"Red Scare" domineerib Ameerika poliitikas



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Kui 1952. aasta presidendivalimised hakkavad soojenema, siis ka süüdistused ja vastusüüdistused seoses kommunismiga Ameerikas. Punane hirmutamine - laialt levinud arvamus, et Ameerika Ühendriikides toimib rahvusvaheline kommunism - domineeris 1952. aastal demokraatide ja vabariiklaste vahel.

27. augustil 1952. a New York Times esilehel oli kolm lugu, mis viitavad punase hirmutamise mõjule eelseisvatele valimistele. Esimeses loos avaldas vabariiklaste domineeriv senati siseturvalisuse alakomitee raporti, milles süüdistati, et Raadio kirjanike gildis domineerib väike arv kommuniste. Gildi, mille liikmed vastutasid rohkem kui 90 protsendi raadiosaadete tootmise eest, oli väidetavalt vähemalt üheksa aastat juhtinud väike kommunistide klikk. Allkomitee raporti kohaselt oli gildi kommunistlik õõnestamine vaid üks samm suuremates jõupingutustes USA meedia - sealhulgas raadio, televisiooni, filmide ja raamatute kirjastamise - kontrollimiseks.

Teine esikülje lugu oli aruanne, mida Ameerika leegion nõudis juba kolmandat aastat järjest, et president Harry S. Truman vallandaks riigisekretäri dekaan Achesoni, kuna ta ei olnud jõuline kommunistliku ohuga toimetulekul. Leegioni raportis kuulutati, et välisministeerium vajab hädasti „jumalakartlikke ameeriklasi”, kellel on „sisemine kindlus mitte olla poliitilised nukud”. Organisatsioon nõudis kiiret ja võidukat Korea sõja lahendamist, isegi kui see tähendas sõja laiendamist Hiinasse. Kolmas lugu andis eelnevale kahele loole omamoodi loenduri. See teatas demokraatide presidendikandidaadi kuberner Adlai E. Stevensoni sõnavõttust, milles ta kritiseeris tugevalt neid, kes kasutasid patriotismi relvana oma poliitiliste vastaste vastu. Ilmselge laksuga senati allkomiteele ja teistele, nagu senaator Joseph McCarthy, kordas Stevenson kirjaniku dr Samuel Johnsoni sõnu: „Patriotism on kaabakate viimane pelgupaik.” Kuberner väitis, et on "šokeeriv", et häid ameeriklasi, nagu Acheson ja endine riigisekretär George C. Marshall, võidakse rünnata põhjusel, et nad pole patriootlikud.

Kolm seotud lugu esilehelt Ajad näitas, kui sügavalt oli Red Scare Ameerika ühiskonda tunginud. Süüdistused filmi-, raadio- ja televisioonitööstuses, välisministeeriumis ja USA armees kommunistide kohta kõikidel Ameerika elualadel olid aastaid ajalehti ja eetrit täitnud. Aastaks 1952 olid paljud ameeriklased veendunud, et USA -s on tööl kommunistid ning nad tuleb välja juurida ja jahtida. Vabariiklased ja nende liitlased plaanisid ilmselgelt kasutada punast hirmutamist selle aasta presidendivalimistel, samal ajal kui demokraadid pidid võitlema arusaamaga, et nad olid president Trumani valitsemise ajal kommunismi suhtes “pehmed”. kes tuli ametisse 1945. aastal pärast Franklin D. Roosevelti surma). Vabariiklased olid lõpuks võidukad, Dwight D. Eisenhower lõi Stevensoni üle võidu.

LOE LISAKS: Kuidas Eisenhower salaja McCarthyismi vastu tagasi surus


Rada

20. oktoobril 1947 alustab kurikuulus Red Scare Washingtonis hoogu, kui Kongressi komitee alustab kommunistide mõju uurimist ühes maailma rikkaimas ja glamuursemas kogukonnas: Hollywoodis.

Pärast Teist maailmasõda hakkas külm sõda kuumutama maailma kahe suurriigi ja Ameerika Ühendriikide ning kommunistliku kontrolli all oleva Nõukogude Liidu vahel. Washingtonis töötasid konservatiivsed valvekoerad valitsuses kommuniste välja, enne kui nad kuulsalt liberaalses filmitööstuses väidetavatele “punastele ja#8221 silmale pöörasid. 1947. aasta oktoobris alanud uurimise käigus grillis Ameerika Ühendriikide esindajatekoja ameerika tegevuste komitee (HUAC) mitmeid silmapaistvaid tunnistajaid, küsides otse: "Kas olete või olete kunagi olnud kommunistliku partei liige?" patriotismi või hirmu, mõned tunnistajad ja#8211, sealhulgas režissöör Elia Kazan, näitlejad Gary Cooper ja Robert Taylor ning stuudiohuvilised Walt Disney ja Jack Warner andsid komisjonile nende kolleegide nimed, keda nad kahtlustasid kommunistidena.

