A Conspiracy So Vast

John G. Adams, a key figure in the proceedings that effectively ended Sen. Joseph McCarthy's career, passed quietly from the scene last week at age 91. Not surprisingly, his death made no news; it's been a while since those heady days when McCarthy launched his investigations of the Army, which had, he charged, been shielding countless Communist agents at Fort Monmouth and elsewhere. It fell to Adams, the Army's chief counsel, to deal with the charges, which he did to devastating effect in the Army-McCarthy hearings that held the nation in thrall in the 1950s.

*** You can read all about McCarthy's downfall, and the alleged dupes and traitors responsible for it, in "Treason," a new book by Ann Coulter, the Maureen Dowd of the conservatives. It derides McCarthy's critics and brands the notion of McCarthyism itself as a myth and "the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times." She also thanks her publisher for his bravery -- a suggestion that it took courage to publish this work. Here we are, only up to the acknowledgments page, and already enjoying a laugh. True, at one point a book representing the Democrats as the party of treason, and Sen. McCarthy as one of the greatest heroes of the age, might have given some publishers pause. Not today -- the era that has put its money on outrage merchants and shock jocks.

Imagine the delight Ms. Coulter's publishers (Crown Forum, a division of Random House) felt as they contemplated the possibilities. "Treason" had everything -- attacks and dark revelations about eminences hitherto untouchable, such as CBS's Edward R. Murrow, author of the famous "See It Now" broadcast that struck the first blow against McCarthy, from which the senator would never recover. "On what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he is grown so great?" Murrow asked, in that searing indictment, delivered to a huge national audience, charging McCarthy with the reckless destruction of lives and reputations. It was, Ms. Coulter claims, a vicious and deceptive hatchet piece, "produced by Edward R. Murrow, friend of Soviet spy Laurence Duggan."

Pure gold. Could a publisher ask for more? But more there is: Ms. Coulter has not just set about rehabilitating McCarthy as a martyr destroyed by anti-American leftists -- she has also set about rehabilitating the most notorious of his cases, the kind dramatized in famous film clips of the period. Cases like that of Annie Lee Moss, a black code clerk who had lost her job at the Pentagon when she was hauled before McCarthy's committee as a security risk and Communist Party member. She had been confused with a different Annie Lee Moss, the witness explained -- and who Karl Marx was she could not even say. So evident was Ms. Moss's confusion at what she was doing there that applause erupted in the hearing room when Democratic Sen. Stuart Symington declared he believed her.

But the evidence against Ms. Moss was not insignificant, the author of "Treason" now maintains. The code clerk had said there were two other people called Annie Lee Moss listed in the Washington phone book -- whereas the two others were actually Anna Lee Moss and Annie Moss. Dynamite evidence, as far as Ms. Coulter is concerned -- case closed. After all, an FBI report had identified her as a Communist.

Also up for refurbishing is another famous McCarthy case, that against Army Capt. Irving Peress, a dentist reported to be a member of the Communist Party -- to become famous mainly for McCarthy's insistence on learning who promoted the captain to major. "Who Promoted Peress?" became his battle cry for a year. Even after the Rosenbergs had been caught, Ms. Coulter now charges, the Army had promoted the dentist reported to be a Communist. "When were they going to learn?"

Yes, a book with everything -- and we don't forget the classy prose. "Needless to say, the scrawny pinko was also a failure as a soldier," writes Ms. Coulter, about Peress.

And the book with everything has been getting precisely the kind of media attention the publishers counted on -- anywhere one turned on the TV screens last week there was the author of "Treason" happily confronting wide-eyed interviewers wanting to know how she can say the things she says -- her manner inviting them and the public to see just how bad she can be. Wait, you think that was something, her tone seems to say -- there's worse to come.

There always is, in the book, which ranges from the martyrdom of Sen. McCarthy -- without whose great fortitude and perspicacity in exposing the Communist menace, we might, Ms. Coulter suggests, all now be in the gulag -- to such matters as the Hollywood blacklist and the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings, which in fact had little to do with McCarthy. Here Ms. Coulter pauses to reflect on the whining of those on the blacklist, all of whom she mocks as prosperous exiles racing happily around Europe with rich friends and having a good time. In Ms. Coulter's version of this history, of course, the blacklisted are only the rich and resourceful -- a history that doesn't include the countless people destroyed because their names had popped up on some list of alleged Communists or fellow travelers, or sounded like a name on one of those lists. People like the actor Phillip Loeb, for example, unemployable and ultimately driven to suicide because he could no longer pay the bills for the care of a mentally ill son.

The portrayal of Sen. McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is "sheer liberal hobgoblinism," Ms. Coulter maintains. It is true enough that there was nothing particularly wild-eyed about McCarthy, though that eerie giggle of his which tended to erupt at odd moments did have a certain out-of-this world pitch. Matters like that aside, the senator knew what he was about -- knew how much gold, political and other, a crusading Communist hunter could mine -- particularly one who could wave lists of names, numbers of traitors and plotters against the nation. The times were ripe for his kind.

Whether Sen. McCarthy actually believed some of the more fantastic charges he made -- charges that brought him instant fame -- remains a question. In 1951 he declared that Secretaries of State George Marshall and Dean Acheson had conspired to deliver China to the Soviets; and, not least, that they and other American leaders had taken part in a conspiracy against the United States, "a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man."

