Skip to content

The Sins of Joe McCarthy

September 29, 2009
Senator Joe McCarthy, perpetual boogeyman of the Left.

Senator Joe McCarthy, fighting the right war but with the wrong methods.

Several commenters on David Horowitz’s previous “Whose Conspiracy?” post have questioned the article’s remarks about the legacy of Senator Joseph McCarthy. They wanted to know what exactly McCarthy did wrong.

From Horowitz’s review of Ann Coulter’s Treason:

It is a shame that Coulter mars her case with claims that cannot be sustained. In making McCarthy the center of her history, ironically, she has fallen into the very liberal trap she warns about. It is the Left that wants McCarthy to be the center of (and in effect to define) the postwar era so that it can use his recklessness to discredit the anti-Communist cause. In fact, as Coulter herself points out, McCarthy began his anti-Communist crusade after the decisive battles of 1947 and 1948, surfacing only in 1950, after the onset of the Korean War. By then, even Henry Wallace, the Progressive Party’s presidential candidate, knew he had been duped. This is why McCarthy did not unearth any Communists in government or out (they all had been previously identified by the FBI), and why FBI officials engaged in counter-intelligence work despised McCarthy for damaging their efforts. Hopefully, Treason will not have a similar effect.

On the other hand, there are many apercus in this book that are memorable. It was only in reading Coulter’s text that I realized what a fraud Joseph Welch — the hero of all anti-McCarthy histories – was, and how his moment of glory in “exposing” McCarthy was a hypocritical sham. Coulter reminds us that one of McCarthy’s great “sins” was to have identified Owen Lattimore as Stalin’s chief agent in America. In fact, Lattimore was a supporter of Stalin’s and Mao’s political agendas and a willing tool of their policies, and that having been identified as such, he was hired by Harvard.

It is indignantly reported that McCarthy exaggerated. His claim that Owen Lattimore was a Soviet agent – as opposed to behaved like a Soviet agent – is hyperbole deserving of a hundred-year condemnation. But liberals’ threshold for outrage dropped when it came to McCarthy. In fact, McCarthy’s rhetoric was mild by the standards of his time. In President Truman’s 1948 campaign, he railed, ‘If anybody in this country is friendly to the Communists it is the Republicans.’ [Coulter]

Yet even the fact that Lattimore behaved like a Soviet agent is somewhat different from McCarthy’s claim that he was the chief Soviet agent. How did McCarthy’s mis-identifying Lattimore this way serve the anti-Communist cause? In fact, it served to discredit the anti-Communist cause. But Coulter wants us to think of McCarthy as the anti-Communist hero of the era: “In his brief fiery ride across the landscape, Joe McCarthy bought America another thirty years.” Quite the opposite has been argued by many anti-Communists, whom Coulter brusquely dismisses:

“Lost amid all the mandatory condemnations of Joe McCarthy’s name – he gave anti-Communism a bad name, did a disservice to the cause, was an unnecessary distraction – the little detail about his being right always seems to get lost. McCarthy’s fundamental thesis was absolutely correct: The Democratic Party had fallen to the allures of totalitarianism.” But, if this was true, why did the totalitarians abandon the Democratic Party en masse in 1948? The answer is that McCarthy’s thesis was incorrect, and Coulter is just wrong about his political impact. He exploited the anti-Communist sentiment that was already the popular wisdom of the time, and by giving flesh to the fears of open-ended witch-hunts allowed the Communist Left to regroup, and ultimately – in 1972 to be precise – return to the Democratic Party fold.

Many of the inaccurate generalizations of Treason are indeed the hyperbole of Coulterian satire, but unfortunately the most crucial ones are not. I realized this when I saw Ann defending her claims on Chris Matthews’ Hardball:

Chris Matthews: What do you mean by the cover of this book?

Ann Coulter: What I mean is that the Democratic Party, as an entity, has become functionally treasonable, including what you’re talking about, turning over documents to the enemy….

Chris Matthews: Well, should they be prosecuted?

Ann Coulter: I wish it were that easy a problem, but that trivializes the point of my book, which is not that there are just a few dozen traitors out there. It is that the entire party cannot root for America.

Chris Matthews: Well, let’s talk about the leaders of the Democratic Party over the years. Was Jack Kennedy a traitor? Was he guilty of treason?

Ann Coulter: He was not as strong a president as a Republican would have been. But I’m referring, as I say again, I’m referring to a party that is functionally treasonable….

Chris Matthews: Was Jack Kennedy a traitor?

Ann Coulter: No, he was not a traitor.

The problem with Coulter’s book is that she is not willing to concede that McCarthy was, in fact, demagogic in any sense at all, or that his recklessness injured the anti-Communist cause. Ron Radosh, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes have distinguished themselves as historians by documenting the Communist menace that many liberals discounted. But they have also documented the irresponsible antics of McCarthy, which undermined the anti-Communist cause. Coulter dismisses such conservative criticisms of McCarthy as caving in to the liberals. She is wrong.

Also drop by tomorrow for the David Horowitz quote of the day in which another passage from “McCarthy’s Ghost” from Destructive Generation will be featured.

UPDATED: For more read Ron Radosh’s guest post at NewsReal today.

