'Crveni strah' dominira američkom politikom

'Crveni strah' dominira američkom politikom



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Kako se predsjednički izbori 1952. počinju zahuktavati, rastu i optužbe i protuoptužbe vezane za komunizam u Americi. "Crveni strah" - rašireno uvjerenje da u Sjedinjenim Državama djeluje međunarodni komunizam - dominirao je većinom u raspravi između demokrata i republikanaca 1952. godine.

Dana 27. kolovoza 1952. godine New York Times naslovna stranica sadržavala je tri priče koje sugeriraju utjecaj Crvenog zastrašivanja na predstojeće izbore. U prvoj priči, Pododbor za unutarnju sigurnost Senata u kojem su dominirali republikanci objavio je izvještaj u kojem se navodi da je u Cehu pisaca radija dominirao mali broj komunista. Ceh, čiji su članovi bili odgovorni za proizvodnju više od 90 posto programa na radiju, navodno je vodila mala grupa komunista najmanje posljednjih devet godina. Prema izvješću pododbora, komunistička subverzija Ceha bila je samo jedan korak u većim naporima za kontrolu nad medijima Sjedinjenih Država - uključujući radio, televiziju, filmove i izdavanje knjiga.

Druga priča na naslovnici bila je izvještaj koji je američka Legija treću godinu zaredom zahtijevala da predsjednik Harry S. Truman smijeni državnog tajnika Deana Achesona zbog nedostatka snage u suočavanju s komunističkom prijetnjom. U izvješću Legije izjavljeno je da je State Departmentu očajnički potrebna "bogobojazni Amerikanci" koji su imali "crijevnu hrabrost da ne budu političke marionete". Organizacija je zahtijevala brzo i pobjedničko rješavanje Korejskog rata, čak i ako je to značilo proširenje rata na Kinu. Treća priča pružila je svojevrsni brojač prethodne dvije priče. Izviješteno je o govoru kandidata demokratskog kandidata za guvernera predsjednika Adlaija E. Stevensona u kojem je oštro kritizirao one koji su koristili "domoljublje" kao oružje protiv svojih političkih protivnika. Očigledno je pljusnuo Pododboru Senata i drugima, poput senatora Josepha McCarthyja, Stevenson je ponovio riječi pisca dr. Samuela Johnsona: "Domoljublje je posljednje utočište nitkova." Guverner je tvrdio da je "šokantno" to što se dobri Amerikanci, poput Achesona i bivšeg državnog tajnika generala Georgea C. Marshalla, mogu napasti s obrazloženjem da nisu domoljubni.

Tri povezane priče s naslovne stranice Times ukazao na to koliko je duboko Crvena zastrašivost prodrla u američko društvo. Optužbe o komunistima u filmskoj, radijskoj i televizijskoj industriji, u State Departmentu i američkoj vojsci, u svim sferama američkog života, godinama su ispunile novine i eter. Do 1952. mnogi su Amerikanci bili uvjereni da su komunisti na djelu u Sjedinjenim Državama i da ih se mora iskorijeniti i loviti. Republikanci i njihovi saveznici očito su planirali iskoristiti Crveno zastrašivanje u svoju korist na predsjedničkim izborima te godine, dok su se demokrati morali boriti sa percepcijom da su bili "meki" prema komunizmu tijekom administracije predsjednika Trumana ( koji je došao na dužnost 1945. nakon smrti Franklina D. Roosevelta). Republikanci su na kraju pobijedili, a Dwight D. Eisenhower postigao je pobjedu nad Stevensonom.

PROČITAJTE JOŠ: Kako se Eisenhower tajno potisnuo protiv makartizma


Staza

20. listopada 1947. godine, ozloglašeni Crveni strah upada u brzinu u Washingtonu, jer kongresni odbor počinje istraživati ​​utjecaj komunista u jednoj od najbogatijih i najglamuroznijih svjetskih zajednica: Hollywoodu.

Nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata, Hladni rat počeo se zahuktavati između dvije svjetske velesile, Sjedinjenih Država i Sovjetskog Saveza pod kontrolom komunista. U Washingtonu su konzervativni nadzornici radili na istjerivanju komunista u vladi prije nego što su usmjerili pogled na navodne "crvene"#8221 u poznatoj liberalnoj filmskoj industriji. U istrazi koja je započela u listopadu 1947., Povjerenstvo za ne-američke aktivnosti Predstavničkog doma (HUAC) ispeklo je brojne istaknute svjedoke, otvoreno pitajući “Jeste li ili ste ikada bili član Komunističke partije? ” Jeste li domoljublja ili straha, neki svjedoci, uključujući redateljicu Eliju Kazan, glumce Garya Coopera i Roberta Taylora te studijske hončove Walta Disneya i Jacka Warnera, dali su odborima imena kolega za koje sumnjaju da su komunisti.

Mala grupa poznata kao "Holivudska desetka" opirala se, žaleći se da su rasprave bile nezakonite i da su povrijeđena njihova prava iz prvog amandmana. Svi su osuđeni za ometanje istrage i odslužili su zatvorsku kaznu. Pod pritiskom Kongresa, holivudski establišment započeo je politiku zabranjenih poslova, zabranivši rad oko 325 scenarista, glumaca i redatelja koje odbor nije odobrio. Na crnoj listi bili su skladatelj Aaron Copland, književnici Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman i Dorothy Parker, dramaturg Arthur Miller te glumac i filmaš Orson Welles.