In another time -- our own -- he might have found a calling as a political shock jock. It was his fate, instead, for his name to be forever associated with a reign of fear and terror all too real. In her devoted effort to redraw Sen. McCarthy's history, Ms. Coulter makes the point that the members of the elite establishment all despised McCarthy. So did most educators, intellectuals and university faculties. That last is always worth remembering, though not for the reasons Ms. Coulter thinks. It is worth remembering that during that bleak political time the universities, faculties and students understood the threat McCarthyism posed to intellectual freedom -- and, dismal to note today, that the universities which were once hotbeds of opposition to McCarthy are now little worlds of their own, where political censorship, speech codes and other ideologically driven assaults on freedom are the accepted order of things.

*** Ms. Coulter's work includes an admiring if brief biography of McCarthy's political career. One that for some reason excludes the senator's remarkable efforts on behalf of the members of the SS battle group who executed 86 American POWs in the Ardennes campaign in December 1944; otherwise known as the Malmedy Massacre. In his impassioned efforts on behalf of the accused -- one never to be repeated in his investigative career -- the senator charged that the U.S. Army had cruelly mistreated the former SS men.

All things considered, Sen. McCarthy's reputation would be hard to refurbish, but give Ms. Coulter credit for an all-out effort. The senator -- who knew something about the art of outrage merchandising -- would have understood the latest of his public advocates.

It is true enough that there was nothing particularly wild-eyed about McCarthy, though that eerie giggle of his which tended to erupt at odd moments did have a certain out-of-this world pitch.

As usual, Annie's critics prove her material to be spot on!

Ann isn't everyone's cup of tea!I am sure there were mistakes and excesses but the truth is there was a communist infiltration of our government."Mc Carthyism has come to mean all the charges from Chambers and HUAC were a witch hunt.Hiss was a spy.Hollywood had become a haven for communists who wanted the communist message to subtly be inserted in film.

If you had a point there, I sure didn't see it.

You posted the two pictures and said you decide. From that I take you base your political analysis on the cut of someones face and color of hair. I was wondering whether you choose your wife soley on the same basis or whether you looked at other more lasting qualities as well.

The cliche about the truth lying somewhere in the middle clearly applies here.

On the one hand McCarthy wasn't too scrupulous about riding the wave of hysterical overreaction to the communist threat that prevailed in the early '50s.

On the other hand a significant infiltration of government agencies, particularly The State Department, had in fact occured.

Dorothy Rabinowitz was one of the panelists on the Wall Street Journal show that CNBC used to have on Friday nights. She seemed very conservative on that show and was quite witty. Paul Gigot was the host. I thought it was great.

What is remarkable is that this writer proves Ann's point. I returned from vacation on Saturday and my book was waiting for me. I am now halfway through it and the question that Ms. Coulter keeps asking and is never answered - was there communists in the United States government? We know what the answer is but the liberals refuse to not only answer the question, they do not want the question raised.

She wrote of the Juanita Brodderick rape after she interviewed her.I like her,too.You don't have to like Mc Carthy's political use of the situation to realize that more than just the State Dept had communists.

As usual, Annie's critics prove her material to be spot on!

Ann is right about their being communists in the government but she is wrong about McCarthy being a saint or that he didnt overeach. She may be entertaining to read but she is not going to persuade anyone that's not already a card carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. :-)

Dorothy Rabinowitz is an excellent, thoughtful writer. Well researched and usually of a conservative nature. It's clear that Ann Coulter hit a nerve there. Ann must have criticized someone or something that D.R. holds dear in order to engender this kind of response.

Coulter's previous book, Slander is heavily sourced and footnoted. The reader is never faced with the question, "Gee, where did she get that?".

I can only assume that Treason is similarly sourced.

Ad hominem attacks and non-regard for her source material are not expected in a WSJ column.

From that I take you base your political analysis on the cut of someones face and color of hair.

Oh, sure -- that follows. Keep your Psych 101 analytical skills to yourself, please.

I do think Dorothy could have been a more balanced in the question of communists in the government and elsewhere.Ann can turn me off at times but I felt this was too much like a hit piece.

It is worth remembering that during that bleak political time the universities, faculties and students understood the threat McCarthyism posed to intellectual freedom -- and, dismal to note today, that the universities which were once hotbeds of opposition to McCarthy are now little worlds of their own, where political censorship, speech codes and other ideologically driven assaults on freedom are the accepted order of things.

So what you're saying Dorothy is that universities have always been hotbeds of assaults on freedom (truth). What the hell is intellectual freedom you moron?

There is more truth in an Ann Coulter book than in Dorothy the Dinosaur's entire professional career.

"Dorothy Rabinowitz is an excellent, thoughtful writer. Well researched and usually of a conservative nature. It's clear that Ann Coulter hit a nerve there. Ann must have criticized someone or something that D.R. holds dear in order to engender this kind of response."

I read this piece and what I think that nerve was is the whole "witch-hunt" aspect of the 50's search for Communists in gov't, entertainment, etc.

Rabinowitz is well known for leading the charge against the lunatic "child molestator" witch hunts of the 1980's. The ones featuring Margaret Kelly Michaels (as a victim) and Janet Reno (as an overzealous - to say the least - prosecutor). I think Rabinowitz is arguing against gov't over reaching on little or no evidence. Since I haven't read the book I can't say if her criticism is valid or not, but I think this is the bee in her bonnet.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.