  1. Walt permalink
    September 29, 2009 7:03 pm

    Frankly, I stopped taking Ann Coulter seriously years ago. She decided that being a flamboyant crank was more profitable than being a serious analyst. Ann Coulter is a perfect MSNBC conservative.

  2. September 29, 2009 7:35 pm

    If you look at Ann’s “Treason” index, you won’t find “Communist Party USA.” How can one talk about American traitors and not mention them?

    They sided with the Vietcong and they were the leaders of the peace movement. Michael Myerson, of CPUSA, went to Vietnam as a member of the Communist Youth League in 1962 and became the Honorary Nephew of Ho Chi Minh. When the war started, WHO DO YOU THINK HE SIDED WITH? “U.S. OUT OF VIETNAM!” was the cry of the leaders of the peace movement who eventually took credit for putting enough pressure, and duping enough Americans, to put an end to the war.

    They sided with the KGB and Cuban DGI in their takeover of Central America. “U.S. OUT OF EL SALVADOR” was the cry as the MARXIST/COMMUNIST FMLN REBELS as the CPUSA FRONTS raised funds, including in churches, to overthrow the government. Numerous university students were recruited by CPUSA fronts to on Construction Brigades to Nicaragua “to help the people.” When Ortega lost the 1990 election, these Sandalistas, left the country which proves they were not there “to help the people” but to HELP AN IDEOLOGY!!!


    The “traitors” also aide the enemy in Iraq by declaring official “Solidarity with IRAQ COMMUNIST PARTY!” (Google CPUSA Solidarity with Iraq Communist Party) This group agreed that we were the invaders and illegal occupiers SO DID THE IRAQ COMMUNIST PARTY AID IN THE INSURGENCY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AND THEREFORE KILLED AMERICANS??? IF SO, THE CPUSA ARE DIRECT TRAITORS FOR AIDING AND ABETTING THE ENEMY!!!




    Obama wrote an article ON MARCH 10, 1983 in the Columbia University SUNDIAL


    WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN THE ARTICLE? He writes about the protest group which he has associated with AND ONE OF THE GROUPS IS CISPES, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.” CISPES, run by Farid Handal and brother of Shafik Handal, the head of the Communist Party of El Salvador and leader of the REBEL GROUP, THE FMLN!!! CISPES WAS DIRECTLY FUNDED BY THE U.S. PEACE COUNCIL, AFFILIATE OF THE SOVIET KGB’S WORLD PEACE COUNCIL (Google Ion Pacepa World Peace Council who wrote article on this Yuri Andropov/KGB directed front!), and SO OBAMA WAS A DUPE OF THE SOVIET KGB AND WAS ENCIRCLED BY COMMUNISTS ALONG WITH FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS AND REV. WRIGHT who said “our brothers and sisters in El Salvador!”



    • September 30, 2009 7:25 am




    • September 30, 2009 3:27 pm

      Buzzzzz, I googled your “CPUSA Solidarity with the Iraq Communist Party” and found two stories. You also peeked my interest, which cause me blood to boil, about if the Iraq Communist Party is aiding in the insurgency. I called a high ranking military official about this and he said that the insurgency is like an octopus with several arms and one of them “is the Communist Party” of Iraq. Our CPUSA is aiding and abetting but in order to get them officially on Treason, we have to officially declare war which is their excuse to commit these treasonous acts. They did the same in Vietnam and Central America. One of the reasons we don’t make the official declaration of war is because of the numerous Americans who would be tried and convicted. In other words, it would be too big an operation so instead we let them aid in killing our brave men and women in the services.

      I also went to the Obama link you gave and was also surprised by many of the things he said and the groups he symphatized with. He was surely in a CPUSA front which was discovered after the fall of the Soviet Union, that these fronts were funded by the Soviet KGB!

      Your writing. links, and evidence proves that Obama was a dupe of the Soviet KGB which had a department called “active measures” which was solely for the purpose of disinformation and propaganda! With the background, Obama and many in the Democrat Party, cannot be trusted with our National Security secrets since leaking classified info is common among these “traitors!”

    • Luis Vazquez permalink
      October 2, 2009 9:08 pm

      Buzzzzzz: your is one of the most complete and informed messages post in this or any other forum in which I have participated.

      Luis el Cubano

  3. jbtrevor permalink
    September 29, 2009 7:54 pm

    Hey, how’d you get that…I can’t get anything from FPM current or archived site, hmmmm

    • September 30, 2009 6:05 am

      DH is smart. If you do a google search and then click on the link you won’t find it. But if you click the google cache then it’ll come up. I should’ve thought of it.

      • jbtrevor permalink
        September 30, 2009 6:23 am

        Got it thanks…
        Agreed, DH is smart.

  4. brimp permalink
    September 30, 2009 1:05 am

    Ann Coulter is makes me laugh. She is so outrageous that she reminds me of Michael Moore. Some conservatives don’t see Moore’s humor just as those on the Left don’t see Coulter’s humor. I’ve never seen Coulter and Moore at the same time. I think she puts on a fat man suit and really is Michael Moore. Using Moore or Coulter as your primary source of information is a big mistake.

