'Red Scare' dominerer amerikansk politik

'Red Scare' dominerer amerikansk politik


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.

Efterhånden som præsidentvalget i 1952 begynder at varme op, gør det også anklager og kontraanklager vedrørende kommunisme i Amerika. "Red Scare" - den udbredte tro på, at international kommunisme opererede i USA - kom til at dominere meget af debatten mellem demokrater og republikanere i 1952.

Den 27. august 1952 blev New York Times forsiden indeholdt tre historier, der antyder virkningen af ​​den røde skræk på det kommende valg. I den første historie offentliggjorde det republikansk-dominerede senats interne sikkerhedsudvalg en rapport om, at Radio Writers Guild var domineret af et lille antal kommunister. Lauget, hvis medlemmer var ansvarlige for at producere mere end 90 procent af programmerne på radio, havde angiveligt været drevet af en lille klike kommunister i mindst de sidste ni år. Ifølge underudvalgets rapport var kommunistisk undergravning af lauget blot et skridt i en større indsats for at kontrollere medierne i USA - herunder radio, tv, film og bogudgivelse.

Den anden forside-historie var en rapport, som den amerikanske legion for tredje år i træk krævede, at præsident Harry S. Truman afskedigede udenrigsminister Dean Acheson for hans manglende kraft i håndteringen af ​​den kommunistiske trussel. Legion-rapporten erklærede, at udenrigsministeriet havde et desperat behov for "gudfrygtige amerikanere", der havde "tarmmodighed til ikke at være politiske dukker." Organisationen krævede en hurtig og sejrrig løsning på Koreakrigen, selvom det betød at udvide krigen til Kina. Den tredje historie gav en slags modsætning til de to foregående historier. Det rapporterede en tale af den demokratiske kandidat til præsident guvernør Adlai E. Stevenson, hvor han kraftigt kritiserede dem, der brugte "patriotisme" som et våben mod deres politiske modstandere. I et tydeligt slag i Senatets underudvalg og andre, som f.eks. Senator Joseph McCarthy, gentog Stevenson forfatteren Dr. Samuel Johnson: "Patriotisme er skurkernes sidste tilflugt." Guvernøren hævdede, at det var "chokerende", at gode amerikanere, såsom Acheson og tidligere udenrigsminister, George C. Marshall, kunne blive angrebet med den begrundelse, at de var upatriotiske.

De tre relaterede historier fra forsiden af Gange angav, hvor dybt Red Scare havde trængt ind i det amerikanske samfund. Beskyldninger om kommunister i film-, radio- og tv -industrien, i Udenrigsministeriet og den amerikanske hær i alle samfundslag havde fyldt aviser og luftbølger i årevis. I 1952 var mange amerikanere overbeviste om, at kommunister var på arbejde i USA og skulle forankres og jagtes. Republikanerne og deres allierede planlagde naturligvis at bruge Red Scare til deres fordel ved præsidentvalget samme år, mens demokraterne skulle kæmpe mod opfattelsen af, at de havde været "bløde" på kommunismen under præsident Trumans administration ( der tiltrådte i 1945 efter Franklin D. Roosevelt død). Republikanerne sejrede til sidst, hvor Dwight D. Eisenhower scorede en sejr over Stevenson.

LÆS MERE: Hvordan Eisenhower i al hemmelighed skubbede tilbage mod McCarthyisme


Sporet

Den 20. oktober 1947 går den berygtede Red Scare i høj gear i Washington, da et kongresudvalg begynder at undersøge kommunistisk indflydelse i et af verdens rigeste og mest glamourøse samfund: Hollywood.

Efter Anden Verdenskrig begyndte den kolde krig at varme op mellem verdens to supermagter USA og det kommunistisk kontrollerede Sovjetunionen. I Washington arbejdede konservative vagthunde med at hjælpe kommunister i regeringen, inden de satte sig på påståede “Reds ” i den berømte liberale filmindustri. I en undersøgelse, der begyndte i oktober 1947, grillede House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) en række fremtrædende vidner og spurgte blankt: Er du eller har du nogensinde været medlem af kommunistpartiet? patriotisme eller frygt, nogle vidner – inklusive instruktør Elia Kazan, skuespillere Gary Cooper og Robert Taylor og studio honchos Walt Disney og Jack Warner – gav udvalgsnavne på kolleger, de mistænkte for at være kommunister.

