McCarthyism up close [Beichman attacks Coulter's "Treason"; admits never read her book]

The Washington Times ^ | August 3, 2003 | Arnold Beichman

[elenchus]

"Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason."

"The myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name."

[elenchus]

I did a search but to my amazement failed to find this article previously posted here. Apologies to all for any duplication if I am mistaken.

I find it appalling that someone of Beichman's stature would attack an author and a position without even having the decency to read the book. I trust all Freepers will agree that any critic who reviews a book but is too feeble to be able to read it, should disqualify himself--or be disqualified--as unfit to serve as a reviewer or commentator on any subject. Objectivity would seem to demand, at a minimum, that one examine the opponent's argument before attacking it, especially one of such high importance.

To state as he does, "I have tried to read Miss Coulter's book and failed. Life is too short to read pages and pages of rant. Well, OK, it's a free country, so rant away. However, a misreading of the record of the McCarthy years and of McCarthy himself is impermissible," show that he lacks the integrity that any critic should, at a minimum. possess.

From now on, I will regard anything he has to say as a piece of hack work, and refuse to read it.

[js1138]

Yes, and Clinton "tried" to cut taxes.

[Paul Ross]

From now on, I will regard anything he has to say as a piece of hack work, and refuse to read it.

Ditto. Beichman is TOAST! No more.

[Paul Ross]

From now on, I will regard anything he has to say as a piece of hack work, and refuse to read it.

Ditto. Beichman is TOAST! No more.

[Argus]

I know of many more conservatives who have been sickened by her book because Miss Coulter has brought back into the culture the politics of the smear.

Conservatives who have for years been routinely slandered as Nazis and fascists by liberals will be surprised to learn that our culture was smear-free until Ann Coulter showed up.

[EdReform]

BTTT... read later

[Paul Ross]

Conservatives who have for years been routinely slandered as Nazis and fascists by liberals will be surprised to learn that our culture was smear-free until Ann Coulter showed up.

Bump.

Arnold Beichman, Jealous or Just a Nincompoop?

[DittoJed2]

"his bullying, his lying, his demagoguery"
McCarthy named 57 people as suspected communist spies. Those people have later been proven to be communist spies. The only lying, bullying, and demagoguery that has been going on is by the left and its sympathizers who have maligned this man's name. Once again, when the left (or right) raises their hands and says "McCarthyism" we should all ask "but, were there KNOWN communist spies actively working in our government during McCarthy's time?" Read the book or don't read the book. History is on McCarthy's side on this one and idiots like this reviewer will fade away into dust.

[MEG33]

A review of Treason by an admitted nonreader of the book.

[elenchus]

BTW, historians now seem to recognize that it was Hoover who was feeding information from the Venona data to McCarthy. While Beichman cites Hoover's criticism of the Senator (see the article above), this needs to be viewed in the light of this new information suggesting that one of the principal sources of McCarthy's information about espionage agents both inside and outside the U.S. government appears to have been Hoover himself. Political figures often criticize one another in this way for instrumental reasons. Contrary to what Beichman claims, a passing comment in Hoover's book does nothing to deny the legitimacy of McCarthy's effort which was undergirded by Hoover-supplied information.

[MEG33]

This is not the first time a reviewer has not read the book but is the first to admit it.I will question his judgement henceforth.

[DPB101]

McCarthy deserves a medal for putting up with this testimony by a Mr.Paul F. Hacko from GE.

[elenchus]

"McCarthy named 57 people as suspected communist spies. Those people have later been proven to be communist spies."

--When you think about it, it seems obvious that the reason McCarthy was 100% accurate about these 57 spies was the fact that he had rock-solid information from Hoover himself, derived from the Venona data (see post # 10 above).

[narby]

Ronald Radosh has pointed out that had McCarthy not existed, the American far left would have invented him.

The left DID invent McCarthy. Or at least the myth part. The good senator distrupted a genuine stalinist conspiracy within the government to destroy this country the same way stalin destroyed and took over eastern europe.

McCarthy bashers are aiding and abeting the legacy of a mass murderer (stalin) far worse than Hitler.

[DittoJed2]

No doubt he was fed Venona information. And, he was right. And, Ann is right. The left is continually on the side against what's best for America and with this non-review rant Beichman aids and abets their cause. Amazing coming from a Hoover research fellow.

[elenchus]

Some illuminating letters to the editor were published in response to the Beichman article in The Washington Times:

*
I read with interest Arnold Beichman's column in The Sunday Times ["McCarthyism up close," Commentary]. I also read Ann Coulter's book, "Treason," with her unabashed support for Sen. Joseph McCarthy. In her book, she made several references to the book, "Venona," compiled by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr [Yale University Press, 1999].

After reading "Venona," I find it difficult to refute Miss Coulter's reasoning regarding Mr. McCarthy. Admittedly, he was an aggressive, abrasive and biased individual; however, his contention that the State Department was riddled with communists proved correct. As the old East Texas outlaw John Wesley Hardin said, "I didn't kill nobody that didn't need killin.' " Mr. McCarthy didn't expose anyone who didn't need exposing.