  5. ZAC D. permalink
    September 30, 2009 1:43 am

    I don’t even think she is a conservative, I think she is a liberal shill out to make conservatives look retarded. I base this theory on SEX before marriage. You can’t
    tell me this single woman has never had sex in her life. That would be a lie and Ann coulter really should stop telling people to stop having sex before they are married when she doesn’t. She is either a hypocrite or out to destory the conservative movement. I can’t totally figure out her angle. I agree she is just like michael moore in alot of ways.

    I Like David Horowtiz because he is Agnostic. He thinks logically not dogmatically like the religious nuts in our party.

    • REB permalink
      September 30, 2009 2:47 am

      ZAC, are you really thinking straight? Is your whole supposition for disliking Ann Coulter because you don’t believe a good looking single woman could believe that sleeping around is wrong? Wow, that type of hubris would be better said by an amoral atheist. Should I suppose that for you to be to be consistent you believe that anyone who has ever been drunk or used illegal drugs has no right to tell others to avoid such self-destructive conduct? Do you believe in laying any woman you can?

      By the way, why do I suspect you’re an agent provocateur?

      • Luis Vazquez permalink
        October 2, 2009 9:16 pm

        Reb: Obviously this person has been around the wrong crowd most of his/her life.

        Some people are so used to live in the wrong side of morals that they believe that those who don’t sin are sinners.

        Besides: How he/she can be sure that Ms Coulter is not married?

        • ZAC D. permalink
          October 3, 2009 4:26 am

          Ann is a 46 year old woman who has never been married, she is not a nun, nor does she have any kids. I seriously doubt she even likes kids.

          “She has dated Spin founder and publisher Bob Guccione, Jr. and conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza.In October 2007, she began dating Andrew Stein, the former president of the New York City Council, a liberal Democrat.”

          This chick is banging guys. Espeically a powerful liberal democrat. She dated him for a YEAR. Use your logic.

          “Despite the fact that she is known as somewhat “ultra-conservative”, she is a fan of several alternative rock bands, such as the Grateful Dead, the Dave Matthews Band, and Phish.”

          If that doesn’t have LIBERAL SHILL written all over it what does?

          Ann is sexy and witty, but she is a pretender.

      • ZAC D. permalink
        October 3, 2009 4:05 am

        Actually I do believe in laying with any woman I am attracted too as long as I use double protection, But I am not the focus of this piece Miss Coulter is. Where is does Ann get off telling girls to wait before they are married before having sex when she herself is having sex even though she is not married? That is not my only reason for being against her. My other reason would be the fact she denies evolution is a fact. Ask David H. if he thinks Evolution is a fact or not, I’ll wager 10 bucks he thinks it’s a fact, because he is not a DUMB conservative nor is he out to make conservatives look dumb. He’s a Intelligent conservative.

        • jbtrevor permalink
          October 3, 2009 4:38 am


          Neither you nor I know the sexual prowess of Ms. Coulter but I do know if there were any truth to your rail against her, it would be plastered in the Leftist media.

          And who are you to criticize anyone who seeks prevent tragedy in a young woman’s life? And yes teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and the emotional pain of being taking advantage of by someone like you who happens to find the woman attractive enough to lay with, is tragic.

          And as for Ms. Coulter’s denial as evolution as fact (I’ll have to take you at your word because I don’t know what she believes). What fact? It’s call “theory of evolution” for a reason. Did you get the term THEORY. It’s a darn good theory and supported by mounds of scientific evidence; but it is NOT fact.

          And to suggest that there is possibly an element of intelligent design that either contributes to this theory of evolution or stands alone does not make anyone less credible. It demonstrates quite positively that the person has something your obviously don’t; and open mind.

        • The Inquisitor permalink
          October 3, 2009 6:08 am

          Evolution is a fact and abortion is not murder. But I am delighted to have Ann Coulter with her wit and razor sharp tongue on my side, because she drives the enemy frothing wild and she is right on everything else.

          Neither anti-evolutionists nor anti-abortionists are trying to blow up American and subject us to sharia law or socialist dictatorship — take your pick. I choose to win that war first; I’ll sort out my disagreements with Ann Coulter afterwards.

          By the same token I have disagreements with David Horowitz over Joe McCarthy. These disagreements are more serious, because they affect the long range strategy in defeating our real enemies. I will never concede any mistakes of McCarthy until the other side acknowledges the far greater calumny and treacherous fellow traveling of his detractors. To make that concession to the enemy is to invite defeat.

          But David Horowitz is an incredible asset in the fight against our real enemies. I back him to the hilt.

          • brimp permalink
            October 3, 2009 11:37 am

            In war, if you kill a soldier who is trying to kill you, then this is not considered murder, but it is taking a human life. Abortion is a much trickier situation. The body of the woman belongs to the mind of the woman. If she becomes brain dead, then her next of kin will determine what to do with the body. Five minutes after conception, the child does not have a mind therefore its body belongs to the mother. Five minutes before birth, the child does have a mind — it reacts to pain and sounds — therefore its body belongs to it. At what point does this acquisition of rights occur? That is up for debate. Quicking? Viability? If an unborn child’s life can not be taken then surely my life can not be taken. The same reasoning is used to stop euthanasia, capital punishment, animal testing…

            Evolution is a theory that has much evidence supporting it but it is still a theory.

            Coulter has found a weakness of Liberals: Laugh at them. Liberals think they are smarter and nobler than you and me. Laughing at them causes them to go into a rage. This is also why Liberals do not do well on radio. Having a conversation is not one of their strong suits.