En lille gruppe kendt som “Hollywood Ten ” gjorde modstand og klagede over, at høringerne var ulovlige og krænkede deres rettigheder til første ændring. De blev alle dømt for at have hindret efterforskningen og afsonede fængselsstraffe. Presset af kongressen startede Hollywood -etablissementet en sortlistepolitik, der forbød omkring 325 manuskriptforfattere, skuespillere og instruktører, der ikke var blevet godkendt af udvalget. De sortlistede omfattede komponisten Aaron Copland, forfatterne Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman og Dorothy Parker, dramatikeren Arthur Miller og skuespilleren og filmskaberen Orson Welles.

Nogle af de sortlistede forfattere brugte pseudonymer til at fortsætte med at arbejde, mens andre skrev scripts, der blev krediteret andre forfattervenner. Fra begyndelsen af ​​1960'erne, efter senator Joseph McCarthys fald, antikommunismens mest offentlige ansigt, begyndte forbuddet at løfte langsomt. I 1997 stemte Writers ’ Guild of America enstemmigt for at ændre skrivekreditterne for 23 film, der blev foretaget i perioden med sortliste, og vende om, men#ikke slette nogle af de skader, der blev påført under Red Scare.

“Congress undersøger Reds i Hollywood. ” 2008. History Channel -webstedet. 20. oktober 2008, 11:54 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=51910.

Aaron Copland: Fanfare for den almindelige mand

1774 – Den nye kontinentale kongres, det styrende organ i Amerikas kolonier, vedtog en bekendtgørelse, der erklærede, at alle borgere i kolonierne ville fratage og modvirke al hestevæddeløb og alle former for spil, hanekampe, udstillinger af shows, skuespil og andre dyre adspredelser og underholdning. ”

1803 – Det amerikanske senat godkendte Louisiana -købet.

1818 – USA og Storbritannien etablerede grænsen mellem USA og Canada til at være den 49. parallel.

1903 – En fælles kommission dømte til fordel for USA vedrørende en strid om grænsen mellem Canada og Alaska -distriktet.

1935 – Mao Zedong ankom til Shensi -provinsen efter hans lange marts, der tog lidt over et år. Derefter oprettede han det kinesiske kommunistiske hovedkvarter.

1944 – Allierede styrker invaderede Filippinerne.

1952 – Mau Mau -oprøret mod hvide nybyggere begyndte i Kenya.

1967 – Syv mænd blev dømt i Meridian, MS, anklaget for krænkelse af borgerrettighederne for tre borgerrettighedsarbejdere. Af de dømte mænd var en Ku Klux Klan -leder, og en anden var en sherifs stedfortræder.

1986 – Amerikansk lejesoldat Eugene Hasenfus blev formelt anklaget af den nicaraguanske regering for flere anklager, herunder terrorisme.

1993 – Attorney General Janet Reno advarede tv -branchen om at begrænse volden i deres programmer.

1995 – Storbritannien, Frankrig og USA annoncerede en traktat, der forbød atomsprængninger i det sydlige Stillehav.

Kongressen opretter Continental Association

På denne dag i 1774 opretter den første kontinentale kongres Continental Association, som opfordrer til et fuldstændigt forbud mod al handel mellem Amerika og Storbritannien med alle varer, varer eller varer.

Oprettelsen af ​​foreningen var et svar på tvangshandlingerne - eller “Indholdelige handlinger ”, som de var kendt for kolonisterne –, som blev oprettet af den britiske regering for at genoprette orden i Massachusetts efter Boston Tea Party.

De utålelige handlinger var et sæt af fire handlinger: Den første var Boston Port Act, som lukkede Boston havn for alle kolonister, indtil der blev betalt skader fra Boston Tea Party. Den anden, Massachusetts Government Act, gav den britiske regering total kontrol over bymøder og tog alle beslutninger ud af kolonisternes hænder. Den tredje, Justice Administration Act, gjorde britiske embedsmænd immun over for strafferetlig forfølgelse i Amerika og den fjerde, Quartering Act, krævede, at kolonister husede og kvartalerede britiske tropper efter anmodning, herunder i private hjem som en sidste udvej.

Forarget over de nye love, der blev pålagt af det britiske parlament, håbede Continental Association, at afbrydelse af al handel med Storbritannien ville forårsage nok økonomisk trængsel der, at de utålelige love ville blive ophævet. Det var en af ​​de første kongresshandlinger, bag hvilken hver koloni stod fast.

“Congress opretter Continental Association. ” 2008. History Channel -webstedet. 20. oktober 2008, 11:56 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=51322.