Väike rühmitus, mida tuntakse nimega “Hollywood Ten ”, hakkas vastu, kurtes, et kuulamised on ebaseaduslikud ja rikuvad nende esimese muudatuse õigusi. Kõik nad mõisteti süüdi uurimise takistamises ja kandsid vanglakaristust. Kongressi survel alustas Hollywoodi asutus musta nimekirja poliitikat, keelates umbes 325 stsenaristi, näitleja ja režissööri töö, keda komisjon ei olnud heaks kiitnud. Musta nimekirja sattusid helilooja Aaron Copland, kirjanikud Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman ja Dorothy Parker, dramaturg Arthur Miller ning näitleja ja filmitegija Orson Welles.

Mõned musta nimekirja kantud kirjanikest kasutasid töö jätkamiseks pseudonüüme, teised aga kirjutasid stsenaariume, mis anti teistele kirjanikust sõpradele. Alates 1960. aastate algusest, pärast senaator Joseph McCarthy, kommunismivastasuse kõige avalikuma näo langemist, hakkas keeld aeglaselt tühistama. 1997. aastal hääletas Ameerika Writers ’ Guild ühehäälselt musta nimekirja perioodil tehtud 23 filmi kirjutamislaenu muutmise üle, pöörates tagasi ja#8211, kuid mitte kustutades osa#Red Scare ajal tehtud kahjudest.

“Congress uurib punaseid Hollywoodis. ” 2008. Ajalookanali veebisait. 20. oktoober 2008, 11:54 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=51910.

Aaron Copland: Fanfare tavalisele inimesele

1774 – Uus kontinentaalne kongress, Ameerika kolooniate juhtorgan, võttis vastu korralduse, milles kuulutati, et kõik kolooniate kodanikud vähendavad ja heidutavad igasugust hobuste võiduajamist ja igasugust mängimist, kukkede võitlust, näituste, näitemängude ja muu korraldamist. kallid ümbersuunamised ja meelelahutus. ”

1803 – USA senat kiitis Louisiana ostu heaks.

1818 – USA ja Suurbritannia lõid piiri USA ja Kanada vahel 49. paralleeliks.

1903 – Ühiskomisjon otsustas USA kasuks vaidluses Kanada ja Alaska ringkonna vahelise piiri üle.

1935 – Mao Zedong saabus Shensi provintsi pärast oma pikka märtsi, mis kestis veidi üle aasta. Seejärel asutas ta Hiina kommunistliku peakorteri.

1944 ja#8211 liitlasväed tungisid Filipiinidele.

1952 – Keenias algas Mau Mau ülestõus valgete asunike vastu.

1967 – Seitse meest mõisteti Meridianis, MS süüdi kolme kodanikuõiguste töötaja kodanikuõiguste rikkumises. Süüdimõistetud meestest üks oli Ku Klux Klani juht ja teine ​​šerifi ja asetäitja.

1986 ja#8211 Ameerika palgasõdur Eugene Hasenfus sai Nicaragua valitsuse poolt ametlikult süüdistuse mitmes süüdistuses, sealhulgas terrorismis.

1993 – Peaprokurör Janet Reno hoiatas teletööstust piirama oma programmides vägivalda.

1995 ja#8211 Suurbritannia, Prantsusmaa ja USA kuulutasid välja lepingu, mis keelas aatomirünnakud Vaikse ookeani lõunaosas.

Kongress loob kontinentaalse assotsiatsiooni

Sel päeval 1774. aastal loob esimene kontinentaalne kongress kontinentaalse assotsiatsiooni, mis nõuab täielikku igasuguse Ameerika ja Suurbritannia vahelise igasuguse kaupade, kaupade ja kaupade keelustamist.

Assotsiatsiooni loomine oli vastus sunniviisilistele aktidele - või “talumatutele tegudele ”, nagu need olid kolonistidele teada - ja mis loodi Briti valitsuse poolt, et taastada kord Massachusettsis pärast Bostoni teepidu.