            • October 3, 2009 11:56 am

              You have made one critical error that ALL non-science people make when referring to the word ‘theory’ as it pertains to science.

              Here is the education you are lacking. In the scientific world the word ‘theory’ means a ‘proven “scientific” FACT, proven by scientific analysis and deduction’ not a supposition or a guess.

              Get educated to facts of science before you go showing your lack of knowledge on a subject!

              • brimp permalink
                October 3, 2009 12:05 pm

                A law is something that can be proven through experiments (the Law of Gravity). Since one cannot repeat experiments with evolution it is a theory.

                • October 3, 2009 12:24 pm

                  So by ‘your analysis’ Einstiens ‘Theory’ of Relativity is total bunk and is nothing more that supposition and guess work. How brilliant!

                  Here’s some more ‘education’ for you!

                  “Looking for the origin of life in physics and chemistry is like looking for the origin of literature in the chemistry of ink.”
                  Hubert P Yockey

              • jbtrevor permalink
                October 3, 2009 3:57 pm

                tommybarrio said:

                {“You have made one critical error that ALL non-science people make when referring to the word ‘theory’ as it pertains to science.
                Here is the education you are lacking. In the scientific world the word ‘theory’ means a ‘proven “scientific” FACT, proven by scientific analysis and deduction’ not a supposition or a guess.”}

                Tommy, might I suggest you “look up” the definition of “scientific theory” before you opine.

                Theories are “statements” to describe a collection of observable events and facts; they are not facts themselves. Scientific theories stand so long as there is no evidence to dispute them. Einsteins theory of relativity stands because insufficient evidence to dispute it is not (yet) known.

                Global warming theory doesn’t stand because sufficient evidence exists to dispute it.

                Might I also suggest that when informing someone about the education they lack you choose to tell someone who is not trained in that field.

                • brimp permalink
                  October 3, 2009 4:12 pm

                  When I was younger, I was very certain of what I knew was true. Having been proven wrong so many times that I seldom say that someone else is wrong but rather here are the facts that I am using to reach my conclusions. Tommy is on the right path but it may take a bit more time for him to reach the same conclusions.

        • Luis Vazquez permalink
          October 4, 2009 9:21 pm

          FORTUNATELY I have no daughters or grandaughters, but I would no like to see any other girl relative of mine get near certain SEX MANIAC who participate in this forum.

          I wonder what he would do if saw a sister or even his mother running half naked around the house.

        • Luis Vazquez permalink
          October 4, 2009 9:32 pm

          ZAC; mayne you think you are such a STALLION.

          Well…Tell me what you presume of and I would tell you what you lack most.

          Inferiority complex makes people fantasize in Wonderland.

  6. September 30, 2009 4:41 am

    Ann is right about McCarthy. Those Verona (sp) papers prove that.

    It seems McCarthy’s enemies were more clumsy about facts than McCarthy was. They claimed Anne Lee Moss was not a Communists (she worked as a cleaning woman in a code room) when it was clear that she was.

    Her assessment of John Kennedy is correct, but Democratic leaders today are very seditious. What did Nancy Pelosi say to Assad in Syria anyway? The Democratic leaders today from Harry (“the war is lost”) Reid to Barack Hussein Obama (Islamo Marxist) should all be brought up on treason.

    If not for McCarthy, we would’ve had not the clumsy weatherman as our terrorist group, but the more effective kidnapping Bader Meinhoff and Italian Red Brigades as our “student groups.” Sen. McCarthy said that. It wasn’t a “fanatic supporter of Kahane” such as me that said this but the lateWilliam F. Buckley in a debate.

  7. September 30, 2009 4:45 am

    correction: that second to last sentence should read “McCarthy did that.”

    It’s still early in the morning for me and their are mistakes 😦

  8. The Inquisitor permalink
    September 30, 2009 5:54 am

    1. “This is why McCarthy did not unearth any Communists in government or out …”

    It was not McCarthy’s purpose to unearth Communists; he let the security agencies do that. Once identified, he made it his purpose to terminate their government employment. Some of them continued to draw their federal paychecks during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, because those administrations refused to do the job.

    2. Ann Coulter said, “McCarthy’s fundamental thesis was absolutely correct: The Democratic Party had fallen to the allures of totalitarianism.”

    David counters, “But, if this was true, why did the totalitarians abandon the Democratic Party en masse in 1948? The answer is that McCarthy’s thesis was incorrect …”

    I don’t mean to be cute (maybe just a little), but I am unaware of a massive change in Democratic voter registration in 1948. Ann is distinguishing “the party” from people who happen to be registered Democrats. If you don’t let her get by with that. If you insist that “the party” is identical with people registered as Democrats then there was no (to my knowledge) massive abandonment of “the party.” You can’t have it both ways.

    3. The issue of Joe McCarthy is not just a trivial historical curiosity. McCarthy was savaged by the media and made out to be a monster. That was wrong and irresponsible. Until American intellectuals come to terms with that there will be no peace. The future will not forgive those who live with a lie.