Neki od pisaca na crnoj listi koristili su pseudonime za nastavak rada, dok su drugi napisali scenarije koji su pripisani drugim prijateljima književnicima. Početkom 1960-ih, nakon pada senatora Josepha McCarthyja, najjavnijeg lica antikomunizma, zabrana se počela polako ukidati. 1997. Udruženje pisaca Sjedinjenih Američkih Država jednoglasno je glasovalo za promjenu zasluga za pisanje 23 filma snimljenih tijekom razdoblja zabranjenih lista, poništavajući – ali ne brišući – dio štete nanesene tijekom Crvenog zastrašivanja.

“Congress istražuje Crvene u Hollywoodu. ” 2008. Web stranica History Channela. 20. listopada 2008, 11:54 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=51910.

Aaron Copland: Fanfare za običnog čovjeka

1774 – Novi kontinentalni kongres, upravljačko tijelo američkih kolonija, donio je naredbu kojom se proglašava da svi građani kolonija odbijaju i obeshrabruju sve konjske utrke i sve vrste igara, borbe pijetlova, izložbe predstava, predstava i drugo skupe zabave i zabave. ”

1803 – Senat SAD -a odobrio je kupnju Louisiane.

1818 – SAD i Velika Britanija uspostavile su granicu između SAD -a i Kanade kao 49. paralelu.

1903 – Zajedničko povjerenstvo presudilo je u korist SAD -a u vezi spora oko granice između Kanade i okruga Aljaska.

1935 – Mao Zedong stigao je u provinciju Shensi nakon svog Dugog marša koji je trajao nešto više od godinu dana. Potom je osnovao kineski komunistički stožer.

1944. – Savezničke snage napale su Filipine.

1952. – Ustanak Mau Mau protiv bijelih doseljenika počeo je u Keniji.

1967. – Sedam muškaraca osuđeno je u Meridijanu, MS, pod optužbom za kršenje građanskih prava trojice radnika za građanska prava. Jedan od osuđenih muškaraca bio je vođa Ku Klux Klana, a drugi šerifov zamjenik.

1986. – Američki plaćenik Eugene Hasenfus službeno je optužen od strane vlade Nikaragve po nekoliko optužnica, uključujući terorizam.

1993. – Glavna tužiteljica Janet Reno upozorila je TV industriju da ograniči nasilje u svojim programima.

1995. i#8211 Britanija, Francuska i SAD objavile su ugovor kojim su zabranjene atomske eksplozije u južnom Pacifiku.

Kongres stvara kontinentalnu udrugu

Na današnji dan 1774. godine, Prvi kontinentalni kongres stvara Kontinentalno udruženje koje poziva na potpunu zabranu svake trgovine između Amerike i Velike Britanije svim robama, robom ili robom.

Stvaranje udruge bilo je odgovor na prisilne akte - ili “nepodnošljive akte ” kakvi su bili poznati kolonistima –koje je osnovala britanska vlada kako bi uspostavila red u Massachusettsu nakon Bostonske čajanke.

Nepodnošljivi akti bili su skup od četiri djela: Prvi je bio Zakon o luci u Bostonu, koji je zatvorio luku Boston za sve koloniste sve dok se ne isplati odšteta od Bostonske čajanke. Drugi, Zakon o vladi Massachusettsa, dao je britanskoj vladi potpunu kontrolu nad gradskim sastancima, preuzimajući sve odluke iz ruku kolonista. Treći, Zakon o pravosudnom sustavu, učinio je britanske dužnosnike imunima na kazneni progon u Americi, a četvrti, Zakon o četvrtini, zahtijevao je od kolonista da na zahtjev smještaju i četvrtinu britanskih vojnika, uključujući i privatne kuće kao posljednje sredstvo.

Ogorčeni novim zakonima koje je odobrio britanski parlament, Kontinentalno udruženje nadalo se da će prekidanje svake trgovine s Velikom Britanijom uzrokovati dovoljno ekonomskih teškoća da će se Nepodnošljivi akti ukinuti. Bio je to jedan od prvih činova Kongresa iza kojeg je svaka kolonija čvrsto stajala.

“Congress stvara Kontinentalnu asocijaciju. ” 2008. Web stranica History Channel. 20. listopada 2008, 11:56 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=51322.

Ocjeni ovo:

Na današnji dan, 27. 8. 2008: Crveni strah

Red Scare dominira američkom politikom

Kako se predsjednički izbori 1952. počinju zahuktavati, rastu i optužbe i protuoptužbe u vezi s komunizmom u Americi. “Red Scare ” – rašireno uvjerenje da međunarodni komunizam djeluje u Sjedinjenim Državama – došlo je da dominira većinom rasprave između demokrata i republikanaca 1952. godine.

