Neo-McCarthyism

By Tara Escudero, Andre le Crout, Jenny Albert, and Eric Fahy

Public figures with large audiences are calling President Barack Obama a Socialist.



The modern McCarthyist movement occuring in the U.S. consists of people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity pointing the finger and doing the McCarthy (try to imagine a dance that points out people who are Socialists) on the White House lawn.

But why now?

Presidents have had Socialist characteristics in their policies for years. The Federal Government has been evolving into this turkey with a large amount of power that at some point will gobble up our freedoms.

Yes, that is an extremely pessimistic point of view to have, but look at the story of the Constitution. First there was the Articles of Confederation, which called for a weak central government. That was removed in favor of the Constitution we know today, which installed a stronger central government. Having a strong central government is a characteristic of a Socialist state.

This bloating of government control has been going on during most of the 20th century. Why no one addresses this when discussing the Obama administration is a blatant sign of a conflict of interest.

In the 1950’s senator Joe McCarthy started a witch hunt. McCarthy blacklisted people he considered Communist or subversives that were in the public spotlight. This began to work its way down into everyday people’s lives as fear trickled down and normal people started to point the finger at each other. People who were speculated to be Communist lost their jobs because of speculation.

The media had a big hand in spreading this fear that ruined people’s lives and made McCarthy famous. The media spread propaganda that inspired fear among Americans and wanted them to rat out people who might not even be Communist.

Staples in conservative culture such as Glenn Beck are now pointing their finger and denouncing president Obama as being a Socialist and promoting an agenda of a group who has come out and said that Obama is not a Socialist.


Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been called the greatest president of the 20th century. He took us out of the depression, took America into World War II… he did a lot in his 12 years in office.

If you cannot recollect from high school, FDR sat (well, wheeled around) in the White House for three terms and was elected to four. And when you think Socialist and FDR what is the first thing that pops into your head?

Social Security.

Today, Social Security is this huge foreboding equivalent of your kitchen sink.
Except money is flowing instead of water (which you never see again, besides in that big number called the national debt), and the pipe keeps getting wider and wider.

Every payday the government takes our hard earned money and gives it to people collecting Social Security. With the life expectancy even higher now than it was when the Social Security Act was passed, the younger generation has to be worried about whether or not there will be any left for us.

When Social Security first started out there was a lot of criticism as to whether it was even necessary. According to The Crisis in Social Security by Carolyn Weaver,Social Security expert, 95% of senior citizens were supporting themselves. An increasing number of these seniors had private pension plans or annuities.

Roosevelt embraced a German idea for a Socialist insurance plan that gave rights to heirs if they died, and it was also proposed that if people had insurance plans that were better than the social security they could opt out. These were all shot down and it became that everyone had to have it starting January 1, 1937.

More recently, Republican presidents that have promoted conservative agendas during their campaigns have been enacting Socialist economic policies while in office.

Ronald Reagan’s tax credits redistributed wealth to families and to the poor, a staunchly Socialist idea. Reagan is looked up to by a lot of conservatives as another great president and act like these socialist policies never existed and are practically ignored by the media.

George W. Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt and was criticized as spending like a socialist. Bush was bashed in the media for being slow, a poor public speaker, and a liar, but I have never heard anyone call him a socialist until the federal bailout of late 2008.

Presently the big controversy is over the new health care bill that Obama advocated, and how that is Socialist. The main point of those advocating this position that that is held up to the most criticism is that offering a public health care option is introducing a government run insurance company that is cheap and will run the others out of business so that there is no competition left.

Rick Scott, head of the advocacy group Conservatives for Patients' Rights, aired an ad in June of 2009, saying exactly what I had mentioned above on Fox News. These people are not actually thinking about what this is going to accomplish and how it is nowhere near as Socialist as past policies. And here is why:

A.The public option will not force other insurance agencies out of business; it will force them to make their prices more reasonable and their policies better. B.Introducing another company into a system is not Socialist. The government is banking on competition to create ‘A’ because they are trusting in our FREE MARKET ECONOMY, which is a Capitalist idea.
C.The public option is not a mandatory health care plan to the entire population like Social Security is. It is not even as Socialist as Social Security was, and FDR is considered by many people as one of the greatest presidents America has had…

I am just waiting for this all to make sense.

President Barack Obama’s stimulus and bailout packages poured about $1 trillion into the mortgage, banking, and auto industries. This bailout money included $30 billion to insurance giant AIG, $200 billion to mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $15 billion to small businesses, and $22 billion to automakers Chrysler and General Motors. This last bit for the automakers even required the firing of the former General Motors CEO, Rick Wagoner.

The interference with the economy by the Obama administration has socialist implications. Regardless of what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity say, it is not actually socialism. In Socialism, the businesses would actually be owned and run by the government, not just be in debt to the government. The closest that the Obama administration has come to actual Socialism was in the firing of Rick Wagoner, as it was a direct decision that the government made for a business.