Talumatud teod koosnesid neljast toimingust: esimene oli Bostoni sadama seadus, mis sulges Bostoni sadama kõikidele kolonistidele, kuni Bostoni teepeo kahjud tasuti. Teine, Massachusettsi valitsuse seadus, andis Briti valitsusele täieliku kontrolli linnakohtumiste üle, võttes kõik otsused kolonistide käest välja. Kolmas, justiitshalduse seadus, muutis Briti ametnikud Ameerikas kriminaalvastutusele võtmise suhtes immuunseks ja neljas, kvartaliseadus, kohustas koloniste nõudmisel Briti vägesid majutama ja veerandama, sealhulgas eramajades viimase võimalusena.

Suurbritannia parlamendi volitatud uute seaduste peale nördinud kontinentaalne assotsiatsioon lootis, et Suurbritanniaga igasuguse kaubanduse katkestamine tekitab seal piisavalt majanduslikke raskusi, et talumatud seadused tühistada. See oli üks esimesi kongressi toiminguid, mille taga iga koloonia kindlalt seisis.

“Congress loob kontinentaalse assotsiatsiooni. ” 2008. Ajalookanali veebisait. 20. oktoober 2008, 11:56 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=51322.

Hinda seda:

Sellel päeval, 27.08.2008: Red Scare

Red Scare domineerib Ameerika poliitikas

Kui 1952. aasta presidendivalimised hakkavad soojenema, siis ka süüdistused ja vastusüüdistused seoses kommunismiga Ameerikas. “Punane hirmutamine ” – laialt levinud arvamus, et Ameerika Ühendriikides tegutseb rahvusvaheline kommunism, hakkas domineerima 1952. aastal demokraatide ja vabariiklaste vahel.

27. augustil 1952. a New York Times esilehel oli kolm lugu, mis viitavad punase hirmutamise mõjule eelseisvatele valimistele. Esimeses loos avaldas vabariiklaste domineeriv senati siseturvalisuse alakomitee raporti, milles süüdistati, et Raadio kirjanike gildis domineerib väike arv kommuniste. Gildi, mille liikmed vastutasid rohkem kui 90 protsendi raadiosaadete tootmise eest, oli väidetavalt vähemalt üheksa aastat juhtinud väike kommunistide klikk. Allkomitee raporti kohaselt oli gildi kommunistlik õõnestamine vaid üks samm suuremates jõupingutustes USA meedia, sealhulgas raadio, televisiooni, filmide ja raamatute kirjastamise kontrollimiseks. Teine esikülje lugu oli aruanne, mida Ameerika leegion nõudis juba kolmandat aastat järjest, et president Harry S. Truman vallandaks riigisekretäri dekaan Achesoni, kuna ta ei olnud jõuline kommunistliku ohuga toimetulekul. Leegioni raportis kuulutati, et välisministeerium vajab hädasti jumalakartlikke ameeriklasi, kellel oli vaimne kindlus mitte olla poliitilised nukud. Organisatsioon nõudis Korea sõja kiiret ja võidukat lahendamist. , isegi kui see tähendas sõja laiendamist Hiinasse. Kolmas lugu andis eelnevale kahele loole omamoodi loenduri. See teatas demokraatliku presidendikandidaadi presidendikuberneri Adlai E. Stevensoni sõnavõttust, milles ta kritiseeris tugevalt neid, kes kasutasid patriotismi relvana oma poliitiliste vastaste vastu. Ilmselge laksuga senati allkomiteele ja teistele, nagu senaator Joseph McCarthy, kordas Stevenson kirjaniku dr Samuel Johnsoni sõnu: “ Patriotism on kaabakate viimane pelgupaik. ” Kuberner väitis, et see oli &# 8220šokk ”, et häid ameeriklasi, nagu Acheson ja endine riigisekretär George C. Marshall, võidakse rünnata põhjusel, et nad pole patriootlikud.

Kolm seotud lugu esilehelt Ajad näitas, kui sügavalt oli Red Scare Ameerika ühiskonda tunginud. Süüdistused filmi-, raadio- ja televisioonitööstuses, välisministeeriumis ja USA armees kommunistide kohta kõikidel Ameerika elualadel olid aastaid ajalehti ja eetrit täitnud. Aastaks 1952 olid paljud ameeriklased veendunud, et USA -s on tööl kommunistid ning nad tuleb välja juurida ja jahtida. Vabariiklased ja nende liitlased kavatsevad ilmselgelt kasutada punast hirmu selle aasta presidendivalimistel, samal ajal kui demokraadid peavad võitlema arusaamaga, et nad olid presidendi ametiajal olnud pehmelt kommunistlikud. Truman (kes tuli ametisse 1945. aastal pärast Franklin D. Roosevelti surma). Vabariiklased olid lõpuks võidukad, Dwight D. Eisenhower lõi Stevensoni üle võidu.

“Red Scare domineerib Ameerika poliitikas. ” 2008. History Channeli veebisait. 27. august 2008, kell 05:54 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2772.