Bedøm dette:

På denne dag, 8-27-2008: Red Scare

Red Scare dominerer amerikansk politik

Efterhånden som præsidentvalget i 1952 begynder at varme op, gør det også anklager og kontraanklager vedrørende kommunisme i Amerika. The “Red Scare ” –den udbredte tro på, at international kommunisme fungerede i USA, kom til at dominere meget af debatten mellem demokrater og republikanere i 1952.

Den 27. august 1952 blev New York Times forsiden indeholdt tre historier, der antyder virkningen af ​​den røde skræk på det kommende valg. I den første historie offentliggjorde det republikansk-dominerede senats interne sikkerhedsudvalg en rapport om, at Radio Writers Guild var domineret af et lille antal kommunister. Lauget, hvis medlemmer var ansvarlige for at producere mere end 90 procent af programmerne på radio, havde angiveligt været drevet af en lille klike kommunister i mindst de sidste ni år. Ifølge underudvalgets rapport var kommunistisk undergravning af lauget blot et skridt i en større indsats for at kontrollere medierne i USA-herunder radio, tv, film og bogudgivelse. Den anden forside-historie var en rapport om, at den amerikanske legion for tredje år i træk krævede, at præsident Harry S. Truman afskedigede udenrigsminister Dean Acheson for hans manglende kraft i håndteringen af ​​den kommunistiske trussel. Legion-rapporten erklærede, at Udenrigsministeriet havde et desperat behov for “gudsfrygtige amerikanere ”, der havde den tarmmodige styrke til ikke at være politiske dukker. ” Organisationen krævede en hurtig og sejrrig løsning på Koreakrigen , selvom dette betød at udvide krigen til Kina. Den tredje historie gav en slags modsætning til de to foregående historier. Det rapporterede en tale af den demokratiske kandidat til præsident guvernør Adlai E. Stevenson, hvor han kraftigt kritiserede dem, der brugte “patriotisme ” som et våben mod deres politiske modstandere. I et tydeligt slag i Senatets underudvalg og andre, såsom senator Joseph McCarthy, gentog Stevenson forfatteren Dr. Samuel Johnsons ord: “Patriotisme er skurkernes sidste tilflugt. ” Guvernøren påstod, at det var &# 8220 chokerende ”, at gode amerikanere, såsom Acheson og tidligere udenrigsminister George C. Marshall, kunne blive angrebet med den begrundelse, at de var upatriotiske.

De tre relaterede historier fra forsiden af Gange angav, hvor dybt Red Scare havde trængt ind i det amerikanske samfund. Beskyldninger om kommunister i film-, radio- og tv -industrien, i Udenrigsministeriet og den amerikanske hær i alle samfundslag havde fyldt aviser og luftbølger i årevis. I 1952 var mange amerikanere overbeviste om, at kommunister var på arbejde i USA og skulle rodfæstes og jagtes. Republikanerne og deres allierede planlagde naturligvis at bruge Red Scare til deres fordel ved præsidentvalget samme år, mens demokraterne skulle kæmpe med opfattelsen af, at de havde været “soft ” om kommunisme under præsidentens administration Truman (som kom til embedet i 1945 efter Franklin D. Roosevelts død). Republikanerne sejrede til sidst, hvor Dwight D. Eisenhower scorede en sejr over Stevenson.

“Rød Scare dominerer amerikansk politik. ” 2008. History Channel -webstedet. 27. august 2008, 05:54 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2772.

1660 – John Miltons bøger blev brændt i London på grund af hans angreb på kong Charles II.

1789 – Erklæringen om menneskerettigheder blev vedtaget af den franske nationalforsamling.

1859 – Den første oliebrønd blev med succes boret i USA af oberst Edwin L. Drake nær Titusville, PA.

1894 – Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act blev vedtaget af den amerikanske kongres. Bestemmelsen inden for en gradueret indkomstskat blev senere slået ned af den amerikanske højesteret.

1921 – Ejeren af ​​Acme Packing Company købte et professionelt fodboldhold til Green Bay, WI. J.E. Clair hyldede dem, der arbejdede i hans fabrik ved at navngive teamet Green Bay Packers. (NFL)

1928 – Kellogg-Briand-pagten blev underskrevet af 15 lande i Paris. Senere ville 47 andre nationer underskrive pagten.

1945 – Amerikanske tropper landede i Japan efter overgivelsen af ​​den japanske regering i slutningen af ​​Anden Verdenskrig.

1979 – Lord Louis Mountbatten blev dræbt i en bådeksplosion ud for Irlands kyst. Den irske republikanske hær påtog sig ansvaret.


