Senator Joseph McCarthy did not correctly finger a single Communist, but a multitude of them, writes Stan Evans in his explosive book about the most controversial senator in the history of that august body. Read my review of M. Stanton Evans's Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies on ISI's new web journal, First Principles, and discover why Cold Warriors who took on domestic subversives in fact instead of in books fare poorly in the books written about the period.

Hi Dan,

You know I love Stan and have nothing but the highest respect for him. And I am psyched that his book has finally been completed and published after well over ten years of work. Still, I'm curious what you think of this article over at WSJ Opinion Journal: "The Real Joe McCarthy".

I thought the article was pretty even-handed and made some good points, even if it is dismissive of the efforts of Stan and others to demonstrate just how right McCarthy was. (Indeed, he was even more right than he knew.)

I don't think the author demonstrates the slightest independent knowledge of the period, instead mining quotes from people who lived through it. In other words, he doesn't say anything but instead relies on various individuals' negative opinions of McCarthy to substantiate his point. What does that prove? That some people didn't like McCarthy? That's news?

What I like about Stan's book is that it is specific. It names names and says here are people who McCarthy named as loyalty risks or security risks who turned out to be more than that--Communists. What I dislike about Kessler's piece is that it issues vague charges--the way we are to believe McCarthy did--without citing a specific case where McCarthy got it wrong.

McCarthy certainly deserves criticism on his handling of certain cases, but what of the many cases when Cold War liberals--who have somehow become heroes to conservatives--got it wrong. Why do FDR and Harry Truman, for instance, get a pass for believing Alger Hiss a patriot instead of a spy?

P.S. Kessler cites Donald Ritchie as an authority, which, as anyone reading the prologue of Stan's book, is a joke. Ritchie wrote an introduction to the release of thousands of pages of transcripts of McCarthy executive session hearings, in which he attempted to portray McCarthy "victim" Annie Lee Moss--who received the Daily Worker at her home and whose name and address appeared on the CP's membership rolls-- as an innocent. Stan called Ritchie, providing material showing Ritchie's error and asking him if he had really inspected the evidence or had just repeated what he had read in various history books. "I am growing very tired of this conversation," Ritchie responded, which is about as much a debate as you will get from people more interested in perpetuating mythology than in independently inspecting the evidence.

Dan,

I agree with all the points you raise. 100%. And I have argued for McCarthy's good name with more than a few friends who have said "even if you are right about McCarthy being right, what's the point?" They think it is counterproductive to raise the issue. I say principle demands it.

But what I was trying to get at, and what I should have been less vague about b/4 (my apologies), is Kessler's bottom line: That McCarthy's methods and occasional but very public lapses into carelessness "gave spy hunting a bad name" and had the unintended effect of damaging the effort to root out Soviet spies.

Now, I would say that the communist sympathizers on the American Left and their willing accomplices in the media and Hollywood were at least as responsible. But McCarthy did give them a leash that they were all to happy to hang him and other anti-communists with.

So, I am delighted that the other side of the story -- about how right McCarthy was and how very real the threat was -- is finally being proved, and inescapably so. Kessler is wrong to ridicule these valuable efforts. But there is also an appropriate caution here. And that is what I think Kessler does get right, at least in part.

The problem with the "he gave anti-Communism a bad name" argument is the same as other arguments attacking conservatives that neocons repeat until they become uncritically accepted wisdom: it serves to protect the left and demonize the right. That is, it is a strategy of elitists who are right-centrists (like neocons) to retain influence and friendships (and lucrative contacts) from the liberal-left, particularly in the media and academy, by attacking those "farther" to their right (that is traditional conservatives and populist elements). Buckley was actually great at doing this and the accepted history of the conservative movement informs us that this was a valuable effort of disconnecting the conservative movement from "fringe" elements. Often, as in the case of McCarthy, being fringe has more to do w/ not fitting in with the waspish DC and NE elites.