Dana 27. kolovoza 1952. godine New York Times naslovna stranica sadržavala je tri priče koje sugeriraju utjecaj Crvenog zastrašivanja na predstojeće izbore. U prvoj priči, Pododbor za unutarnju sigurnost Senata u kojem su dominirali republikanci objavio je izvještaj u kojem se navodi da je u Cehu pisaca radija dominirao mali broj komunista. Ceh, čiji su članovi bili odgovorni za proizvodnju više od 90 posto programa na radiju, navodno je vodila mala grupa komunista najmanje posljednjih devet godina. Prema izvješću pododbora, komunistička subverzija Ceha bila je samo jedan korak u većim naporima za kontrolu nad medijima Sjedinjenih Država-uključujući radio, televiziju, filmove i izdavanje knjiga. Druga priča na naslovnici bila je izvješće koje je američka Legija treću godinu zaredom zahtijevala da predsjednik Harry S. Truman smijeni državnog tajnika Deana Achesona zbog nedostatka snage u suočavanju s komunističkom prijetnjom. U izvješću Legije izjavljeno je da je State Departmentu očajnički potrebni "Amerikanci bogobojazni" koji su imali crijevnu hrabrost da ne budu političke marionete. ” Organizacija je zahtijevala brzo i pobjedničko rješavanje Korejskog rata , čak i ako je to značilo širenje rata na Kinu. Treća priča pružila je svojevrsni brojač prethodne dvije priče. Izviješteno je o govoru kandidata demokratskog kandidata za guvernera predsjednika Adlaija E. Stevensona u kojem je oštro kritizirao one koji su koristili “patriotizam ” kao oružje protiv svojih političkih protivnika. U očitom pljusku pododboru Senata i drugima, poput senatora Josepha McCarthyja, Stevenson je ponovio riječi književnika dr. Samuela Johnsona: “Domoljublje je posljednje utočište nitkova. ” Guverner je tvrdio da je to &# 8220 šokirajući ” da se dobri Amerikanci, poput Achesona i bivšeg državnog tajnika generala Georgea C. Marshalla, mogu napasti s obrazloženjem da nisu patriotski orijentirani.

Tri povezane priče s naslovne stranice Times ukazao na to koliko je duboko Crvena zastrašivost prodrla u američko društvo. Optužbe o komunistima u filmskoj, radijskoj i televizijskoj industriji, u State Departmentu i američkoj vojsci, u svim sferama američkog života, godinama su ispunile novine i eter. Do 1952. mnogi su Amerikanci bili uvjereni da su komunisti na djelu u Sjedinjenim Državama i da ih se mora iskorijeniti i loviti. Republikanci i njihovi saveznici očito su planirali iskoristiti Crveno zastrašivanje u svoju korist na predsjedničkim izborima te godine, dok će se demokrati morati boriti protiv percepcije da su bili "komunizam" tijekom administracije predsjednika Truman (koji je došao na dužnost 1945. nakon smrti Franklina D. Roosevelta). Republikanci su na kraju pobijedili, a Dwight D. Eisenhower postigao je pobjedu nad Stevensonom.

“Red Scare dominira američkom politikom. ” 2008. Web stranica History Channela. 27. kolovoza 2008, 05:54 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2772.

1660 – Knjige Johna Miltona spaljene su u Londonu zbog njegovih napada na kralja Charlesa II.

1789 – Deklaraciju o ljudskim pravima usvojila je Francuska narodna skupština.

1859 – Prvu naftnu bušotinu uspješno je izbušio u SAD -u pukovnik Edwin L. Drake u blizini Titusvillea, PA.

1894 – Kongres SAD-a donio je Wilson-Gormanov tarifni zakon. Vrhovni sud SAD -a kasnije je ukinuo odredbu o povećanom porezu na dohodak.

1921 – Vlasnik tvrtke Acme Packing Company kupio je profesionalni nogometni tim za Green Bay, WI. J.E. Clair odao je počast onima koji su radili u njegovoj tvornici tako što je tim nazvao Green Bay Packers. (NFL)

1928 – Kellogg-Briandov pakt potpisalo je 15 zemalja u Parizu. Kasnije će 47 drugih nacija potpisati pakt.

1945. – Američke trupe iskrcale su se u Japanu nakon predaje japanske vlade krajem Drugog svjetskog rata.

1979. – Lord Louis Mountbatten poginuo je u eksploziji broda kod obale Irske. Irska republikanska vojska preuzela je odgovornost.


Crveni strah i žene u vladi

Godine 1952. vladina administratorka Mary Dublin Keyserling optužena je da je komunistica. Napad na nju bio je ujedno i napad na feminizam.

Ne govorimo često o tome kako je antikomunistička Crvena zastrašivanje nakon Drugog svjetskog rata također bila napad na žene, posebno na feministice. Dokazni je primjer karijera Mary Dublin Keyserling (1910–97). Kao što povjesničar Landon R. Y. Storrs pokazuje: Njezin život pomaže kontekstualizirati „naše razumijevanje putanje feminizma dvadesetog stoljeća i rodne učinke antikomunističkih križarskih ratova. ”

U veljači 1952. senator Joseph McCarthy optužio je Keyserlinga, koji je radio u Ministarstvu trgovine, da je bio član deset komunističkih frontalnih skupina. (Na tipičan McCarthyjev način, tih navodnih deset skupina kasnije će se povećati na "neograničen broj.") McCarthy je također nazvao Leona Keyserlinga, glavnog ekonomskog savjetnika predsjednika Trumana i supruga Mary ’, kao simpatizera Crvene.

Optužbe protiv Leona su izblijedjele, ali Mary je morala uzeti dopust dok ju je istražio odbor za vjernost. "Mary bi pobudila antikomunističku pozornost čak i da nije udana za Leona", piše Storrs. “Od ranih 1930 -ih pripadala je labavoj mreži ženskih stručnjaka i aktivistica koje su zagovarale korištenje države za napad na društvene nejednakosti - u klasnim, rodnim i rasnim odnosima - za koje su tvrdili da nisu samo nepravedne, već i nezdrave za nacionalnu ekonomiju i uglađenost. "

Keyserlingova ranija pozadina pokazuje vrstu ideala koje su neke žene New Dealers unijele u svoj posao. Mlada Mary Dublin "uronila je u ljevičarske političke i kulturne aktivnosti". "Stabilna mlada društvena znanstvenica u Londonu i New Yorku u doba depresije", kretala se u krugovima koji su "uključivali naprednjake, socijaliste i komuniste"-savez poznat kao Narodna fronta, koji se bori protiv rastuće prijetnje fašizma 1930-ih.