  9. semus permalink
    September 30, 2009 6:03 am

    Mr. Horowitz are you disagreeing with Ann Coulter because of what the perception of Senator McCarthy is or what he actually was? To assume he wasn’t an ambitious politician which isn’t a compliment would be silly. But, I’ve read the book “Venona Secrets”, It indicated, unfortunately, her summation of the Democratic Party is accurate and Joe McCarthy was right. One example, the United Nations that bastion of freedom, whose creation was facilitated by a spy for the KGB in the Roosevelt Administration, no wonder they’re such great friends to the US.

    On my list to read is the book “Black Listed by History”, which I’ve heard sheds some light on the subject and may show how unfairly Joe McCarthy has been treated. I grew up brainwashed by the “McCarthyism” term, then I found out there was more to the story. That being said I don’t always agree with Coulter, she’s not gentle, and she loses patience fast, she knows how ruthless the enemy is. She won’t concede when the opposing argument is based on a lie or a half truth.

    Is there a problem with her exchange with Chris Matthews? I’m sure Matthews had a problem with it because Coulter didn’t genuflect when the Kennedy name was mentioned.

    • ben traina permalink
      September 30, 2009 9:40 am

      i agree wholeheartedly with semus and the inquisitor!! i was a marxist from 1950 to 1978 (but no red diaper) and remember the mccarthy fuss vividly. i could not understand then, and still don’t, the attacks on mccarthy coming from supposed NON-MARXIST sources. i don’t remember any slackening of critical support by the cpusa or the left in general of the Democratic Party. i, too, have read the venona secrets which cleared up some points for me and strengthened my respect for mccarthy. the suspicion is that j. edgar (Peace Be Upon Him) might have been slipping snippets to “the reckless red-baiter”. the smear of joe mccarthy should be buried with the charge that the rosenbergs were innocents.
      ben traina

      • VNVet permalink
        September 30, 2009 5:53 pm

        ben, I’ve always thought that McCarthy was getting information from J. Edgar Hoover too. Sworn to secrecy of course as to how and where he was getting his information since this was classified information. Hoover was the only Washington official who attended McCarthy’s funeral. Interestingly, one of the ways the commies/democ-rats demogogued conservatives/anti-communists was to call them homosexuals. They did that to McCarthy and Hoover.

        To this day the left/democ-rats hold their most ardent contempt for republicans such as McCarthy, Hoover, Nixon and Reagan. All anti-communists. McCarthy and Hoover’s fight against communism is legendary, Nixon successfully prosecuted Alger Hiss a leftist icon, and Reagan fought the communists in Hollyweird and defeated the Soviet Union. They hated Bush mostly because he was a Christian and pro-American.

    • VNVet permalink
      September 30, 2009 6:15 pm

      By all means read Blacklisted By History, well researched with much documentation from the Congressional Record and transcripts of the Senate Hearings. But the Venona Secrets makes perfectly clear that McCarthy’s greatest sin was that he grossly underestimated the number of communists/spies in our federal government and military.

  10. jbtrevor permalink
    September 30, 2009 6:10 am

    Inquisitor said:

    “___________was savaged by the media and made out to be a monster. That was wrong and irresponsible.”

    Fill in the blank with any Republican/conservative who dares challenge one of the media’s dream children; it still happens.

    • The Inquisitor permalink
      September 30, 2009 6:28 am

      Yes, same song different verse. Why people refuse to extrapolate this backwards to Joe McCarthy is beyond me.

      • Luis Vazquez permalink
        October 2, 2009 9:45 pm

        Why they cannot extrapolate McArthy’s name?

        Because the day Americans realize how foolish they acted against this man, the communists are done.

        McArthy isn’t the only name they have to constantly demonish; Nixon, Hoover and Pinochet are some of the others they will always link to corruption, because they were the ones who sat them, the TRAITORS, on the accused chairs.

  11. jbtrevor permalink
    September 30, 2009 6:34 am

    DH can answer for himself, but if I may point out something he said in another post and I’m not using quotation marks because it is from memory:

    {McCarthy named liberals as communists and Communists as spies when there was no evidence to support his claims}.

    Ms. Coulter overlooks this reckless behavior in “Treason”. That’s important because it was this recklessness that allowed known “commies” to claim they also were wrongly accused. Additionally, it gave the Left fodder for criticism of McCarthy (hence the ism) thus making him the focal point; not the infiltration of our Government.

    • semus permalink
      September 30, 2009 9:02 am

      jbtrevor thanks for your comment

      It really wasn’t my point to say mistakes weren’t made, and those mistakes provided ammunition for the communists which has been aptly used for generations Mr Horowitz is right about that. However what I’ve found out is there were facts and many have since been verified in the book “Venona Secrets” a very dry read.

      I will concede that I have a lot of gaps in my knowledge but my opinion is, being reckless and making mistakes doesn’t mean your wrong. McCarthy may have been shocked to find how deeply embedded these moles were in our government, and maybe he naively thought some Democrats would be shocked and concerned also, maybe some were I don’t know. Maybe it was all politics. We do know what happened though, just like what’s done today he was attacked and destroyed and still is. Similar to how Sarah Palin is treated, it’s because they’re afraid of her. Were they afraid of McCarthy also? They seem to be afraid of his memory. Ann Coulter had the courage to reopen an issue that as Al Gore said about Global Warming the debate is over, she says it’s not. You don’t have to defend Mr. Horowitz to me I have a great admiration for his courage and intelligence. I think he knows that.