1660 – John Miltoni raamatud põletati Londonis tema rünnakute tõttu kuningas Charles II vastu.

1789 – Prantsuse Rahvusassamblee võttis vastu inimese õiguste deklaratsiooni.

1859 – Kolonel Edwin L. Drake puuris USA -s Titusville'i lähistel esimese õlikaevu edukalt USA -s.

1894 – USA Kongress võttis vastu Wilson-Gormani tariifiseaduse. Hiljem tühistas USA ülemkohus astmelise tulumaksu sätte.

1921 – Acme Packing Company omanik ostis Green Bay, WI jaoks professionaalse jalgpallimeeskonna. J.E.Clair avaldas tunnustust neile, kes tema tehases töötasid, nimetades meeskonna Green Bay Packersiks. (NFL)

1928 – Kellogg-Briandi paktile kirjutasid Pariisis alla 15 riiki. Hiljem allkirjastasid pakti veel 47 riiki.

1945 – Ameerika väed maabusid Jaapanis pärast Jaapani valitsuse alistumist Teise maailmasõja lõpus.

1979 – Lord Louis Mountbatten hukkus paadiplahvatuses Iirimaa ranniku lähedal. Vastutuse võttis endale Iiri vabariiklaste armee.


Punane hirmutaja ja naised valitsuses

1952. aastal süüdistati valitsuse administraatorit nimega Mary Dublin Keyserling kommunistiks. Rünnak tema vastu oli ka rünnak feminismi vastu.

Me ei räägi sageli sellest, kuidas antikommunistlik punane hirmutamine pärast II maailmasõda oli ka rünnak naiste, eriti feministlike naiste vastu. Mary Dublin Keyserlingi (1910–97) karjäär on näiteks. Nagu ajaloolane Landon R. Y. Storrs näitab: Tema elu aitab kontekstualiseerida „meie arusaamist kahekümnenda sajandi feminismi trajektoorist ja antikommunistlike ristisõdade soolistest mõjudest.

Veebruaris 1952 süüdistas senaator Joseph McCarthy kaubandusministeeriumis töötanud Keyserlingit kümne kommunistliku rinderühma liikmeskonnas. (Tüüpilisel McCarthy moel suurendatakse neid väidetavaid kümmet gruppi hiljem „piiramatuks arvuks”.) McCarthy nimetas ka punase poolehoidjaks president Trumani peamajandusnõunikku ja Mary abikaasat Leon Keyserlingi.

Süüdistused Leonile kustusid, kuid Mary pidi puhkusele jääma, kuni teda lojaalsusnõukogu uuris. "Mary oleks äratanud antikommunistlikku tähelepanu isegi siis, kui ta poleks Leoniga abielus," kirjutab Storrs. Alates 1930ndate algusest oli ta kuulunud lõdvasse naisasjatundjate ja aktivistide võrgustikku, kes pooldasid riigi kasutamist sotsiaalse ebavõrdsuse - klasside, sooliste ja rassiliste suhete - ründamiseks, mis nende arvates ei olnud rahva majanduse jaoks mitte ainult ebaõiglased, vaid ebatervislikud. ja viisakus. "

Keyserling ’s varasem taust näitab ideaale, mida mõned naised, uued edasimüüjad, oma töösse tõid. Noor Mary Dublin “sukeldus vasakpoolsesse poliitilisse ja kultuurilisse tegevusse”. „Seltskondlik noor sotsiaalteadlane depressiooni-aegses Londonis ja New Yorgis” liikus ta ringkondades, mis „hõlmasid edumeelseid, sotsialiste ja kommuniste-alliansi, mida tuntakse rahvarindena ja mis võitleb 1930. aastatel kasvava fašismiohuga.

Storrsi sõnul näitab “ vasakfeminism ”, mille Keyserling oma valitsusse tööle tõi, näitab, et 1930ndad ja 1940ndad ei olnud naiste liikumise feminismi & 8220doldrumid ja#8221 lihtsalt pausi pärast seda. üheksateistkümnenda muudatuse vastuvõtmist 1920. aastal. „Vasakfeminism oli võimule lähemal, kui me oleme arvanud (kuigi mitte nii lähedal, kui selle vaenlased kartsid või teesklesid hirmu).” Kuni naised nagu Keyserling võimu- ja mõjuvõimu positsioonidelt välja aeti.