Prema Storrsu, “lijevi feminizam ” koji je Keyserling unijela na svoj posao u vladi pokazuje da tridesete i četrdesete godine nisu bile#8217t “nastale godine ” pokreta žena ’s, ni feminizam nije napravio pauzu nakon usvajanjem Devetnaestog amandmana 1920. "Lijevi je feminizam bio bliže moći nego što smo mislili (iako ne tako blizu kao što su se njegovi neprijatelji bojali, ili su se pretvarali da se boje)." Sve dok žene poput Keyserling nisu potjerane s moći i utjecaja.

Tjedni bilten

Mary Dublin Keyserling oslobođena je u siječnju 1953., točno na vrijeme za predsjednika Eisenhowera, koji nije želio nju ili njezinog muža u vladi. Ne bi ponovno imala zaposlenje u vladi sve do administracije Lyndona Johnsona 1964. godine, do kada su obojica Keyserlings bili sigurno liberalni. Na svom saslušanju za potvrdu za ravnateljstvo Ženskog ureda u Ministarstvu rada, jedan američki senator pokrenuo je stare optužbe o nelojalnosti, ali ovaj put sa manje učinka.

Storrs zaključuje da su „antikomunistički napadi na žene u vladinim i političkim krugovima suzbili i feminizam i socijaldemokratski potencijal New Deala“. Ona piše: "prisiljavajući jednu generaciju feministica Narodnog fronta da nestanu, ili da se ponovno izmisle kao liberalke, crveni strah je ostavio rodno naslijeđe koje je ograničavalo i socijalnu politiku i moderni feminizam", teme su dalje istražene u Storrsovoj knjizi, Drugi crveni zastrašivač i razotkrivanje lijevog novog dogovora.


Strah od crvene države: stiže crna lista

Ako ’ niste dio Twittera, a pritom i medijski Twitter, bit ćete blagoslovljeno ignorirani VELIKA kontroverza danas. Web stranica s političkim vijestima i komentarima Politico zatražila je od konzervativnog komentatora Bena Shapira da gostuje u današnjem izdanju jutarnje Playbook knjige#8217. Shapiro je potpuno unutar konzervativnog mainstreama, ali to nije spriječilo osoblje Politica da poludi. Erik Wemple je Washington Post medijski kolumnist:

Rekao sam “blago neznanje, ” ali stvarno, trebali biste biti svjesni ovakvih stvari. Ovo je novi svijet u kojem živimo.

Prvo, to pokazuje da živimo u svijetu u kojem su institucije u kojima dominira ljevica (npr. Mediji) toliko netolerantne da vjeruju da ne bi trebale imati veze s konzervativcima u svom poslu.

Drugo, pokazuje da njihov bijes potiskuje unutarnje neslaganje (nikome neće biti stalo do petljanja o zaposlenima u Politicu koji su zastrašeni šutnjom).

Treće, ovisno o tome kako PolitičkoUprava ‘ reagira, moglo bi otkriti da osoblje ima pravo veta na uredničke odluke — drugim riječima, da je, kao i u događajima prošle godine u The New York Times i Philadelphia Inquirer, osoblje rulje učinkovito vodi novine.

Varate se ako mislite da će ovo biti ograničeno na medije. U drugim institucijama u kojima dominira ljevica, uključujući tvrtke čiji su odjeli za ljudske resurse konzervativci, teško će ući. Fakulteti i studenti na Sveučilištu Michigan u tijeku su da se republikanski regent sustava smijeni ne zbog svega što je rekao, već zbog onoga što je imao ne rekao (da predsjednički izbori nisu ’t ukradeni). Ako ste bili aktivni na fakultetima republikanaca ili bilo kojoj drugoj konzervativnoj skupini na fakultetu, bolje da to ne stavljate u svoj životopis. Na dobrom smo putu do stvarne crne liste. Neće jednostavno biti konzervativci, već ljevičari koji ne uspijevaju biti dovoljno radikalni. Do mene je stigla vijest da je ovaj tjedan smijenjen demokratski politički profesionalac kojeg pratim na društvenim mrežama jer kao naprednjak koji cijeni slobodu govora, izrazio je zabrinutost zbog davanja korporacijama prava da kažnjavaju ljude zbog političkih disidenata (ja sam mu se obratio, a on je potvrdio otpuštanje).

Istraživači su stvorili sustav strojnog učenja za koji tvrde da može odrediti nečiju političku stranku, s razumnom točnošću, samo na temelju njezina lica. Studija iz grupe koja je također pokazala da se na ovaj način naizgled može zaključiti o spolnoj sklonosti, iskreno se bavi i pažljivo izbjegava zamke "moderne frenologije", što dovodi do neugodnog zaključka da bi naš izgled mogao izraziti više osobnih podataka o kojima mislimo.

Studiju, objavljenu ovog tjedna u časopisu Nature Scientific Reports, proveo je Michal Kosinski sa Sveučilišta Stanford. Kosinski je 2017. dospio na naslovnice s radom koji je otkrio da se spolna sklonost osobe može predvidjeti iz podataka o licu.