Den røde skræk og kvinder i regeringen

I 1952 blev en regeringsadministrator ved navn Mary Dublin Keyserling anklaget for at være kommunist. Angrebet på hende var også et angreb på feminisme.

Vi taler ikke ofte om, hvordan den antikommunistiske Red Scare efter Anden Verdenskrig også var et angreb på kvinder, især feministiske kvinder. Mary Dublin Keyserlings (1910–97) karriere er et godt eksempel. Som historikeren Landon R. Y. Storrs viser: Hendes liv hjælper med at kontekstualisere ”vores forståelse af feminismens tyvende århundrede og de kønnede virkninger af de antikommunistiske korstog. ”

I februar 1952 anklagede senator Joseph McCarthy Keyserling, der arbejdede i handelsministeriet, for at være medlem af ti kommunistiske frontgrupper. (På typisk McCarthy -måde ville de påståede ti grupper senere blive øget til et "ubegrænset antal.") McCarthy udnævnte også Leon Keyserling, præsident Trumans økonomiske rådgiver og Mary ’s mand, som en rød sympatisør.

Anklagerne mod Leon falmede, men Mary måtte tage orlov, mens hun blev undersøgt af et loyalitetsnævn. “Mary ville have begejstret antikommunistisk opmærksomhed, selvom hun ikke var gift med Leon, ” skriver Storrs. Siden begyndelsen af ​​1930'erne havde hun tilhørt et løst netværk af kvindelige eksperter og aktivister, der gik ind for at bruge staten til at angribe sociale uligheder - i klasse, køn og raceforhold - som de hævdede ikke bare var uretfærdigt, men usundt for landets økonomi og politi. ”

Keyserling ’s tidligere baggrund viser den slags idealer, som nogle kvindelige New Dealers bragte til deres arbejde. Den unge Mary Dublin »fordybede sig i venstreorienterede politiske og kulturelle aktiviteter«. En "flok ung socialforsker i depressionstiden London og New York", bevægede hun sig i cirkler, der "omfattede progressive, socialister og kommunister ”-en alliance kendt som Popular Front, der kæmpede mod den stigende trussel om fascisme i 1930'erne.

Ifølge Storrs viser “ venstre-feminismen ”, som Keyserling bragte til sit job i regeringen, at 1930'erne og 1940'erne ikke var “doldrums ” i kvindebevægelsen feminisme tog ikke bare en pause efter passagen af ​​den nittende ændring i 1920. "Venstre-feminisme var tættere på magten, end vi har troet (dog ikke så tæt som dens fjender frygtede eller foregav at frygte)." Indtil kvinder som Keyserling blev jaget ud af magt- og indflydelsespositioner.

Ugentligt nyhedsbrev

Mary Dublin Keyserling blev godkendt i januar 1953, lige i tide til Eisenhower -formandskabet, som ikke ville have hende eller hendes mand i regeringen. Hun ville ikke have statsansættelse igen før Lyndon Johnsons administration i 1964, på det tidspunkt var begge Keyserlings sikkert liberale. Ved hendes konfirmationshøring for direktionen for Women's Bureau i Department of Labor rejste en amerikansk senator de gamle illoyalitetsanklager, men denne gang med mindre effekt.

Storrs konkluderer, at "antikommunistiske angreb på kvinder i regeringen og politiske kredse bremsede både feminisme og det socialdemokratiske potentiale i New Deal." Hun skriver: "Ved at tvinge en generation af populærfrontfeminister til at forsvinde eller genopfinde sig selv som liberale forlod den røde skræk en kønnet arv, der begrænsede både socialpolitik og moderne feminisme," udforskede temaer yderligere i Storrs ’s bog, Den anden røde skræk og frigørelsen af ​​den nye aftale tilbage.


Red-State Scare: The Blacklist Ankommer

Hvis du ikke er en del af Twitter og medierne Twitter på det, vil du blive velsignet uvidende om en STOR kontrovers i dag. Den politiske nyheds- og kommentarwebsted Politico bad den konservative kommentator Ben Shapiro om at gæstredigere i dag ’s udgave af sin morgen Playbook-funktion. Shapiro er fuldstændig inden for den konservative mainstream, men det forhindrede ikke Politico -personalet i at freak out. Erik Wemple er Washington Post mediespaltist:

Jeg sagde “ velsignet uvidende, ” men virkelig, du skal være opmærksom på ting som dette. Det er den nye verden, vi lever i.

For det første viser dette, at vi lever i en verden, hvor venstre-dominerede institutioner (f.eks. Medier) er så intolerante, at de mener, at de ikke skal have noget at gøre med konservative i deres arbejdsområde.