Nädala uudiskiri

Mary Dublin Keyserling vabastati jaanuaris 1953, just Eisenhoweri presidendiks saamise ajaks, mis ei tahtnud teda ega tema meest valitsusse. Ta ei tööta valitsuses uuesti enne Lyndon Johnsoni administratsiooni 1964. aastal, selleks ajaks olid mõlemad Keyserlingid turvaliselt liberaalsed. USA senaator tõstis tööministeeriumi naiste büroo direktori ametikoha kinnitamisel ära vanad ebalojaalsusväited, kuid seekord vähem.

Storrs järeldab, et "valitsuse- ja poliitikaringkondades naiste vastu suunatud antikommunistlikud rünnakud piirasid nii feminismi kui ka uue kokkuleppe sotsiaaldemokraatlikku potentsiaali." Ta kirjutab: „sundides rahvarinde feministide põlvkonda kaduma või end liberaalidena uuesti leiutama, jättis punane hirmutunne soolise pärandi, mis piiras nii sotsiaalpoliitikat kui ka kaasaegset feminismi,” uuriti teemasid Storrsi raamatus. Teine punane hirmutamine ja vasakpoolsete tegemata jätmine.


Punase riigi hirmutamine: must nimekiri saabub

Kui te ei kuulu Twitterisse ja meediasse Twitter, siis ei tea te täna tohutult poleemikat. Poliitiliste uudiste ja kommentaaride veebisait Politico palus konservatiivsel kommentaatoril Ben Shapirol oma hommikuse Playbooki funktsiooni täna ja#8217 väljaandes külalisena toimetada. Shapiro on täielikult konservatiivse peavoolu piires, kuid see ei takistanud Politico personali hirmutamast. Erik Wemple on Washington Post meedia kolumnist:

Ütlesin, et “, õnnistamatult asjatundmatu, ”, kuid tõesti, peaksite olema teadlik sellistest asjadest. See on uus maailm, milles me elame.

Esiteks näitab see, et me elame maailmas, kus vasakpoolsed domineerivad institutsioonid (nt meedia) on nii sallimatud, et usuvad, et neil ei peaks olema oma töös konservatiividega midagi pistmist.

Teiseks, see näitab, et nende raev pärsib sisemist eriarvamust (keegi ei anna vaeva vaikida hirmutanud Politico töötajate kohta).

Kolmandaks, oleneb kuidas Politico‘ juhtkond reageerib, võib ilmneda, et töötajatel on toimetamisotsuste üle vetoõigus, teisisõnu, et nagu eelmisel aastal The New York Times ja Philadelphia päring, personalihulk ajab tõhusalt paberit.

Kui arvate, et see piirdub meediaga, eksite väga. Teistes institutsioonides, kus domineerivad vasakpoolsed, on ettevõtted, kelle personaliosakonnad on konservatiivid, neil on raske uksest sisse pääseda. Michigani ülikooli õppejõud ja üliõpilased on käimas sammu, et vabariiklik süsteemi regent vallandataks mitte sellepärast, mida ta ütles, vaid selle pärast, mis tal on mitte ütles (et presidendivalimisi ei varastatud). Kui olete olnud aktiivne kolledži vabariiklaste või mõnes muus kolledži konservatiivses rühmas, ärge parem seda oma CV -sse pange. Oleme õigel teel musta nimekirja. See ei saa olla lihtsalt konservatiivid, vaid vasakpoolsed, kes ei suuda olla piisavalt radikaalsed. Minuni jõudis uudis, et demokraatlik poliitik, keda ma sotsiaalmeedias jälgin, vallandati sel nädalal, sest kui edumeelne, kes hindab sõnavabadust, väljendas ta muret selle üle, et ettevõtetele on antud poliitiliste dissidentide eest õigus karistada inimesi (ma pöördusin tema poole ja ta kinnitas vallandamist).

Teadlased on loonud masinõppesüsteemi, mis väidab, et suudab inimese erakonna mõistliku täpsusega määrata ainult tema näo põhjal. Uuring rühmast, kes näitas ka seda, et seksuaalseid eelistusi saab näiliselt sel viisil järeldada, tegeleb avameelselt ja hoiab ettevaatlikult ära „kaasaegse frenoloogia” lõkse, mis viib ebamugava järelduseni, et meie välimus võib väljendada rohkem isiklikku teavet, mida me arvame.

Sel nädalal ajakirjas Nature avaldatud uuringu Scientific Reports viis läbi Stanfordi ülikooli Michal Kosinski. Kosinski tegi 2017. aastal pealkirju tööga, mis leidis, et näoandmete põhjal saab inimese seksuaalset eelistust ennustada.