Možda mislite da je ovo luda frenologija dvadeset prvog stoljeća! — ali tim Kosinskog ’s otkrio je da njegov softver može ispravno pogoditi gotovo tri od četiri puta. Daleko od savršenog, istinitog, ali pokazalo se da ljudi točno pogađaju samo 55 posto vremena. Algoritmi vide nešto što zaista postoji. Znanstvenici koji rade na projektu još uvijek ne znaju koje su varijable ključne. No za postizanje ovog rezultata nije potrebno ulaganje u sofisticirani softver:

Sam algoritam nije neka hipernapredna tehnologija. Kosinski rad opisuje prilično uobičajen proces unosa slika više od milijun lica u sustav strojnog učenja prikupljenih sa stranica za upoznavanje u SAD -u, Kanadi i Velikoj Britaniji, kao i američkih korisnika Facebooka. Ljudi čija su lica korištena identificirali su se kao politički konzervativni ili liberalni u okviru upitnika web stranice.

Algoritam se temeljio na softveru za prepoznavanje lica otvorenog koda, a nakon osnovne obrade za obrezivanje na samo lice (tako se pozadinske stavke ne uvlače kao čimbenici) lica se smanjuju na 2.048 bodova koji predstavljaju različite značajke-kao i kod drugih prepoznavanja lica algoritmi, to nisu nužne intuitivne stvari kao što su "boja obrva" i "tip nosa", već više računalo izvorni koncepti.

Što treba spriječiti korporaciju da ubuduće ne koristi sliku lica zaposlenika ili prijavljenih putem ovog algoritma kako bi se osiguralo da se ne angažiraju ili unaprijede konzervativci? Naravno, sve radi stvaranja sigurnog prostora na radnom mjestu.

Imali smo Crveni strah u povijesti ove zemlje i#8217. Sada ćemo imati Red State Scare. Na svom današnjem web prijenosu Ben Shapiro citirao je Don Lemon iz CNN -a koji je rekao kako su svi Trumpovi glasači i#8212 70 milijuna njegovih kolega Amerikanaca#u savezu s KKK -om i nacistima. Lemon je zaista rekao da je — isječak tu.

Internet tajkuni koristili su ideologiju ravnodušnosti kako bi prikupili vrijednost od lokalnih tvrtki, nacionalnih trgovaca, čitave novinske industrije itd. - i činilo se da nikoga nije briga. Ta je pljačka - pomoću koje je mala skupina ljudi, koristeći ožičenje, mogla prenijeti na sebe ogromnu imovinu bez ikakvog političkog, pravnog ili društvenog potiskivanja - omogućila progresivnim aktivistima i njihovim oligarhijskim donatorima da izvedu vlastitu pljačku, koristeći isto ožičenje. Uhvatili su činjenicu da se cijeli svijet već prilagođavao životu praktična ravnost kako bi potisnuli svoju ideologiju politička ravnodušnost- ono što oni nazivaju društvenom pravdom, ali što je povijesno značilo prijenos ogromne količine moći i bogatstva na nekoliko odabranih.

Budući da ova kohorta inzistira na istosti i čistoći, pretvorili su nekad neovisne dijelove američkog kulturnog kompleksa u međusobno potvrđujući cjevovod za konformiste s odobrenim gledištima-koji se zatim međusobno uvjeravaju, promiču i vjenčaju. Mladi student Ivy League lige dobiva ocjene papagajskim presjekom evanđelja, što zauzvrat znači da ga njegovi profesori preporučuju za početni posao u Washington think tanku ili publikaciji koja je također posvećena tim idejama. Njegova sposobnost da široko promiče ta gledišta na društvenim medijima vjerojatno će privući odobravanje njegovog sljedećeg mogućeg šefa ili čitatelja njegove prijave za diplomski studij ili budućih prijatelja. Njegov uspjeh u uklanjanju tih rešetki otvorit će za budućnost mogućnosti za ljubav i zaposlenje. Učiniti suprotno ima obrnuti učinak, što je gotovo nemoguće izbjeći s obzirom na to koliko je ovaj sustav sada čvrsto utkan. Osoba koja je odlučna u namjeri da se odrekne ovakvih svjetovnih zavođenja - jer su posebno pametne, bogate ili tvrdoglave - vidjet će samo primjere još talentiranijih i uspješnijih ljudi koji su vidjeli da im je karijera slomljena, a ugled uništen jer su se usudili držati palac labirint crvenih linija koji se sve više umnožava.

Dakle, umjesto da odražavaju raznolikost velike zemlje, ove su institucije sada prenamijenjene kao instrumenti za usađivanje i provođenje uskog i krutog programa jedne kohorte ljudi, zabranjujući istraživanje ili odstupanje - režim koji je ironično ostavio beskućnike mnoge, ako ne većina, najboljih mislilaca i stvaratelja zemlje. Svatko tko se zaista bavi rješavanjem duboko ukorijenjenih društvenih i ekonomskih problema, ili ne daj Bože stvaranjem nečeg jedinstvenog ili lijepog-procesa koji je neizbježno neuredan i često uključuje istraživanje hereza i činjenje pogrešaka-udarit će u zid. Ako su mladi i daleko ambiciozni, jednostavno će rano ugasiti taj dio sebe, gušeći glas za koji znaju da će ih dovesti u nevolje prije nego što su ikada imali priliku čuti kako pjeva.