Socialism or not, it was nothing new. Let us flash back to the reign of George Bush and Dick Cheney and take a look at how much they interfered with our economy. In March of 2008, the Federal Reserve loaned $29 billion to The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. to prevent a sudden collapse of the global investment bank, securities trading, and brokerage firm. The firm was then purchased by J.P. Morgan for next to nothing. In October of 2008, $700 billion was committed to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Like (but before) President Obama, the Bush administration also gave billions of dollars to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and American automakers. In September of 2008, Bush bailout money included $150 billion to AIG and $25 billion to “The Big Three” automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Also in September of 2008, the Bush administration gave $200 billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In a near-true showing of socialism, the Bush administration put the two companies under “temporary conservatorship” to be supervised by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

With all of that economic interference by the Bush administration, a question needs to be raised as to where people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity were when Bush was president, and why none of them voiced accusations then.





A question can also be raised as to why Republican Sarah Palin was never blacklisted. The former vice presidential candidate used to be governor of Alaska, where there is no income or sales tax. The state government instead imposes levies on the oil companies that lease the fields, which then pays for all government activities. The levies also allow the state to give out yearly checks of over $3200 to every citizen of the state. As she said to Philip Gourevitch of The New Yorker, “We’re set up, unlike other states in the union; where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Well that sounds pleasantly Socialist to me. Might I add that Palin is actually responsible for a $2000 increase in that check while she was governor. It used to be just $1200.

It may not matter that the extremists in the media waited until now to hypocritically allocate blame. A recent study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, published Sept. 13, 2009, shows that the majority of the Americans do not trust the media. The study shows that the public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades, as only 29% of Americans think that the press gets the facts straight, while 63% believe that news stories are often inaccurate. These are figures that are heavily daunting and should be a serious wake-up call for the press.

The percentage of people who believe that news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations is at an all-time low (20%). This implies that the majority of Americans believe that there is more than just news behind the news. In fact, 60% say that news organizations are politically biased, compared to just 26% who believe that news organizations are careful to avoid bias. According to another Pew Research study from Oct. 29, 2009, it can be seen that FOX News, the home of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, is viewed as the most ideological news network. Nearly half of Americans (47%) see FOX as being mostly conservative, where the perceived ideological orientations of other news networks in the media, such as ABC or CBS, are more mixed. Statistics also show that more people said the other networks are more liberal than conservative, but in all cases, close to as many said that they have no bias.

People do not believe the things that our contemporary McCarthy’s are telling them. However, statistics show that the public’s support of President Obama’s economic policies is slipping. According to a Pew Research study from Oct. 8, 2009, the percentage of Americans who approved of his economic policies in June was 55%, compared to 39% who disapproved. In October, those numbers each evened out at 44%. In regards to socialism and government interference with the economy, it was found that 54% of Americans considered stricter regulation of financial companies to be a good idea in October, a number that dropped from 60% in April, while the percentage of Americans who saw regulation as a bad idea increased over that time from 31% to 38%.

It is possible that the slipping support is a result of the public not seeing immediate improvement in a shambling economy. Another theory to entertain involves recognition of the fact that FOX News draws more than two times as many viewers as any other news network at all times of the day and week. This large viewership, with Glenn Beck’s show being the second-highest rated news program on television behind The O’Reilly Factor, allows for some serious McCarthyan brainwashing.

Van Jones resigned from his position as environmental advisor on September 5, 2009 following an onslaught of mudslinging perpetuated by FOX News. At the helm of the blacklisting committee was Glenn Beck, host of the self-titled news show on Fox.). So far, Jones is the first to lose their job due to Glenn Beck’s mudslinging tactics.

Beck targeted Jones for his radical left wing past, which included an affiliation with Marxist-based organization called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). According to Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post, “Jones ... left radical politics and made the decision to work within the system, rather than try to overthrow it. For Beck, however, Jones' past statements were evidence that Obama is secretly marshaling a cadre of lieutenants pushing an agenda that is "radical, revolutionary and in some cases Marxist.”” Van Jones’ ties with Communist organizations had no bearing on the job he was doing as environmental adviser, or “czar,” until they led to his forced resignation on September 5, 2010.

In persecuting Jones, Beck was looking out for the good of the American people. Think about it: Jones was not subject to the thorough background checks that higher-ranking members of office were. Beck took it upon himself to delve into Jones’ past solely for the purpose of blacklisting him. Then, not only would the American people be safe from Communist tyranny, but Beck’s ratings would soar. However, Jones did not see it this way at all, as he is quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me ... They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

In Robert Justin Goldstein’s “Prelude to McCarthyism: The Making of a Blacklist,” the McCarthy era was marked by “deliberate attempts to ignite a domestic Red Scare by a powerful coalition of American conservatives ... significant elements in the business community, the Catholic Church, and, especially, and increasingly politically desperate Republican Party.”

A person could be blacklisted if they had ties with any organization at all deemed by the Attorney General as “totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive, or as having adopted a policy advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government in the United States by unconstitutional means.” But here’s the thing. When conservatives misrepresent all liberals as being Communists, it becomes evident that there is one choice to make: be a Republican or be un-American.