For det andet viser det, at deres raseri undertrykker intern uenighed (ingen vil skamme sig over de medarbejdere i Politico, der er blevet skræmt til tavshed).

For det tredje, afhængigt af hvordan Politik‘s ledelse reagerer, det kan afsløre, at personalet har vetoret over redaktionelle beslutninger — med andre ord, at det, som i begivenheder sidste år kl. New York Times og Philadelphia Inquirer, personalemobben driver effektivt papiret.

Hvis du tror, ​​at dette vil være begrænset til medier, tager du meget fejl. I andre institutioner domineret af Venstre — inklusive virksomheder, hvis personaleafdelinger er — konservative vil have svært ved at komme ind af døren. Der er et skridt i gang af fakulteter og studerende ved University of Michigan for at få en republikansk regent af systemet afskediget ikke på grund af noget, han sagde, men på grund af det, han har ikke sagde (at præsidentvalget ikke var stjålet). Hvis du har været aktiv i college -republikanerne eller en anden konservativ gruppe på college, må du hellere ikke sætte det på dit CV. Vi er godt på vej til en egentlig sortliste. Det vil simpelthen ikke være konservative, men venstreorienterede, der ikke er radikale nok. Nyheder nåede til mig om, at en demokratisk politisk professionel, jeg følger på sociale medier, blev fyret i denne uge, fordi som en progressiv, der værdsætter ytringsfriheden, udtrykte han bekymring over at give virksomheder ret til at straffe folk for politisk dissident (jeg tog fat i ham, og han bekræftede fyringen).

Forskere har skabt et maskinlæringssystem, som de hævder kan bestemme en persons politiske parti med rimelig nøjagtighed, kun baseret på deres ansigt. Undersøgelsen fra en gruppe, der også viste, at seksuel præference tilsyneladende kan udledes på denne måde, adresserer og omhyggeligt undgår faldgruberne ved "moderne frenologi", hvilket fører til den ubehagelige konklusion, at vores udseende kan udtrykke mere personlige oplysninger, som vi synes.

Undersøgelsen, der blev vist i denne uge i Nature journal Scientific Reports, blev udført af Stanford Universitys Michal Kosinski. Kosinski lavede overskrifter i 2017 med arbejde, der fandt ud af, at en persons seksuelle præference kunne forudsiges ud fra ansigtsdata.

Du tror måske, at dette er en nød — frenologi i det 21. århundrede! — men Kosinski ’s team fandt ud af, at dets software kunne gætte korrekt næsten tre ud af fire gange. Langt fra perfekt, sandt, men det viser sig, at mennesker kun gætter rigtigt kun 55 procent af tiden. Algoritmerne ser noget, der virkelig er der. Forskere, der arbejder på projektet, ved endnu ikke, hvilke variabler der er de vigtigste. Men at få dette resultat kræver ikke investering i sofistikeret software:

Selve algoritmen er ikke noget hyper-avanceret teknologi. Kosinskis papir beskriver en ganske almindelig proces med fodring af et maskinlæringssystem med billeder af mere end en million ansigter, indsamlet fra datingsider i USA, Canada og Storbritannien samt amerikanske Facebook -brugere. De mennesker, hvis ansigter blev brugt, blev identificeret som politisk konservative eller liberale som en del af webstedets spørgeskema.

Algoritmen var baseret på ansigtsgenkendelsessoftware med open source, og efter grundlæggende behandling for at beskære til bare ansigtet (på den måde kryber ingen baggrundsartikler ind som faktorer) reduceres ansigterne til 2.048 score, der repræsenterer forskellige funktioner-som med anden ansigtsgenkendelse algoritmer, er disse ikke nødvendige intuitive ting som “øjenbrynsfarve” og “næsetype”, men mere computer-native begreber.

Hvad skal forhindre et selskab i fremtiden i at køre et ansigtsbillede af medarbejdere eller ansøgere gennem denne algoritme for at sikre, at ingen konservative ansættes eller fremmes? Alt for naturligvis at gøre arbejdspladsen til et sikkert sted.

Vi har haft en rød skræk i dette lands historie. Nu skal vi have en Red State Scare. På sin webcast i dag citerede Ben Shapiro CNN ’s Don Lemon, der sagde, at alle Trump -vælgere — 70 millioner af hans medamerikanere — er i liga med KKK og nazisterne. Lemon sagde virkelig, at klippet er der.