Ronald Kessler is, let's be clear, a neoconservative. He actually voted for Al Gore in 2000 and then (w/o irony) turned around to write a book praising Bush called "A Matter of Character: Inside the Bush White House." His attack on Stan's book is typical of the cant and line that the neocons continue to hew and spew in order to destroy all remnants and influence of traditional conservatism in American politics.

I believe they have succeeded beyond repair myself, but it is pure cultural marxist tactics.

I think one of the last points I make in the First Principles review is relevant to Kessler's review and your point. It is that any effective anti-Communist--Martin Dies, J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, Pat McCarran--gets attacked as having disgraced their cause (by people who don't much care for their cause, I should add). Anti-Communist men of ideas on the Right have been quick to attack anti-Communist men of action and pile on. Unfortunately, taking on dirty Communists is a dirty business and those who did were bound to get muddy. It takes maturity for a writer to recognize that ideas and action operate on different planes, and that however one would idealize a hypothetical fight against communism--e.g., a perfect protection of civil liberties and a perfect effectiveness of rooting of domestic subversives from government--the real fight against communism is different.

Eric, if Kessler had bothered to read Stan's book, he wouldn't have repeated the "205" smear, or taken Joe Welch's phony histrionics as sincere, much less presented Ritchie as an objective authority.

If Kessler had said McCarthy occasionally made serious blunders (e.g., had to backtrack immediately after calling Soviet propagandist Owen Lattimore a spy, was in error about Marshall being consistently wrong, etc.), Stan would have no disagreement.

But Kessler repeated vague generalizations that McCarthy lied and made things up about and smeared innocent people, without naming any. Where Stan used primary sources from official archives that anyone can check, Kessler repeats third-hand gossip that so-and-so told him someone else said yet another person disparaged McCarthy. If McCarthy had used Kessler's tactics, he might deserve the calumny heaped on him.

On those items that can be checked, Kessler demonstrates astonishing ignorance of the subject matter. (In the original version of this piece, Kessler called Robert Lamphere "Walter" Lamphere.) See Stan's forthcoming letter in the Journal.

Mark,

The points you make against Kessler are accurate but besides the point. Facts are entirely irrelevant for the cultural marxist methods of the neocons. They operate under a Straussian/Machiavellian political paradigm. Then they use lovely outlets like the WSJ w/ so little editorial credibility that they can publish their shite pieces like this one by Kessler which can't even get names right, let alone be bothered to base itself on an actual reading of the book under scrutiny.

This is politics by posturing, i.e., pure ideology.

Mark makes an excellent point on Kessler invoking "205" matter of factly as if there were no controversy over this point. In fact, as Stan, and WFB and Brent Bozell before him, point out, McCarthy, many of his listeners, the editor of the Wheeling newspaper, and others contended that McCarthy used the number "57" when referring to Reds in the State Department. I rarely can tell whether someone using the "205" figure does so out of ignorance or smugness.

we nee more people like sen. McCarthy.

Allan Ryskind takes apart an earlier version of this article here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26119

Deflates Kessler nicely I think.

Great points all, Batman, Dan, and Mark.

And good to hear from you, Mark. I trust you are well? Are you still with NJC (YAF-version) or have you moved on?

I'm looking forward to Stan's rebuttal article!

Incidentally, I gladly take back and repent of my use of the term "even-handed" in my first comment above re: Kessler's article. It was poor word choice made in a hurry when I really meant what I said in my second comment. Further, comments by others here have shown me that even Kessler's one point that I initially thought "fair" was no so much.

Incidentally, Ryskind's article IS excellent. Thanks, Mark, for bringing it to my attention.

Eric, I was sorry to learn that you have left the poverty-stricken world of journalism for the greener pastures of fundraising. But seeing your beautiful family, I understand completely. I'm no longer with NJC, but am at ERI. My name below links to our Web site.

http://education-research.org

Wes Vernon responds to Kessler:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/080428