Defending groups like this, which history has pretty irrevocably labelled nutso is a no-win situation. First because you must begin by saying they were wrong, at least in certain circumstances. Butchers way overplayed the communism card, even if our descent into socialism bears them out. Environmentalists every day make far more insane claims than that water flouridation was inspired by communism, though I’m not sure they went so far as calling it a Russian conspiracy.
The one thing that really bugs me about McCarthy is how he made the case for George Marshall as an objective communist, if not a paid agent. And I don’t even particularly like Marshall. Butchers made a similar claim with Eisenhower, and it’s stuff like that which forever marginalizes them.
Opposing such overstatements is the long history of libs being wrong about everything, especially about stuff that mattered like tens of millions of people dying. But you won’t hear about it, except for a few of the more out there groups. Textbooks talk about fools like Walter Duranty not only without mentioning their lies and/or gross incompetent, but without properly identifying them as having any political bent whatsoever.
Meanwhile conservatism STILL gets associated with McCarthyism and Bircherism despite our movement very publicly repudiating them. And it’s supposed to be a bad thing despite both being quite a bit more right than various other trusted sources.
Meanwhile conservatism STILL gets associated with McCarthyism and Bircherism despite our movement very publicly repudiating them. And it’s supposed to be a bad thing despite both being quite a bit more right than various other trusted sources.
I would rather be compared to McCarthy or John Birch than compared to Obama or Clinton
If you look at today’s “conservatives”, many of them share the same international views as Obama (especially Free Trade and Globalism), share the same views on Illegal Aliens (Rubio-Obama Amnesty), and supported Obama over those challenging his eligibility to be President.
Unfortunately, too many people who claim to be conservative think that conservatism is only Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. I can still remember when many Democrats were more conservative than the FNC/Hannity/Limbaugh troika that passes as “conservative” today
That's the bottom line.
NO man says all the right things all the time, nor does all the right things all the time.
(Easy now, I'm a born again Chridtian .. these comments are from a man's point of view)
We'd do well to remember that we're fallible and that our views and opinions often change with varying circumstances during life ... while living it.
I was an idealistic hippy once.
When we live in a time where the best defense the enemies of this Republic have is to commit such outrageous acts against our laws and Constitution that they read like "conspiracy theories", I am not so willing to label anyone a "nutcase" who believes our Liberty should be jealously guarded.
Odd that the same people who ignored Romney's far more recent liberal acts would reach back to Ike's administration for ammo against the JBS.
I don’t repudiate McCarthy, because he was far more right than wrong (the Marshall smear being an exception) and actually did the country a great service. Because there were a lot of commies in the government, and he made them run for cover. Although I’m sure that most Birchers were patriotic Americans, prominent Birch leaders making absurd claims about Eisenhower and others made things worse.
If you read Ann Coulter’s Treason you will see that our journalists - who were “objective” even back then - systematically ridiculed and distorted McCarthy’s views and statements, putting him in “heads you lose, tails I win” situations. They demanded that he name names, when all he had said was that there was reason to investigate to learn names, if any - and then if he did name a name, they condemned him for smearing the person named. When in fact the name corresponded, history shows, with an actual communist.I don’t pretend to know the details of what you are referring to - but the odds are long that McCarthy had a legitimate, if too nuanced for him to be able to burn through the fog of journalistic obfuscation, point.
I put “objective” in scare quotes above. To me, the most powerful case against “objective journalism” is to be found precisely in their claim to be objective. Because, in the nature of things, it is impossible for anyone to know that they themselves are objective. So if you say you are objective, that just proves - conclusively - that you are not objective about yourself. Which is to say, you are not objective about anything.
It is of course possible, and laudable, to attempt objectivity. It even is legitimate to say that you are trying to be objective (if in fact you are). The catch, for the “objective” journalist, is that any good-faith attempt at objectivity must start with self-examination, and an open discussion of any reasons you can think of why you might not be objective. Which is, of course, precisely the opposite of claiming actually to be objective.
I’m sure that some people claimed to be objective - just as the Sophists of ancient Greece claimed to be wise - before the advent of the Associated Press. But the AP institutionalized the claim of actual objectivity in the late Nineteenth Century in response to the alarms which were raised about the concentration of propaganda power which the Associated Press represented. The AP justified that claim on the basis that it was composed of dozens (at the time) of newspapers which individually were notorious at the time for not agreeing about much of anything (source: News Over the Wires: The Telegraph and the Flow of Public Information in America, 1844-1897 by Menahem Blondheim).
It has been an unspoken premise of membership in good standing within the AP, including within any newspaper which belongs to the AP, ever since. If you go to work as a journalist you are signing on to the premise that you will claim that every other journalist is objective - and that you expect every other journalist to claim that you are objective. Thus, by becoming a journalist for the AP or one of its member outlets, you are de facto claiming that you are objective. Which excludes having the humility to admit to any subjective impulses.
And that implies that you are not even trying to be objective. Oh, you will go along with the “rules for objectivity” such as “giving both sides of the story” - but the trouble is that you have already ruled out the possibility that there actually are valid perspectives other than your own. So even if you “tell the other side of the story" until the cows come home, the version of the “other side of the story" which you tell will always be a straw man. Anyone who considers himself to be the arbiter of what is objective will be extremely subjective.
Journalists systematically agree with “liberals” for the simple reason that “liberals” have the same motive that “objective” journalists do - namely, to get attention and credit for importance, without having to actually work, and without the constraints of a bottom line. “Liberal” politicians and “objective” journalists profit from their symbiotic relationship. “Objective” journalists and “liberals” cooperate in finding ways to embarrass people who are trying to gain their sense of importance by actually doing needed things.http://www.robertmundell.net/NobelLecture/nobel3.asp