a “whatever it takes” approach to politics, with an eye on attracting attention and maintaining power. As McCarthy&aposs personal secretary told historian David Brinkley, the senator was “insane with excitement” over the speech’s press coverage and he had lied about the number of State Department spies. McCarthy continued to change the number from as high as 205 to as low as 10. Nonetheless, the American public was captivated by the senator&aposs claims.

𠇊mericans were afraid that we were losing the worldwide battle with the Soviet Union, and Joe McCarthy gave us an easy way to think about that,” Tye says. "We didn&apost have to worry about going and confronting the Soviets all we had to do was confront their spies hiding throughout Washington.”

Though McCarthy’s fears about Communists were certainly exaggerated, it’s unclear just how much of a threat American Communists posed to the U.S. government. A small number of probable Soviet spies, like Alger Hiss, were uncovered during the Red Scare however, historian Ellen Schrecker tells Vogue adolescente that the 1930s were the heyday of American Communism, and by 1947 most spies had already been driven from the U.S. government. While American Communists were known as fierce progressive organizers, the party simultaneously maintained ties to Russia, even recruiting Soviet spies in the 1930s and &apos40s, according to Schrecker. 

But American Communists’ understanding of what was happening within the Soviet Union was often negligible at best. “They really had this bifurcated view of the world. In their day-to-day activities, they were out there on the front lines. They were doing good work,” Schrecker says. “So when the party said, &aposGo out on the streets and leaflet,’ they didn&apost like it, but they felt it was all for a good cause. So they smothered their doubts about things like the purge trials of the late 1930s in the Soviet Union.”

To say that McCarthy was the lone actor in perpetuating the anti-communist backlash oversimplifies this panic, which had support in all three branches of the U.S. government. At the legislative level, the McCarthy-chaired Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) held congressional hearings for people suspected of Communist allegiance. In the executive branch, President Harry Truman, whose administration had been accused of being “soft on communism,” established “loyalty boards” that evaluated and dismissed federal employees on “reasonable grounds for belief in disloyalty.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Red Scare policies, including a law that banned Communist teachers from New York public schools.

“If you identify [the Red Scare] with McCarthy, who was a blatantly erratic individual, you can say, &aposThis is something marginal, but the system was working and it all ended.&apos That wasn&apost the case,” Schrecker points out. “It was a phenomenon that dominated American politics, which mainstream liberal organizations — like universities, film studios, local governments — all participated in. It&aposs that collaboration that made it so powerful.”

Regardless of motive, the crackdown had the cumulative effect of strangling progressive activism. HUAC and McCarthy’s subcommittee hearings were notorious for their biased, undemocratic tone. The two committees coordinated with the FBI, which maintained files containing everything from suspects’ voter registration history to testimony from friends and employers. The attorney general also kept a special list of “subversive organizations,” including the National Negro Congress and School of Jewish Studies.

These hearings corralled their subjects in such a way that even remaining silent could be a crime. HUAC’s most famous case was the Hollywood Ten, a group of producers, directors and screenwriters called before the committee in 1947. After refusing to answer the committee&aposs questions, they were convicted of contempt of Congress, sentenced to prison, and blacklisted by Hollywood. Other defendants in the industry who pleaded their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination were also ostracized. If a defendant denied involvement in the Communist Party, the prosecution would bring in an FBI or ex-Communist witness who would insist the defendant was Communist, so they could claim the defendant had committed perjury.

To avoid jail and maintain their livelihoods, activists watered down their philosophies. The era had major effects on the civil and labor rights movements, forcing individuals to obscure their personal politics. 

One such case may have been that of Mary Keyserling, a feminist, labor, and civil rights activist who worked in the Department of Commerce. In 1948, Keyserling was brought before a loyalty board after, among other things, being accused of signing an “Open Letter to American Liberals,” which appeared in Soviet Russia Today in 1937. Despite being cleared of the charges, Keyserling’s case was reopened in 1951, after Truman broadened the grounds for dismissal. She was eventually cleared a second time, but left her job in 1953 and did not work in government again until 1964.

In an article about Keyserling, history professor Landon R.Y. Storrs notes that she was probably not a Communist, but her personal papers suggest occasional socialist leanings and Communist sympathies. After her hearings, Keyserling’s politics became less radical, which Storr believes was no coincidence.

“Thus did an enthusiastic Popular Front feminist of the 1930s become a Cold War liberal of the 1960s,” Storr writes. “It is conceivable that Keyserling’s ideological shift would have occurred without her loyalty investigation, but the timing points strongly to the influence of the accusations against her. The fact that we are left guessing is attributable to the loyalty investigation, since it led her to obscure her intellectual evolution.”

As this paranoia trickled from the top down to the American public, everyone from academics to dock workers faced scrutiny. According to Schrecker, an FBI agent only needed to go to the head of a college or university, hand them a list of a faculty member’s supposed Communist connections, and that professor could be fired or worse. For the more than five million federal workers who faced suspicion through loyalty screenings, being called a Communist had the power to turn them into pariahs, cutting off all pathways to employment. In the most extreme case, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage, were sentenced to the electric chair and paid with their lives.

The death knell of the Red Scare came when McCarthy accused the U.S. Army of harboring Communists, leading to a series of televised trials that exposed the public to his bullying tactics. Also, the Supreme Court began rolling back charges against individuals on procedural grounds. This, combined with the Army’s popularity as an institution, gave the public permission to question the intentions and rabidness of the anti-communist movement.

�ter you&aposre told so many times that there is a ‘red’ behind every government agency in Washington, and it seems to be disproven again during those hearings where it looked like McCarthy had a personal agenda rather than a national security agenda, I think that helped America start raising questions that it hadn&apost before about the legitimacy of the whole movement,” says Tye. “If you cry wolf enough times, people stop believing there&aposs a wolf or there&aposs a red out there.”

McCarthy was eventually censured by the Senate, and died in 1957 from health issues likely exacerbated by alcoholism. Yet anti-communist suspicion lingered. Into the 1960s, people continued to be prosecuted and sent to prison for being Communists even today, labels like “socialist” are bandied about by fear-baiting conservatives against liberal political figures. The U.S. is still susceptible to sacrificing democratic tenets under the guise of defending democracy. The Patriot Act, a law created after 9/11 that expanded the government’s ability to surveil American citizens, ostensibly to fight terrorism, turns 20 this fall.

For some historians, however, the most notable testament to the endurance of the McCarthy era is the senator&aposs resemblance to former-president Donald Trump. “I would have liked to have said we&aposve outgrown that in America. The last four years show that we haven&apost,” Tye says. 

“The good news is America has seen its better nature and seen through these bullies and liars," Tye continues. "The bad news is it&aposs not just a senator who can lead us on a goose chase it is even the president of the United States. So we&aposre willing to buy these simplistic solutions the same way we were with McCarthy.”