Internettet tykoner brugte flathedens ideologi til at hovere værdien op fra lokale virksomheder, nationale detailhandlere, hele avisindustrien osv. - og ingen syntes at være ligeglade. Denne overfald - ved hvilken en lille gruppe mennesker, der ved hjælp af fladhedens ledninger, kunne overføre enorme aktiver til sig selv uden politisk, juridisk eller social tilbagekaldelse - gjorde det muligt for progressive aktivister og deres oligarkiske finansierere at foretage en egen heist ved hjælp af samme ledninger. De greb på, at hele verden allerede var ved at tilpasse sig et liv i praktisk fladhed for at skubbe deres ideologi om politisk flathed- hvad de kalder social retfærdighed, men som historisk har betydet overførsel af enorme mængder magt og rigdom til nogle få udvalgte.

Fordi denne kohorte insisterer på ensartethed og renhed, har de gjort de engang uafhængige dele af det amerikanske kulturkompleks til en gensidigt validerende pipeline for konformister med godkendte synspunkter-som derefter legitimerer sig, promoverer og gifter sig med hinanden. En ung Ivy League-elev får A’er ved at papegøje krydsende gospel, hvilket igen betyder, at han bliver anbefalet af sine professorer til et job på entry-level i en tænketank eller publikation i Washington, der også er dedikeret til disse ideer. Hans evne til bredt at fremme disse synspunkter på sociale medier vil sandsynligvis tiltrække godkendelse fra hans næste mulige chef eller læseren af ​​hans kandidatskoleansøgning eller fremtidige makker. Hans succes med at rydde disse barer vil igen åbne fremtidige muligheder for kærlighed og beskæftigelse. At gøre det modsatte har en omvendt virkning, som er næsten umulig at undgå i betragtning af, hvor tæt dette system nu er vævet. En person, der er fast besluttet på at opgive sådanne verdslige fristelser - fordi de er særligt kloge eller rige eller stædige - vil kun se eksempler på endnu mere talentfulde og dygtige mennesker, der har set deres karriere knust og omdømme ødelagt for at turde stikke en tå over den stadigt voksende labyrint af røde linjer.

Så i stedet for at afspejle mangfoldigheden i et stort land, er disse institutioner nu blevet genanvendt som instrumenter til at indpode og håndhæve den snævre og stive dagsorden for en kohorte mennesker og forbyde efterforskning eller afvigelse - et regime, der ironisk nok har efterladt hjemløse mange, hvis ikke de fleste af landets bedste tænkere og skabere. Enhver, der rent faktisk er optaget af at løse dybt rodfæstede sociale og økonomiske problemer, eller gud forbyde med at skabe noget unikt eller smukt-en proces, der uundgåeligt er rodet og ofte involverer at udforske kætterier og lave fejl-vil ramme en mur. Hvis de er unge og eksternt ambitiøse, vil de simpelthen snuse ud af den del af sig selv tidligt og kvæle den stemme, som de ved, får dem i problemer, før de nogensinde har haft chancen for virkelig at høre den synge.

Denne afbrydelse mellem kulturelt pålagt politik og de faktiske demonstrerede præferencer hos de fleste amerikanere har skabt en enorm reserve af uopfyldte behov - og en generationsmulighed. Byg nye ting! Skab god kunst! Forstå og accepter, at sensoriske oplysninger er hjernens mad, og at Silicon Valley systematisk sulter os af det. Undgå at blive helt træblind. Få en ven og ikke tale politik med dem. Gør ting, der skaber kærlighed og opmærksomhed fra tre mennesker, du faktisk kender i stedet for hundredvis, du ikke gør. Forlad den ødelagte Ivy League, tak, jeg beder dig. Start et forlag, der udsender bøger, der gør vrede, overrasker og glæder mennesker, og som får dem til at ville Læs. Vær modig nok til at lave film og tv, der appellerer til det faktiske publikum og ikke 14 personer på Twitter. Etabler en avis, et folk kan se sig selv inde og holde i deres hænder. Gå tilbage til et gudshus - hver uge. Giv op på vores nuværende institutioner, de har allerede opgivet os.

Læs det hele. Disse to citater kan ikke gøre det retfærdigt.

Begivenheder i den forløbne uge gør det klart, at der ikke er nogen opnåelig fremtid for de fleste konservative inden for almindelige institutioner. I Benedikt -muligheden, Skrev jeg, at den dag kommer, hvor religiøse konservative skulle være afhængige af deres egne netværk for beskæftigelse og forsørgelse eller tage karriere, hvor en politisk og religiøs overbevisning ikke betyder noget. Den dag er nu her for nogle mennesker, og antallet af dem under dens skygge accelererer hurtigt.