Võib arvata, et see on pähkel ja kahekümne esimese sajandi frenoloogia! —, kuid Kosinski ’ meeskond leidis, et selle tarkvara oskab õigesti arvata peaaegu kolmel neljal korral. See pole kaugeltki täiuslik, tõsi, kuid selgub, et inimesed arvavad õigesti ainult 55 protsenti ajast. Algoritmid näevad midagi, mis tegelikult olemas on. Projekti kallal töötavad teadlased ei tea veel, millised muutujad on peamised. Kuid selle tulemuse saamiseks ei ole vaja investeerida keerulisse tarkvarasse:

Algoritm ise ei ole mingi hüper-arenenud tehnoloogia. Kosinski paber kirjeldab üsna tavalist protsessi masinõppesüsteemi piltide söötmiseks üle miljoni näo, mis on kogutud USA, Kanada ja Ühendkuningriigi tutvumissaitidelt, aga ka Ameerika Facebooki kasutajatelt. Inimesed, kelle nägu kasutati, olid saidi küsimustiku osana poliitiliselt konservatiivsed või liberaalsed.

Algoritm põhines avatud lähtekoodiga näotuvastustarkvaral ja pärast põhitöötlust, et kärpida ainult näole (nii ei kao taustal ükski tegur), vähendatakse nägusid 2048 skoorini, mis esindavad erinevaid funktsioone-nagu ka teiste näotuvastuste puhul algoritmid, need ei ole vajalikud intuitiivsed asjad nagu “kulmuvärv” ja “ninatüüp”, vaid rohkem arvutile omased mõisted.

Mis hoiab tulevikus ettevõttel selle algoritmi kaudu kasutamata töötajate või taotlejate näopilti, et olla kindel, et konservatiive ei palgata ega edutata? Kõik muidugi selleks, et muuta töökoht turvaliseks ruumiks.

Meil on selle riigi ajaloos olnud punane hirmutus. Nüüd on meil Red State Scare. Ben Shapiro tsiteeris täna oma veebisaates CNN -i ja Don Lemoni sõnu, öeldes, et kõik Trumpi valijad ja 70 miljonit tema kaaslast ameeriklast on ühenduses KKK ja natsidega. Lemon tõesti ütles, et — klipp on olemas.

Interneti -suurärimehed kasutasid tasasuse ideoloogiat, et tõsta väärtust kohalikelt ettevõtetelt, riiklikelt jaemüüjatelt, kogu ajalehetööstuselt jne - ja see ei paistnud kedagi huvitavat. See röövimine - mille abil väike rühm inimesi, kasutades tasasuse juhtmeid, võis endale anda tohutuid varasid ilma igasuguse poliitilise, juriidilise või sotsiaalse tagasilükkamiseta - võimaldas edumeelsetel aktivistidel ja nende oligarhilistel rahastajatel oma röövimise ära võtta. sama juhtmestik. Nad haarasid sellest, et kogu maailm on juba eluga kohanenud praktiline tasasus et oma ideoloogiat edasi suruda poliitiline tasasus- mida nad nimetavad sotsiaalseks õigluseks, kuid mis on ajalooliselt tähendanud tohutu hulga võimu ja rikkuse üleandmist vähestele valitud inimestele.

Kuna see kohort nõuab samaväärsust ja puhtust, on nad muutnud Ameerika kultuurikompleksi kunagised sõltumatud osad vastastikku valideerivaks torustikuks konformistidele, kellel on heaks kiidetud seisukohad-kes seejärel volitavad, edendavad ja abielluvad. Noor Ivy League'i õpilane saab A-sid ristteeliku evangeeliumi parroteerimisega, mis omakorda tähendab, et tema professorid soovitavad teda algtaseme tööks Washingtoni mõttekojas või väljaandes, mis on samuti nendele ideedele pühendatud. Tema võime sotsiaalmeedias neid vaateid laialdaselt reklaamida pälvib tõenäoliselt tema järgmise võimaliku ülemuse või tema kraadiõppe taotluse lugeja või tulevaste kaaslaste heakskiidu. Tema edu nende baaride puhastamisel avab omakorda tulevased võimalused armastuseks ja tööhõiveks. Vastupidisel toimimisel on vastupidine mõju, mida on peaaegu võimatu vältida, arvestades seda, kui tihedalt see süsteem on nüüd kootud. Inimene, kes on otsustanud sellistest maistest ahvatlustest loobuda - kuna ta on eriti tark, rikas või kangekaelne - näeb ainult näiteid veelgi andekamatest ja edukamatest inimestest, kes on näinud, et nende karjäär on purustatud ja maine hävitatud, sest nad on julgenud varba vahele jääda. punaste joonte üha paljunev rägastik.