      I think more information will be provided in “Black Listed by History”.

      • jbtrevor permalink
        September 30, 2009 9:19 am

        Thanks for you thoughts. I agree, it became an opportunity for smear. A typical action of the left: deny their is a problem then discredit anyone who says there is.

        Also, not to get too far off topic, but you mention Al Gore. There is a great post on “Climate Realists” today you might be interested in


      • Luis Vazquez permalink
        September 30, 2009 12:43 pm

        Semus: I am with you on everything you expressed.

        If what you read in “THE VENONA SECRETS” is not enough, I recomend you to read “THE SWORD AND THE SHIELD: THE MITROKHIN ARCHIVES AND THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE KGB, VOLUMENS I and II. by Chrstopher Andrews and Vasili Mitrokin

        In fact the reading of those two books should be a must for every TRUE FREEDOM LOVER, and especially for every AMERICAN who love his country.

      • VNVet permalink
        September 30, 2009 6:09 pm

        But I didn’t find it a “dry” read at all.

    • The Inquisitor permalink
      September 30, 2009 9:55 am

      “McCarthy named liberals as communists and Communists as spies when there was no evidence to support his claims.”

      You know, I frankly don’t believe that. I do believe that the ruling class press reported that he named liberals as communists when he did no such thing. Don’t let these accusations go by unchallenged. What’s the quote and who reported it? People quite reasonably expect accuracy from the press, at least they used to. But the press was just as unscrupulous then as it is today.

      Perhaps he labeled communists working in government as spies, but to call him down for that seems nit picking. Perhaps security risks was a more accurate term. I suspect he actually labeled them security risks and the press reported that he said spies.

      After you read “Blacklisted” you tell me who the villains were back in the 50s.

      • jbtrevor permalink
        September 30, 2009 10:12 am

        Inquisitor said:

        “Perhaps he labeled communists working in government as spies, but to call him down for that seems nit picking”

        When a sitting representative to congress calls people spies who aren’t it’s wrong and it’s reckless…giving fodder to those who “nit pick” and turn it into much more ado than it should have been. It made McCarthy the object of scorn instead of those who should be scorned.

        I don’t think anyone is calling him down, just pointing out what happened so we learn from our mistakes not to get all huffed up.

        That’s what the Left (media) is trying to do with Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al. They are making them the object of scorn; distracting from the people/organizations they point out should be scorned.

        • The Inquisitor permalink
          September 30, 2009 11:32 am

          Quite right. A security risk is a potential; a spy is an actual.

          But as I said, I suspect the media twisted McCarthy’s words. He most likely said communist.

        • Luis Vazquez permalink
          September 30, 2009 12:57 pm

          Judy: Had Mc Carthy called Gregory Peck a Socialist at the time; What would had been your reaction?


          I repeat; MC ARTHY DIDN’T GO DEEP ENOUGH.


    • VNVet permalink
      September 30, 2009 3:04 pm

      Well I think it was here that I made a post that was apparently censured, as I took Horowitz to task for being intellectually lazy. He’s still spewing the old lefty lines notwithstanding the wealth of newly declassified FBI records. McCarthy didn’t call or identify over a hundred, or two hundred people as commie spies as Horowitz must still believe (judging by his writing). He had the names of 57 suspected spies that he wanted investigated. The democ-rats demanded that he release those names, but McCarthy declined saying it wasn’t fair to these people to publicly expose them until after they had been thoroughly investigated. The democ-rats continued to demand the names and it became apparent that unless Joe released the names the democ-rats, who controlled the Senate and the investigations, were not going to proceed. He finally did release those 57 names. Yes he’s been vindicated. Horowitz writes mostly BS in this piece.

      • VNVet permalink
        September 30, 2009 3:09 pm

        Oh, I also made mention of the fact that there is basically no difference between a communist and a communist spy. CPUSA (the home of the communists) is the laision for the spies. They provide the support, the propaganda, the false passports, they dispense the money they receive from Moscow and Hollyweird, provide safe houses, provide front groups and front “businesses”, false names, etc., etc. To draw a line as to indicate a difference between communists and communist spies is lunacy.

        • Luis Vazquez permalink
          October 2, 2009 9:55 pm

          VNVet: Think of the matter this way; EVERY COMMUNIST IS NOT A POTENTIAL SPY, BUT A REAL ONE, because the function of a communist and his/her primary duty is to DESTROY THE COUNTRY THAT OPPOSES HIS IDEOLOGY.

      • September 30, 2009 3:19 pm

        Your post was automatically spammed because of the profanity you used in it, not because of the ideas you expressed. Read our commenting guidelines:

        “Blacklisted by History” has been answered by Ron Radosh today:

        • VNVet permalink
          September 30, 2009 5:31 pm

          The strongest word I used was BS spelled out fully.

          • September 30, 2009 5:43 pm

            Exactly. And thus your comment was automatically spammed.

            • VNVet permalink
              September 30, 2009 5:57 pm

              Well I just wanted to let readers know I wasn’t using profanity.

  12. MMM permalink
    September 30, 2009 7:02 am

    It seems lost in this discussion, but regardless of McCarthy over-reaching, or taking something too far, the left at that time used the tactic of making McCarthy look ridiculous to deflect attention from the real danger: communists in our government. When they succeeded in that objective, the stigma of concern that anyone was a communist in our government or our educational system made one tantamount to a paranoid loser, who was immediately dismissed as lunatic fringe. This cultural value is one reason that our educational system became the communist-socialist indoctrination center that it is.