Som Alana Newhouse siger, skaber dette store muligheder. Men vi ønsker ikke at skabe en højrespejlversion af den samme fanatiske overensstemmelse, som vi ser på venstreorienterede dominerede institutioner. På den måde er her en e-mail, jeg modtog i dag. Jeg tilbageholder forfatterens navn på hans anmodning:

Din artikel om djævelske kræfter rammer virkelig godt. For et stykke tid siden skrev jeg dig om valgsvindel. Jeg kommer ikke til at registrere det eller de bestemte steder, fordi jeg har arbejdet hårdt på at få tillid fra flere mennesker i denne historie, og de er i en delikat tilstand lige nu. Jeg vil beskytte dem personligt og betjene dem sandfærdigt og kærligt, og offentlig skam vil ikke gøre noget godt.

Nogle venner af venner havde oplevet nogle rå og forbløffende valgmuligheder i en større by i deres tid som observatører. Jeg var oprindeligt forsigtig, da min ven var en hårdnakket Trumpist. Ligesom mange af Trumps døende tilhængere var han blevet socialt isoleret i lang tid, var dybt utilfreds og var i stigende grad politisk. Politik gav ham en følelse af mening og formål i sit liv. Ikke desto mindre blev jeg overbevist om nogle af svindelanklagerne, da vigtige detaljer om hans venners historier ikke kun blev bekræftet af andre Trumpister (jeg talte med mindst syv forskellige primære vidner), men gennem video, der blev frigivet, efter at jeg var færdig med at interviewe dem, der bekræftede flere overraskende påstande.

Jeg kunne ikke ignorere disse data, og derfor begyndte jeg at undersøge deres påstande. Mange af deres påstande om bedrageri var legitime, men at udtrække sandheden var en langsom og opslidende proces. Årsagen var ikke fordi disse vidner til bedrageri løj det var fordi mange af dem blev holdt fanget af konspirationsteorier og troede på deres løgne. Når jeg ville interviewe dem, skulle jeg hele tiden skelne mellem, hvad de var vidne til, og hvad der var rygter. For dem var konspirationsteori -fortællingen blevet vigtigere end det faktiske bevis på valgsvindel, de besad.

Vi havde til sidst en vis succes med at få beskeden om legitimt bedrageri til de rette myndigheder, og selv nogle af vidnerne var dækket af Fox og andre højreorienterede kilder –men mange af disse vidner gjorde ikke sig selv nogen tjeneste. I stedet for at kontrollere deres konspirationsimpulser blandede mange sandhed med konspirationsteori i deres vidnesbyrd for at få sig selv til at se latterlig ud. Den smule bedrageri, de observerede, bekræftede fejlagtigt enhver konspirationsteori, de holdt højt.

Selvom den artikel, jeg skrev, viste, at der var en klar og massiv bedrageri, viste den ikke, at der var tilstrækkeligt betydeligt afgørende svindel til at ændre valgets resultat (jeg tror, ​​at Biden var den legitime vinder af valget). Det var for svært for de fleste af disse vidner at sluge, og de løste en tilsyneladende kognitiv dissonans ved at gå længere ned i konspirationsteoriens kaninhul. På det seneste har de sendt mig vanvittige historier - embedsmænd, der bliver dræbt eller taget til fange i CIA -razziaer i Tyskland, Trump anholdt Biden for forræderi, knækkede tricks for at tilrane sig et demokratisk valg og på det seneste en konspirationsteori om et militærkup. Historierne bliver mere og mere ekstreme, og i betragtning af de meningsmålinger, du for nylig offentliggjorde, er vi på vej mod en voldelig og foruroligende fremtid.

Vi må overtale vores brødre og søstre om at komme til fornuft og undgå vold, men historien siger, at udsigten til, at vi lykkes, vil være lav. Ikke desto mindre er det nu tid til at fortsætte med at opbygge vores institutioner. Jeg er så heldig at være en del af en kirke, der har været trofast i disse onde tider og har identificeret og modstået sådan ondt til venstre og højre.

Om ikke andet må vi glæde os over, at magtafguderi for mennesker som os for det meste er blevet ødelagt. Selvom undertrykkelse sandsynligvis vil komme til os, er vi fri til at elske en faldet verden og stå som et vidne for evangeliet. Det er vores håb, og det er vores glæde.

Fremadrettet, at leve ikke efter løgne fra venstre eller højre, vil være en af ​​de sværeste ting for nogen af ​​os at gøre. Men hvilket valg har vi?