Democrats and Republicans each firmly believe themselves to be upholding the constitution. But the sentiments of the Republican side continue to be skewed. Allow me to explain. Since “communism vs. republicanism,” was a popular slogan of the McCarthy era, anything that wasn’t republican was automatically implicated as communist. Sound familiar? It is. When President's Temporary Commission on Employee Loyalty (TCEL) made a list of guidelines for blacklisting that determined who got hired and who got fired. People would be fired or refused employment if given “reasonable grounds” for being “disloyal.” Goldstein continues, “the TCEL never defined the key terms “disloyal” or “reasonable grounds.”” This intentional negligence functions specifically to allow continued persecution of liberals whenever conservatives see fit. And they do it all the time. Like when Rush Limbaugh directly compared Obama to Hitler, saying that the health care bill is “exactly like” Nazi Germany. Or like when Sean Hannity called Obama’s campaign, “Socialism You Can Believe In.” Clearly these men have a vendetta.

But it is not just the men. Sarah Palin is the one who coined the term “death panels” in reference to the end-of-life provisions that were in an earlier draft of the health care bill. See, before Obama gave his speech on health care on September 9, 2009, right wing conservatives made sure that his would be a grueling struggle. Their representation of the health care plan was riddled from the start with demagogic terminology, the sole intent of which was to dissuade public support. Catch-phrases like “pro-abortion,” “pro-euthanasia,” and “death panels,” functioned to scare the uninformed into opposition.

So Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and a small group of senators made a choice. They dropped it. “We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly,” Grassley said . This was on August 13. And yet we are still hearing conservatives spouting endlessly about how liberals are out to socialize, communize, and murder Americans


John Rother, executive vice president of the American Association of Retired People (AARP) was quoted as saying, “I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it’s much stronger than I expected ... it’s people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the president” in Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes’ article in the NY Times published on August 13, 2009. Right wing media representations of liberals are a re-invocation of McCarthyism. Blacklisting, demagoguery, and the choice between being a conservative or being a criminal.

The past century has seen several attempts for large-scale health care reform, as well as other monumental interventions of government, like bailouts and Social Security.

The current administration is coming closest to making progressive history with health care legislation. Radical changes in the past have had everything to do with the collective consciousness at the time. But the media is more different and perhaps powerful than it ever has been.

A vote happens on the Senate floor and seconds later, news organizations are racing to have the results on their webpage first, complete with opinions already formulated. The story matures; some points are emphasized more than others. Certain voices are praised or ridiculed. One conclusive phrase such as “death panels” can have lasting repercussions on the progress of legislation.

The current state of H.R. 3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act is fragile. Earlier this month it narrowly passed through the House of Representatives by five votes. The Senate finally made some progress on voting just this past Thursday; this recent vote determining that public funding would support preventative care and regular testing for women such as mammograms. Preventative care also includes abortions recommended by doctors to be publicly funded. How the abortion issue is handled will make or break the passing of the bill as a whole.

The progress of the bill is currently dependent upon Democratic unity, since each decision needs 60 votes to pass.

Partisan lines are so clearly defined and exaggerated in the media through repetition. Democrats are liberal progressives that love government spending; Republicans are conservatives in love with Capitalism. Time and time again, conclusions are made about legislative decisions: that it was partisan. This repetition leads to the practice of partisan politics to such an extreme that it hinders progress. Because of this, bipartisan negotiation is often seen as a novelty. Conservatives will filibuster this, liberals will not support that.

The news cycle is turning to a point where emotional motivation is replacing intellectual. The speed of the cycle as mentioned before is combined with an effort to gain reader’s attention. What makes the same story more interesting in a different newspaper? The opinion that comes along with it.

Without the Democratic majority agreeing among themselves, the health care bill will die in the Senate. The stark divide between political parties is fueled by the media when opinion is placed before fact. Any news organization analyzing a hearing of legislation makes a conclusion and the conclusion is always accepted to a certain extent and spread.

The public mindset is becoming more streamlined, with people going to blogs rather than initial and empirical reports. When media sources interchange the terms liberal with -isms other than Capitalism, they only help to impeding process. People within and outside of the government want a conclusion that fits them, and as fast as possible. Lack of compromise.

The next hurdle in will be the inclusion in the bill of language mirroring the Stupak amendment. Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, introduced an amendment that would limit public funding for abortion. This includes publicly funding abortions only in the situations of incest, rape, and if there is a threat to the life of the mother. The difficulty with passing this amendment is overcoming the stigma that Democratic majority equals pro-choice.

Since the House passed the health care bill as a whole on Nov. 7, there has been an immediate move to come to a compromise on abortion within the Senate. Ironically, abortion may be the most bipartisan topic that the Senate will tackle with this legislation. Ben Nelson, a Democratic senator from Nebraska, is supporting similar language in the bill, and says he will filibuster a bill that does not include it. A filibuster will only be necessary if Democrats cannot unify, seeing as Republican support for limiting abortion rights is expected.

One can only hope the process of repairing our health care system is not delayed much longer, as it is a system in dire need of repair. Peoples’ trust in media sources and the current administration is indeed dwindling. Maybe enough so that individual conclusions will begin to be made, and compromises will be made possible. Then again, television ratings for the most popular shows are not known to suddenly plummet. As with policy, public responsibility for their knowledge is a slow and arduous process.