Niisiis, selle asemel, et kajastada suure riigi mitmekesisust, on need institutsioonid nüüd ümber kujundatud kui vahendid ühe inimrühma kitsa ja jäiga tegevuskava sisendamiseks ja jõustamiseks, keelates uurimise või kõrvalekaldumise - režiim, mis on irooniliselt jätnud paljud kodutuks, mitte enamik riigi parimatest mõtlejatest ja loojatest. Igaüks, kes tegelikult tegeleb sügavalt juurdunud sotsiaalsete ja majanduslike probleemide lahendamisega, või hoidku jumal selle eest, et luua midagi ainulaadset või ilusat-protsess, mis on paratamatult segane ja hõlmab sageli ketserite uurimist ja vigade tegemist-lööb seina. Kui nad on noored ja kaugeltki ambitsioonikad, kustutavad nad selle osa endast juba varakult välja, kägistades hääle, mis nende teada teeb nad hätta, enne kui neil on kunagi olnud võimalust seda tegelikult laulda.

See katkestus kultuuriliselt volitatud poliitika ja enamiku ameeriklaste tegelike demonstreeritud eelistuste vahel on loonud tohutu rahuldamata vajaduste reservi ja põlvkondade võimaluse. Ehitage uusi asju! Loo suurepärast kunsti! Mõistke ja aktsepteerige, et sensoorne teave on aju toit ja Silicon Valley näljutab meid sellest süstemaatiliselt. Vältige puupimedust. Tehke sõber ja ära tee rääkige nendega poliitikast. Tehke asju, mis tekitavad armastust ja tähelepanu kolmelt inimeselt, keda te tegelikult tunnete, mitte sadu, keda te ei tea. Hülgake närviline Ivy League, palun, palun teid. Alustage kirjastust, mis paneb välja raamatuid, mis vihastavad, üllatavad ja rõõmustavad inimesi ning panevad neid tahtma loe. Olge piisavalt vapper, et teha filmi ja telesaateid, mis meeldivad tegelikule vaatajaskonnale ja mitte 14 inimesele Twitteris. Looge ajaleht, üks inimene näeb ennast ja hoiab käes. Minge tagasi palvemajja - igal nädalal. Loobuge meie praegustest institutsioonidest, nad juba loobusid meist.

Lugege seda kõike. Need kaks tsitaati ei saa seda õigustada.

Möödunud nädala sündmused teevad selgeks, et enamikul tavapärastes institutsioonides pole konservatiividele saavutatavat tulevikku. Sisse Benedictuse variant, Kirjutasin, et saabub päev, mil usukonservatiivid pidid sõltuma oma võrgustikest tööhõive ja ülalpidamise jaoks või alustama karjääri, kus ükski poliitiline ja religioosne veendumus ei oma tähtsust. See päev on nüüd mõne inimese jaoks käes ja selle varju all olevate inimeste arv kiireneb kiiresti.

Nagu Alana Newhouse ütleb, loob see suurepärase võimaluse. Kuid me ei taha luua parempoolse peegli versiooni samast fanaatilisest vastavusest, mida näeme vasakpoolsete domineerivate institutsioonide puhul. Seda tehes on siin täna meile saadetud e-kiri. Hoian autori nime tema nõudmisel:

Teie artikkel kuratlikest jõududest jõudis tõesti koju. Mõni aeg tagasi kirjutasin teile valimispettustest. Ma ei hakka salvestama konkreetse koha või inimeste kohta, sest olen kõvasti tööd teinud, et võita selle loo vastu mitme inimese usaldus ja nad on praegu õrnas seisus. Ma tahan neid isiklikult kaitsta ja neid tõeliselt ja armastavalt teenida ning avalik häbi ei tee midagi head.

Mõned sõprade sõbrad olid vaatlejatena ühes suuremas linnas olnud tunnistajaks mõnele toorele ja hämmastavale valimiskäitumisele. Olin algselt ettevaatlik, kuna mu sõber oli kõva Trumpist. Nagu paljud Trumpi kõvad toetajad, oli ta pikka aega sotsiaalselt isoleeritud, sügavalt õnnetu ja üha poliitilisem. Poliitika andis talle oma elu tähenduse ja eesmärgi. Sellegipoolest veendusin mõningates pettusesüüdistustes, kui tema sõprade lugude võtmedetailid ei kinnitanud mitte ainult teised Trumpistid (rääkisin vähemalt seitsme erineva esmase tunnistajaga), vaid video, mis avaldati pärast intervjuu lõpetamist need kinnitasid mitmeid üllatavaid väiteid.