Rød skræk (podcast)

Rød skræk betegner sig selv som en kulturel kommentar podcast hostet af "bohemske layout" [8] Dasha Nekrasova og Anna Khachiyan, og er optaget fra deres hjem i Lower Manhattan, New York City. Nekrasova er en hviderussisk-født skuespillerinde, der blev kendt som "Sømandssocialisme" [9] [10] efter et interview med en InfoWars reporter blev viral i 2018. Hun immigrerede til Las Vegas, Nevada, med sine akrobatforældre, da hun var fire. [11] Khachiyan er en forfatter i Moskva, [12] kunstkritiker [13] [14] og datter af den armenske matematiker Leonid Khachiyan. [15] Hun er opvokset i New 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". [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 Rød skræk, 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 Rød skræk 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 Rød skræk 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.

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

Franklin, F. G. “Anti-Syndicalist Legislation.” American Political Science Review 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.


Historical Society of Pennsylvania

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.

Emner

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 og en anti-McCarthy offentliggørelse

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.


Indhold

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]

USA Rediger

20. århundrede Rediger

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 The 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. århundrede Rediger

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] Tid 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? Selvfølgelig ikke. 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.


Den røde skræk: Hvordan Joseph McCarthys antikommunistiske hysteri satte et mærke i USA

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.

Ingen i det republikanske parti havde forventet, at talen kom til overskrifter. 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.”

Fra slutningen af ​​1940'erne blev Amerika besat af at udrydde kommunister og kommunist-sympatisører ved hjælp af påstande, der ofte var baseret på svage beviser eller direkte løgne. Dybt ødelæggende ødelagde Red Scare ikke kun liv og bevægelser, men pressede landet dybere ind i en æra med sladder, paranoia og en kamp mellem national sikkerhed og individuelle rettigheder.

At the time of McCarthy’s speech, Americans felt especially threatened by the rising tide of communism amid the Cold War. Det kommunistiske Rusland var blevet en atomkraft, og Kina var faldet under kommunistisk styre. During this tense moment, McCarthy’s genius as a demagogue and manipulator shone through.

Forfatteren af Demagogue: Senator Joe McCarthys liv og lange skygge, Larry Tye, fortæller Teen 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. Et lille antal sandsynlige sovjetiske spioner, som Alger Hiss, blev dog afdækket under Red Scare, fortæller historiker Ellen Schrecker Teen Vogue at 1930'erne var storheden i amerikansk kommunisme, og i 1947 var de fleste spioner allerede blevet fordrevet fra den amerikanske regering. 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. I deres daglige aktiviteter var de derude på frontlinjerne. 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.”

At sige, at McCarthy var den eneste aktør i at fastholde den antikommunistiske modreaktion, forenkler denne panik, der havde støtte i alle tre grene af den amerikanske regering. På lovgivningsniveau holdt McCarthy-formandens permanente underudvalg for undersøgelser og House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) kongressmøder for mennesker, der mistænkes for kommunistisk troskab. 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.”

Uanset motiv havde nedslagen den kumulative effekt af at kvæle progressiv aktivisme. 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.

Disse høringer korrelerede deres emner på en sådan måde, at selv at tie kunne være en forbrydelse. 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. Andre tiltalte i branchen, der påstod deres femte ændringsret mod selvinkriminering, blev også udstødt. Hvis en tiltalte nægtede at være involveret i kommunistpartiet, ville anklagemyndigheden indbringe et FBI eller et tidligere kommunistisk vidne, der ville insistere på, at den tiltalte var kommunistisk, så de kunne hævde, at den tiltalte havde begået mened.

For at undgå fængsel og opretholde deres levebrød udvandede aktivister deres filosofier. The era had major effects on the civil and labor rights movements, forcing individuals to obscure their personal politics. 

Et sådant tilfælde kan have været Mary Keyserlings, en feminist, arbejder og borgerrettighedsaktivist, der arbejdede i handelsministeriet. 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 Sovjet -Rusland i dag in 1937. Despite being cleared of the charges, Keyserling’s case was reopened in 1951, after Truman broadened the grounds for dismissal. Hun blev til sidst ryddet en anden gang, men forlod sit job i 1953 og arbejdede først i regeringen igen før i 1964.

I en artikel om Keyserling fortæller historieprofessor Landon R.Y. Storrs bemærker, at hun sandsynligvis ikke var kommunist, men hendes personlige papirer tyder på lejlighedsvise socialistiske tilbøjeligheder og kommunistiske sympati. 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.”


Se videoen: Why are Americans so afraid of Socialism? The Red Scare analyzed.