    Painting McCarthy and all who realized the growing threat of communism and socialism in the US with the black brush of insanity is the Communist victory of the McCarthy hearings. They effectively reversed the damage, and intimidated the honest discussion for more than fifty years, unitl today we have a communist in the White House and a Congress that is controlled by that ideology.

    The nation should be ridiculing OBAMA and his cohorts and their agenda even more radically than is currently being portrayed. The opportunity is to damage communism for at least fifty years as an acceptable ideology in this country. Never waste a good crisis, indeed.

    • VNVet permalink
      September 30, 2009 2:44 pm

      This has always been my contention, that it wasn’t McCarthy who (supposedly) hurt anti-communism, but the democ-rats who did everything possible to destroy McCarthy. Of course the democ-rats weren’t worried about communism, they still aren’t.

  13. sovereignjim permalink
    September 30, 2009 10:08 am

    Read “Black Listed by History” to know the truth about McCarthy
    Read “Ride the Thunder” to know the truth about Vietnam
    Truman fought McCarthy because he knew the Democrat Party was toast if Tail Gunner Joe was not brought down.

  14. Luis Vazquez permalink
    September 30, 2009 10:52 am

    In my humble opinion: What McArthy did wrong was that he did not go deep enough against the Communists imbedded in Hollywood, other art centers and in the media.

    • VNVet permalink
      September 30, 2009 2:41 pm

      I believe it was the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) that were doing those investigations, McCarthy as a Senator had nothing to do with them. McCarthy was trying to get suspected communist spies in the military and specifically in the State Department investigated. His theory was that communist spies in the State Department were driving American foreign policy. Declassified records have shown that McCarthy was absolutely correct. To see the damage these spies did, read the Venona Secrets and Blacklisted By History.

  15. September 30, 2009 11:05 am

    Joe McCarthy was just another self aggrandizing politician out to make a name for himself. DH is right about Tail Gunner Joe. He gave the communists just the “red meat” they needed to cry woe is us! We is poor “victims” of the evil ole mean Senator McCarthy, a Democrat, BTW!
    Thus the term “red baiting” became the new pejorative of the left whenever someone was identified has having socialist/communist leanings. This kind of sanctimonious behavior has lead us down the rosy path of perdition by the lame-stream irrelevant media. Now we have the utmost filth of the left, defiling the White House and the whole of the US Government. It’s now called the DEMONCRATIC PARTY

  16. John Wangsgaard permalink
    September 30, 2009 11:08 am

    Dear Dave;
    You really should read blacklisted by history. You would learn a great deal about that which you speak.

    • September 30, 2009 11:16 am

      Stay tuned for a commentary regarding Blacklisted by History

  17. September 30, 2009 11:52 am

    Have not read the book, but if it is anything like the documentaries on the same subject, it is most likely a cry me a river victim pity party dialectic, just like all the other propaganda and rhetoric regurgitated by the “we can do it better here” Che and Castro fans!
    Gotta love folks who idolize tyrants and mass murderers, don’t you!
    I await the review by others, I don’t have the time for such trash!

    • Luis Vazquez permalink
      September 30, 2009 1:04 pm


      There is a great chance that they are.

  18. Teleologicus permalink
    September 30, 2009 1:29 pm

    The book to read is “Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans. It is extensively documented and includes generous portions of actual hearing transcripts. Anyone who reads this will realize that McCarthy was the hero and not the villain of the story. That he was a flawed hero should not surprise us – heroes are always flawed. The important thing is not their flaws but their heroic deeds.

    It is surprising that David Horowitz, of all people, would think that anything anybody said or did not say would have the least influence on the character assassins of the Left. The very enemies of the United States McCarthy was exposing were going to destroy him any way they could. To imagine that if he had been just a wee bit easier on Owen Lattimore, or if he had watched his language more carefully, his cause might have prevailed is, I think, wishful thinking. McCarthy’s goose was cooked the moment he started digging into the Soviet infiltration of the United States government.

    I came away from “Blacklisted by History” astonished at the documented extent of Soviet penetration of the government and the casual and ineffective responses numerous government agencies made to the problem. The Venona transcripts prove beyond doubt that suspicions and accusations of Soviet spying were more than justified.

    What seems to have brought McCarthy down was tangling with a Republican president -Ike- and the United States Army. He had undeniably gotten carried away by that point and overstepped his bounds. But the facts show that he was right about a great deal more than people thought then or think now.

    The Leftist narrative of events has completely inverted the truth and made McCarthy out to be the bad guy when he was actually the good guy. The problems he went after were real and extensive, were of long standing, and were not being addressed effectively. The documentation is all there in Evans’ book, which changed my whole way of looking at the story. Like most people I had basically accepted the Leftist narrative. It is stunning how at odds with the actual facts this narrative is. The famous Joseph Welch scene “Have you no shame, sir?” is something I had taken at face value. When one learns what actually happened, what the context was, and who Joseph Welch was and what he was doing, it assumes an altogether different meaning.