Ovaj nesklad između politike s kulturnim mandatom i stvarnih pokazanih sklonosti većine Amerikanaca stvorio je ogromnu rezervu neispunjenih potreba - i generacijsku priliku. Izgradite nove stvari! Stvorite sjajnu umjetnost! Shvatite i prihvatite da su osjetilne informacije hrana mozga i da nas Silicijska dolina sustavno gladuje zbog toga. Izbjegavajte potpuno slijepo drvce. Steći prijatelja i nemojte razgovarati s njima o politici. Radite stvari koje izazivaju ljubav i pažnju od tri osobe koje zapravo poznajete umjesto stotina koje ne znate. Napustite posrnulu Ivy League, molim vas, preklinjem vas. Pokrenite izdavačku kuću koja izdaje knjige koje ljute, iznenađuju i oduševljavaju ljude i zbog kojih to žele čitati. Budite dovoljno hrabri da snimite film i TV koji će privući stvarnu publiku, a ne 14 ljudi na Twitteru. Uspostavite novine u kojima se ljudi mogu vidjeti i držati u rukama. Vratite se u bogomolju - svaki tjedan. Odustanite od naših sadašnjih institucija oni su već odustali od nas.

Pročitajte sve. Ova dva citata ne mogu opravdati.

Događaji u prošlom tjednu jasno pokazuju da za većinu konzervativaca unutar redovnih institucija nema ostvarive budućnosti. U Benediktova opcija, Napisao sam da dolazi dan kada će vjerski konzervativci morati ovisiti o vlastitim mrežama za zapošljavanje i uzdržavanje ili započeti karijeru u kojoj jedno političko i vjersko uvjerenje nije važno. Taj je dan sada došao za neke ljude, a broj onih pod njegovom sjenom ubrzano se ubrzava.

Kako kaže Alana Newhouse, ovo stvara veliku priliku. Ali ne želimo stvoriti desničarsku zrcalnu verziju iste fanatične sukladnosti kakvu vidimo u institucijama u kojima dominiraju ljevičari. U tom smislu, evo e-pošte koju sam primio danas. Zadržavam ime autora na njegov zahtjev:

Vaš članak o đavolskim silama doista je pogodio dom. Maloprije sam vam pisao o izbornoj prijevari. Neću se baviti zapisima o određenom mjestu ili ljudima jer sam naporno radio kako bih zadobio povjerenje nekoliko ljudi u ovoj priči, a oni su trenutno u osjetljivom stanju. Želim ih osobno zaštititi i služiti im iskreno i s ljubavlju, a javna sramota neće učiniti ništa dobro.

Neki prijatelji prijatelji bili su svjedoci nekih sirovih i zapanjujućih izbornih propusta u velikom gradu za vrijeme dok su bili posmatrači. U početku sam bio oprezan jer je moj prijatelj bio tvrdokorni Trumpist. Kao i mnogi Trumpovi uporni pristaše, i on je dugo bio društveno izoliran, bio je duboko nesretan i bio je sve više politički. Politika mu je ipak dala osjećaj smisla i svrhe u životu. Ipak, uvjerio sam se u neke optužbe o prijevari kada su ključne detalje iz priča njegovih prijatelja potvrdili ne samo drugi Trumpisti (razgovarao sam s najmanje sedam različitih primarnih svjedoka), već i putem videa koji je objavljen nakon što sam završio razgovor oni koji su potvrdili nekoliko iznenađujućih tvrdnji.

Nisam mogao zanemariti te podatke pa sam počeo istraživati ​​njihove tvrdnje. Mnoge njihove tvrdnje o prijevari bile su legitimne, ali izvlačenje istine bio je spor i mučan proces. Razlog nije u tome što su ti svjedoci prijevare lagali, već u tome što su mnogi od njih bili zarobljeni teorijama zavjere i vjerovali su u njihove laži. Kad bih ih intervjuirao, morao bih stalno praviti razliku između onoga čemu su svjedočili i onoga što je glasina. Za njih je priča o teoriji zavjere postala važnija od stvarnih dokaza o izbornoj prijevari koju su posjedovali.

Na kraju smo uspjeli prenijeti poruku legitimne prijevare nadležnim tijelima, pa su čak i neki svjedoci bili pokriveni od strane Foxa i drugih desničarskih izvora –, ali mnogi od tih svjedoka nisu sebi učinili uslugu. Umjesto da kontroliraju svoje nagone zavjere, mnogi su u svom svjedočenju pomiješali istinu s teorijom zavjere kako bi izgledali smiješno. Malo prijevare koju su primijetili lažno je potvrdilo svaku teoriju zavjere koja im je bila draga.

Iako je članak koji sam napisao pokazao jasnu i masovnu prijevaru, nije pokazao da je bilo dovoljno značajnih konačnih prijevara da se promijeni ishod izbora (vjerujem da je Biden bio legitimni pobjednik izbora). Većini ovih svjedoka to je bilo previše teško progutati, a prividnu kognitivnu disonancu riješili su idući dalje u zečju rupu teorije zavjere. U posljednje vrijeme šalju mi ​​sulude priče - dužnosnici su ubijeni ili zarobljeni u napadima CIA -e u Njemačkoj, Trump je uhitio Bidena zbog izdaje, lukave trikove za uzurpiranje demokratskih izbora, a u posljednje vrijeme i teoriju zavjere u vezi s vojnim udarom. Priče postaju sve ekstremnije, a s obzirom na ankete koje ste nedavno objavili, idemo prema nasilnoj i uznemirujućoj budućnosti.

Moramo uvjeriti našu braću i sestre na pravo da dođu k sebi i izbjegnu nasilje, ali povijest kaže da će izgledi da uspijemo biti mali. Ipak, sada je vrijeme za nastavak izgradnje naših institucija. Ja sam sretan što sam dio crkve koja je bila vjerna u ovim zlim vremenima i koja je identificirala takvo zlo s lijeve i desne strane i odoljela mu.