I am sure Mr. Beichman thought he was speaking on behalf of all conservatives when he said that few of us support Miss Coulter's allegations; however, the popularity of her book, which was on the best-seller list for many weeks, rivaling that of Hillary Rodham Clinton's book, should be justification enough on the matter of conservative support.

JACK DORWIN

Livingston, Texas

*

In attempting to refute Ann Coulter's thesis that Joe McCarthy's poor reputation owes more to leftist smears rather than facts, Arnold Beichman unwittingly confirms her thesis.

Ever the epitome of fairness and objectivity, Mr. Beichman kicks off his column by underhandedly implying Miss Coulter's book is "rant" comparable to "Mein Kampf." This is followed by his ignorant boast that he actually hasn't read her book. And what "evidence" does he have against Mr. McCarthy? In a witless self-parody of "McCarthyism" [henceforth to be known as "Beichmanism"], he happily regurgitates a short list of his favorite authors' unsupported accusations and characterizations of Mr. McCarthy, all cited without reference to any actual statements or acts by the late senator. Which, of course, is precisely Miss Coulter's point.

The only factual information the column presents about Mr. McCarthy is that he once "accepted the support of . . . [the] head of the Wisconsin local of the United Auto Workers," who later proved to be a communist. If anything, wouldn't this tend to prove Mr. McCarthy's belief that communists were penetrating U.S. organizations? Not content to leave bad enough alone, Mr. Beichman closes out his vapid column by snootily offering to educate Miss Coulter, whose fact-filled, ground-breaking book on the subject is a runaway best seller.

Puh-leeze.

MICHAEL CRAWFORD

Great Falls

*

Arnold Beichman effectively smears Ann Coulter, calling her defense of Joseph McCarthy "rant" and comparing it, cutely poised as a mock example of her excess, to Hitler's attack on Jews. And Mr. Beichman knows there are "more conservatives who have been sickened by her book."

His review helps draw the line Miss Coulter is now etching into public discourse. This would replace with a single line the four lines dividing conservative and liberal where conservative backs into "fascist," and liberal into "communist." Her point, that liberalism is now in practice what it was in sentiment, treason, is indeed an emetic medicine. Clear away this corrupting digest of shared principles among liberals, fascists, communists and conservatives, [a rag-bag of ex-Marxists, relativist economists, Burkeans and well-meaning people such as Mr. Beichman and Dorothy Rabinowitz] and see what emerges in its place.

This is the treason of liberalism. But it is now the agenda of the Democratic Party, as it has been the single teaching and policy basis of the elites in the West for more than a century. Miss Coulter is quite right. Mr. Beichman's conservative friends who are made "sick" by a defense of Mr. McCarthy have been eating forbidden fruit, probably because they were liberals and communists early on. It is imperative that the line be redrawn now, for exactly the convergence between Western elites and Islam runs from their intersection at the point of agreement on a world state. It is not a coincidence that this intersection harbors the fatal totalitarian equation of murder and killing.

ROBERT J. LOEWENBERG
President
Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies
Jerusalem and Washington

[wayoverontheright]

Notice the abject feebleness of the anecdotes used by the book's critics to refute the central premise.

I spotted McCarthy early in his political career when in 1946 he accepted the support of Harold Christoffel, then head of the communist-controlled Wisconsin local of the United Auto Workers.

All right, so McCarthy, while running for office accepted a UAW endorsement from a local in his home state. This is so highly unusual?

The CP wanted to beat the anti-communist Robert La Follette's re-election bid to the U.S. Senate. McCarthy won the election with open communist support.

OPEN communist support? I somehow doubt that a Republican, even in1946, could have gotten elected with "open" communist support. McCarthy most surely subsequently showed HE obviously wasn't aware of the leanings of this particular individual supporter, through his actions as a commie fighter.

Even Ron Radosh's comment that if they hadn't had McCarthy "they would have had to invent him" backs Ann's thesis that his sordid reputation was media created.

[wideawake]

I'll be glad to send it to her if she sends me her address.

Aha! This is a cry of rage from a desperate stalker! Not the first one Ann's had, I'll wager.

[HenryLeeII]

ping for later reading...

[elenchus]

The reaction of Beichman, Horowitz, Rabinowitz, et al to Coulter's thesis is so irrational it makes me wonder whether there is some concern they have that McCarthy was an anti-semite. Why else would they dogmatically refuse to read Ann's book, attack her so viciously or else accuse her of "McCarthyism"?

I know that McCarthy employed Jews Roy Cohen and David Schine as principal investigators, and defended them against the attacks of others, sometimes even condemning their attackers in Congress as motivated by anti-semitism.

Much of what Horowitz and Radosh write concerns the roots of today's liberal and Democratic Party thought in communist ideology and 60's style radical leftwing politics. What makes McCarthy such a wedge for conservatives?

Has anyone sought to explain why so many conservative thinkers normally allied with Ann Coulter are mindlessly attacking her book, "Treason"?