Ma ei saanud neid andmeid ignoreerida ja hakkasin nende väiteid uurima. Paljud nende väited pettuse kohta olid õigustatud, kuid tõe väljaselgitamine oli aeglane ja kurnav protsess. Põhjus polnud selles, et need pettuse tunnistajad valetasid, sest paljud neist olid vandenõuteooriate vangis ja uskusid nende valesid. Kui ma neid intervjueeriksin, peaksin pidevalt vahet tegema nende tunnistajate ja kuulujuttude vahel. Nende jaoks oli vandenõuteooria narratiiv muutunud olulisemaks kui tegelikud tõendid valimispettuste kohta.

Lõpuks õnnestus meil seadusliku pettuse sõnum õigetele ametiasutustele edastada ja isegi mõned tunnistajad olid kaetud Foxi ja teiste parempoolsete allikatega, kuid paljud neist tunnistajatest ei teinud midagi. Selle asemel, et kontrollida oma vandenõuimpulsse, segavad paljud oma tunnistuses tõde vandenõuteooriaga, et muuta end naeruväärseks. Pettus, mida nad täheldasid, kinnitas valesti kõiki vandenõuteooriaid, mida nad kalliks pidasid.

Kuigi minu kirjutatud artikkel näitas, et tegemist oli selge ja ulatusliku pettusega, ei näidanud see, et valimistulemuste muutmiseks oli piisavalt olulisi lõplikke pettusi (ma usun, et Biden oli valimiste seaduslik võitja). Enamikul neist tunnistajatest oli seda liiga raske alla neelata ja nad lahendasid näilise kognitiivse dissonantsi, minnes kaugemale vandenõuteooria küülikuaugust. Viimasel ajal on nad saatnud mulle hullumeelseid lugusid - ametnikke tapetakse või vangistatakse CIA reididel Saksamaal, Trump arreteerib Bideni riigireetmise eest, kraaklevad trikid demokraatlike valimiste anastamiseks ja viimasel ajal vandenõuteooria sõjalise riigipöörde kohta. Lood muutuvad üha ekstreemsemaks ja arvestades hiljuti avaldatud küsitlusi, liigume vägivaldse ja häiriva tuleviku poole.

Peame veenma oma vendi ja õdesid, et nad tuleksid mõistusele ja väldiksid vägivalda, kuid ajalugu ütleb, et väljavaade meie edule on väike. Sellest hoolimata on nüüd aeg jätkata oma institutsioonide ülesehitamist. Mul on õnn olla osa kogudusest, mis on nendel kurjadel aegadel olnud ustav ning on tuvastanud ja pannud vastu sellele kurjusele vasakul ja paremal.

Kui mitte midagi muud, siis peame rõõmustama, et võimu ebajumalateenistus meiesuguste inimeste jaoks on enamasti hävitatud. Kuigi rõhumine meid tõenäoliselt tabab, võime vabalt armastada langenud maailma ja olla evangeeliumi tunnistajaks. See on meie lootus ja see on meie rõõm.

Edasi minnes, elamine mitte vasak- või parempoolsete valede kaudu, on üks meist kõige raskemaid asju. Aga mis valikut meil on?


Punane hirmutaja (podcast)

Punane hirmutaja arvestab end kultuurikommentaaride taskuhäälingusaadetena, mida korraldavad "boheemlaslikud paigutused" [8] Dasha Nekrasova ja Anna Khachiyan ning see on salvestatud nende kodudest New Yorgis Alam -Manhattanil. Nekrasova on Valgevenes sündinud näitlejanna, kes sai tuntuks kui meremeeste sotsialism [9] [10] pärast intervjuud InfoWars reporter läks viirusesse 2018. aastal. Ta rändas nelja -aastaselt koos akrobaatvanematega Nevadasse Las Vegasesse. [11] Khachiyan on Moskvas sündinud kirjanik, [12] kunstikriitik [13] [14] ja armeenia matemaatiku Leonid Khachiyani tütar. [15] Ta kasvas üles New Jerseys. [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". [16]

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.

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

Franklin, F. G. “Anti-Syndicalist Legislation.” Ameerika politoloogia ülevaade 14 (1920): 291–298.

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

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


Pennsylvania ajalooline selts

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.

Teemad

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 ja an anti-McCarthy avaldamine

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.


Sisu

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]

Ameerika Ühendriigid Muuda

20. sajand Edit

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 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]

21. sajandi muutmine

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] Aeg 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? Muidugi mitte. 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.

Autor Demagogue: The Life and Long Shadow of Senator Joe McCarthy, Larry Tye, tells Teismeline Vogue 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 Teismeline Vogue 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.”


Vaata videot: History Brief: The Red Scare in the 1920s