Ako ništa drugo, moramo se radovati što je idolopoklonstvo moći za ljude poput nas uglavnom uništeno. Iako će nas ugnjetavanje vjerojatno doći, slobodni smo voljeti pali svijet i biti svjedokom evanđelja. To je naša nada, i to je naša radost.

Naprijed, živjeti ne od laži ljevice ili desnice bit će jedna od najtežih stvari za svakoga od nas. Ali kakav izbor imamo?


Crveni strah (podcast)

Crveni strah smatra se podcastom za kulturne komentare koji vode "boemski layabouts" [8] Dasha Nekrasova i Anna Khachiyan, a snima se iz njihovih domova na Donjem Manhattanu u New Yorku. Nekrasova je bjeloruska glumica, koja je postala poznata kao "mornarski socijalizam" [9] [10] nakon intervjua s InfoWars reporterka postala je viralna 2018. Imigrirala je u Las Vegas, Nevada, sa svojim roditeljima akrobatama kad je imala četiri godine. [11] Khachiyan je pisac rođen u Moskvi, [12] likovni kritičar [13] [14] i kći armenskog matematičara Leonida Khachiyana. [15] Odgojena je u New Jerseyju. [7] The two women met over Twitter, [7] and started the podcast in March 2018 after Nekrasova relocated to New York City from Los Angeles.

Early episodes were produced by Meg Murnane, who would also appear as the show's third co-host. She disappeared from the show in October 2018, and episodes have been self-produced since then. On an episode released on December 5, 2018, Dasha and Anna officially announced that they had parted ways with Meg "amicably and mutually". [16]

The show covers current topics in American culture and politics and is a critique of neoliberalism and feminism in a manner both comedic and serious in tone. [7] The hosts are influenced by the work of Mark Fisher, [17] Slavoj Žižek, [18] Camille Paglia, and Christopher Lasch. [19] [20] [21] Recurring topics include Russiagate, the #MeToo movement, [12] woke consumerism and call-out culture, the death of Jeffrey Epstein and the Presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, whom both supported in the 2020 Democratic primaries. [22]

Several writers, artists, social commentators and cultural figures from all sides of the political spectrum have appeared on Red Scare, including Elizabeth Bruenig, Angela Nagle, Juliana Huxtable, Ariana Reines, Tulsi Gabbard, Simon Reynolds, Ross Douthat, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Steve Bannon, [23] Slavoj Žižek, [24] and Adam Curtis.

Nekrasova and Khachiyan have hosted several episodes of the show live, most notably broadcasting on NPR at The Green Space at WNYC and WQXR, as well as interviewing social media influencer Caroline Calloway at the Bell House in Brooklyn. [25] Khachiyan has been interviewed by Bret Easton Ellis and Eric Weinstein on their respective podcasts. [26] [27]

Format and availability Edit

An episode of Red Scare is typically between 50 and 80 minutes long. The show's theme song is "All the Things She Said," the 2002 single by Russian pop duo t.A.T.u. Weekly free episodes of the show are available via iTunes and Spotify. Subscribers who contribute at least $5 per month via Patreon gain access to additional weekly premium bonus episodes. As of June 2021, the show has generated over $42,000 per month from over 9,900 subscribers. [28]

Episode guide Edit

As of April 24, 2021, 238 episodes of Red Scare have been released. [29] [30] [31] The show's most frequent guest is photographer Dan Allegretto at seven appearances, followed by Amber A'Lee Frost of Chapo Trap House at six appearances, and writer Patrik Sandberg, at five appearances.


Red Scare (1919–1920)

In the United States, the First Red Scare (1919–1920) began shortly after the 1917 Bolshevik Russian Revolution. Tensions ran high after this revolution because many Americans feared that if a workers’ revolution were possible in Russia, it might also be possible in the United States. While the First Red Scare was backed by an anti-communist attitude, it focused predominately on labor rebellions and perceived political radicalism.

While Arkansas was not immune to the Red Scare, it did see comparatively little labor conflict. Nationally, 7,041 strikes occurred during the 1919–1920 period Arkansas contributed only twenty-two of those strikes. This was not because Arkansas had a weak labor movement. In fact, Arkansas was home to the Little Rock Typographical Union, railroad unions, and sharecropper unions, among others. The lack of strikes was due in part to the positive labor legislation that existed in the state at that time. For example, in 1889, the state government forced railroad employers to pay wages in full to workers after they completed a day’s work. Laws such as this created a more progressive work environment for union workers—most of whom tended to be white, as non-whites were typically not allowed to join. Also, farms in Arkansas were generally small and family owned. While they did employ a system of sharecropping and tenant farming, most of the farms in Arkansas were too small to see the industrial strife that came with larger farms and big businesses across the rest of the country. Too, labor disputes in the agricultural sector, due to the prevalence of African Americans in the workforce, were easily racialized and, as a consequence, often brutally suppressed. A noteworthy example of this was the Elaine Massacre of 1919, during which members of the Progressive Farmers and Household Union of America were systematically killed and persecuted for attempting to resist labor exploitation.

Anti-Bolshevik Legislation
Though Arkansas did not exhibit the same level of labor conflict as the rest of the nation during the First Red Scare, it did follow the national trend of passing anti-Bolshevik or Criminal Anarchy laws.On March 28, 1919, Arkansas joined the majority of states in the union by passing Act 512, which read:

“An act to define and punish anarchy and to prevent the introduction and spread of Bolshevism and kindred doctrines, in the State of Arkansas.

§1. Unlawful to attempt to overthrow present form of government of the State of Arkansas or the United States of America.

§2. Unlawful to exhibit any flag, etc., which is calculated to overthrow present form of government.