    Judging by my personal experience I think it is safe to presume that anyone who hasn’t read “Blacklisted by History” probably has the McCarthy story wrong in a very big way.

    • September 30, 2009 1:34 pm

      “Blacklisted by History” has been answered by Ron Radosh.

      • VNVet permalink
        September 30, 2009 5:37 pm

        I suspect that ron-radosh might be as bullheaded as david horowitz.

      • September 30, 2009 7:49 pm

        Thank You. There is always the truth just somewhere right in the middle, as the cops are likened to say!

    • The Inquisitor permalink
      September 30, 2009 1:59 pm

      I agree with you 100% Teleologicus. They would have cooked his goose no matter what he said.

      I wonder how David Horowitz would feel if a significant number of Conservatives take at face value what the press says about him and attack him as a liability to the Conservative movement? He too might be driven to drink.

    • VNVet permalink
      September 30, 2009 2:31 pm

      Yes, I really lost a lot of respect for Eisenhower.

    • VNVet permalink
      September 30, 2009 6:02 pm

      “What seems to have brought McCarthy down was tangling with a Republican president -Ike- and the United States Army. He had undeniably gotten carried away by that point and overstepped his bounds.”

      I don’t think he got carried away or overstepped his bounds at all.

    • VNVet permalink
      September 30, 2009 10:20 pm

      Indeed they would.

  19. Joycey permalink
    September 30, 2009 3:28 pm

    If someone is acting like a communist then they are a communist.

    McCarthy was a true hero. He never tried to muddy the water and appear as one of the intelligensia. Who are always full of themselves which is full of sh!t.

    Read Blacklisted.

  20. Joycey permalink
    September 30, 2009 3:30 pm

    I came away from Blacklisted with my eyes permanently opened and an extreme hater of all that is communist and socialist and progressive and liberal and whatever the hell else they call themselves.

  21. 12-String Infidel permalink
    September 30, 2009 5:19 pm

    The real villain of the McCarthy hearings was
    Sen. Millard Tydings. I feel ashamed to admit
    any ties to Maryland because of him (and
    Sen. Mikulski, and Rep. Hoyer, and Sen.
    Cardin, and Gov. O’Malley, and Baltimore
    Mayor Dixon and so many others crooks.

    • Luis Vazquez permalink
      October 1, 2009 8:22 pm

      You left out Wayne Morse of Minn. and William Fulbright of Ark.

      Of course the list is so long that it is almost impossible to name every one of them

      • Tom Simmons permalink
        October 3, 2009 9:08 am

        Wayne Morris was elected from Oregon Not Minnesota,

  22. September 30, 2009 8:16 pm

    Maybe if we had the same patrolling truth sharks of the vast internet ocean back then, maybe Tail Gunner Joe would not have been allowed to run with his ego and his mouth. Thus unintentionally creating the present apathy towards the socialist tyranny that is lurking just under the surface and the corner.
    All the indicators are present, the right players are present, and the wrong people are in power. Now these same wrong people, the friends of Castro and Che, are preaching mandate from heaven and are a righteous power trip to install socialist tyranny here in the good old US of A via forced government run and controlled health care.
    The road to perdition is always paved with perceived good intentions!!

    • Luis Vazquez permalink
      October 1, 2009 8:29 pm

      McArthy and Nixon both commited a capital sin: THEY BATTLED THE POWERFULL UN-AMERICAN PARTY AND WON.

      That is why they could never be forgotten and have to be domonished all along the history of the United States of America and the world.

      No one who dares to fight communists will be let go while there is one of them alive.

  23. Ken Kelley permalink
    October 1, 2009 1:43 pm

    Then, as now, we are adrift in a desert of complacent democracy while we are herded by a majority. As as a Republic we are required to SUPPORT and DEFEND it … now and then, perhaps we need to grow a spine! He did; we didn’t.

    • Luis Vazquez permalink
      October 1, 2009 8:33 pm

      This is the text of one email sent by someone to Bill O’Reilly tonight:


    • Luis Vazquez permalink
      October 2, 2009 10:22 pm

      Do you want to know how complacent we have become?

      I will let you in a little secret.

      Right at these moments there is a strong possibility that five cuban spies inprisoned in the USA will be freed by the Obama Administration, in negotiations with the cuban tyranny.

      The wife of one of those spies was embeded in FPL offices and had all the plans for the Turkey Point nuclear plant in South Florida.

      She was almost in posession of a dirty bomb that was going to be placed underwater in the premises by a scuba diver who was working as an instructor in Miami and working for Metro Dade County or the City of Miami.

      Fortunately the complot was discovered right in the last phases and the So Called RED AVISPA group was detained.

      many of them admitted to the plot and were given light sentences or deported to Cuba.

      The woman whose last name is Perez is one of the persons deported, but she has never stopped working for The Castro regime, and today she is one of the highest officials of Ministerio of Interior, the cuban department in charge of this type of work.

      And what is the OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT DOING? They are working on an accord between the two countries to free those very dangerous five CUBAN SPIES.


  1. Are Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter Good for Conservatives? Horowitz vs. Frum, Round Three « Right Sided American Kafir
  2. Are Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter Good for Conservatives? « Ramparts 360
  3. Are Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter Good for Conservatives? Horowitz vs. Frum, Round Three – by Jamie Glazov | FrontPage Magazine

Comments are closed.