Joe McCarthy Might Have Been Born 20 Years Too Early
by John Reit (May 16, 2006)

McCarthyism is considered one of the darkest chapters of American history. And with good reason. What Joseph McCarthy did was so far outside of the realm of what is Constitutionally acceptable. He played on the fears of many Americans at the time. And as a result, many innocent people lost their livelihoods and their reputations, sometimes over the most incidental associations. That was reprehensible. One should be judged by their actions, not their beliefs. That being said, how ironic it is that in these times communism is the least of America’s worries, yet one of our biggest problems. Perhaps if McCarthy had been a member of the senate in the 60s, he could have concentrated his efforts on the surge of communist policies that still continue to this day.

I'll say it again… no one should be persecuted for his affiliations. If one of the people McCarthy called before the senate simply went to a few Socialist Party meetings to find out what they were all about, that doesn't mean that person was a communist or a subversive. However, if that person had gotten into public office and attempted to undo our Constitutional rights and freedoms, that's a different story. That person could be called a communist and a subversive - someone who tried to undermine the principles upon which this country was founded. Again, we're talking about actions, not beliefs. In his quest for public adoration and political gain, McCarthy's net became way to large, concentrating on citizens who have the right to believe as they wish. And had he stuck strictly to investigating the actions of those in government he felt were subversive instead of those in the private sector, his legacy might not have been so dark.

Even if you disagree with the way McCarthy tried to purge our government of any "red" element, it's important to understand that communism was a real fear at the time. Though the average citizen couldn't predict that it was an unsustainable economic system, they certainly knew about its dictatorial policies and wanted no part of them. The thought that such a political system might be infiltrating our nation's government was positively frightening. They had just fought a four-year war to stop fascism in Europe. There was certainly no desire to see it on our own soil. Unfortunately, we do not share that same fear today.

Quite the contrary, the fear of communism seems to have turned into acceptance. No longer are any government officials covertly trying to instill communist principles into American society. They've moved on to blatant overtures. While Comrade Lyndon Johnson's Great Society wasn't the start of our homegrown socialism, it certainly lead to greater government control over most facets of our lives - finances, education, environment, health care, transportation, etc. More importantly, it expanded the public's desire to have government solve all their problems.

It is fair to say that it was actually Hoover and FDR that started it all, not Johnson. And while I agree in chronological terms, I will add that Hoover and FDR's actions were mostly reactionary. Had America never experienced the Crash of 1929 and continued its prosperity, there would be no reason for most of the policies passed during the Great Depression. Both presidents were trying to correct a temporary problem and both went about it incorrectly.

Johnson, on the other hand, was trying to correct a problem that has no solution. He invented a crisis despite the economic and social statistics that should have told him that Americans on the whole were doing better and better - even black people. Was there poverty? Certainly. But poverty is a perpetual condition of human society. To any varying degree, it's always been here and always will.

His solution? A watered-down version of communism. Like many of our nation's communists, Johnson convinced himself (and much of the public) that because the American government was implementing these policies, it wasn't really communism - if the state only controls certain parts of the economy, then it's really just charitable capitalism or "participatory economics."

I've said this before and I'll say it again; an educated man, especially one in such a powerful position, should know better. Comparative economic studies between capitalism and communism had been going on for decades. We certainly had the models in place. Johnson knew perfectly well what kind of cultures and economies resulted under socialism. So to model his policies after such oppressive systems is inexcusable. It went against the laws of economics, but even worse, it undermined the principles of American society.

And isn't that what McCarthy was originally trying to stop? Perhaps if McCarthy had been born a decade or two earlier and started his senate tenure in the late 50s, he could have exposed the overt communist movement that transpired over the next ten years. Maybe he could have fueled public outrage directed against this push toward socialism.

We might have been able to stop things like SSI, Medicare (and it's recent prescription drug plan), Medicaid, and so on. We might have had affordable private instead of artificially expensive, state regulated health care. Most importantly, we might not have raised generations of people who have replaced Constitutional principles with oppressive, freedom-hating ideals that would have made Karl Marx proud.