§3. Laws in conflict repealed emergency declared effective after passage .”

Such a crime was a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of between $10 and a $1,000, and the perpetrator could be imprisoned in the county jail for up to six months. This anarchy bill was originally introduced as House Bill Number 473, and, on March 6, 1919, it was read in the House of Representatives. The House moved that the bill be placed back upon second reading for the purpose of amendment. The motion was passed, and the following amendment was sent up: “Amend House Bill No. 473 by striking out the words ‘association of individuals, corporations, organization or lodges by any name or without a name,’ as found in lines 2 and 3 of section 2, of the bill.”

This amendment was suggested for the protection of labor unions. The bill was then placed on final passage. This bill passed the House with little opposition. Eighty-two legislators voted in the affirmative, and only one voted in the negative. Only forty-two votes were necessary to pass the bill, and with eighty-two affirmative votes, the bill was passed.

On March 12, 1919, House Bill 473 was read the third time and placed on final passage in the Senate. None voted in the negative, although ten were absent. There were twenty-five votes in the affirmative, with only thirteen necessary for the passage of the bill, and thus it passed. On March 28, 1919, Governor Charles Hillman Brough signed the bill, making it Act 512. Brough was a popular speaker at the time and spoke often of his dislike for Germans and radicals.

Criminal syndicalism laws were also commonplace during the First Red Scare. Criminal syndicalism addressed and punished acts of violence or acts of advocating violence as a means of bringing political change. Many of these laws were in response to the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, or Wobblies) and their attempts to organize minorities working in the fields. However, Arkansas was not one of the states that passed anti-syndicalism legislation.

Effects of Anti-Bolshevik Legislation
Though the First Red Scare ended in 1920, both the state and federal legislation passed during that time lasted much longer. These anti-Bolshevik laws were used against socialist, communist, and union organizers in Arkansas a number of times in the 1930s and in 1940. The Communist Party of Arkansas reached its peak in the 1930s. Some examples include the 1934 arrest of George Cruz, who was an activist involved in an organization called the Original Independent Benevolent Afro-Pacific Movement of the World (OIBAPMW) the 1935 arrest of Ward Rodgers, who was a member of the Southern Tenant Farmers’ Union (STFU) the 1935 arrest of Horace Bryan, a labor organizer and the 1940 arrest of Nathan Oser, who was the director of Commonwealth College.

Due to some positive labor legislation that existed in the state, the rural isolation of many of the state’s citizens, and the focus on racial issues rather than ideological conflict, the scare in Arkansas did not turn into the hysteria felt by most of the rest of the nation, despite the anti-Bolshevik laws and resulting arrests.

Za dodatne informacije:
Dowell, Elderidge Foster. A History of Criminal Syndicalism Legislation in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1939.

Franklin, F. G. “Anti-Syndicalist Legislation.” American Political Science Review 14 (1920): 291–298.

McCarty, Joey. “The Red Scare in Arkansas: A Southern State and National Hysteria.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 37 (1978): 264–277.

Kern, Jamie. “The Price of Dissent: Freedom of Speech and Arkansas Criminal Anarchy Arrests.” MA thesis, University of Arkansas, 2012.


Povijesno društvo Pennsylvania

The Cold War was sparked by the immediate aftermath of World War II. The Allied Forces were divided by ideology and quickly separated into two camps: the Western democracies, led by the United States, and the Communist nations, dominated by the Soviet Union. This alignment served as the basic framework of the Cold War over the next fifty years, from 1947-1991. As America positioned itself in opposition to totalitarian regimes, American citizens were forced to confront realities of what "freedom" meant, or should mean.

The Red Scare was a period during the 1940s-50s when Americans became anxious that Communists had infiltrated the home front. The public backlash against communism led Senator Joseph McCarthy to spearhead a series of public restrictions and trials on charges of treason. Groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned McCarthy's campaign as an attempt to unjustly restrict civil liberties and free speech.

This lesson will foster class discussion of the American definition of freedom and the appropriateness of governments in restricting civil liberties in the pursuit of peace and stability. Students will be asked to connect these larger themes to past events, such as the Salem witch trials and the WWII Japanese internment camps, as well as contemporary events, such as the post-9/11 response to American Muslims.

Teme

Big Ideas

Essential Questions

What role do multiple causations play in describing a historic event?

Why is time and space important to the study of history?

Concepts

Learning about the past and its different contexts shaped by social, cultural, and political influences prepares one for participation as an active, critical citizen in a democratic society.

Historical comprehension involves evidence-based discussion and explanation, an analysis of sources including multiple points of view, and an ability to read critically to recognize fact from conjecture and evidence from assertion.

Historical causation involves motives, reasons, and consequences that result in events and actions. Some consequences may be impacted by forces of the irrational or the accidental.

Competencies

Analyze the interaction of cultural, economic, geographic, political, and
social relations for a specific time and place.

Contrast multiple perspectives of individuals and group in interpreting other times, cultures, and places.

Evaluate cause-and-result relationships bearing in mind multiple causations.

Background Material for Teacher

National Archive's collection of the correspondence between Senator McCarthy and President Truman

The Historical Society of Pennsylvania's Preserving American Freedom annotated entries for an anti-Communist i an anti-McCarthy objavljivanje

Good Night and Good Luck, a 2005 docudrama about journalist Edward R. Murrow's challenge to Sen. McCarthy's anti-Communist crusade.

End of Unit Assessment

Students are to write a 2-3 page response paper, contrasting the two groups (HUAC and ACLU) and their points of view. They should use evidence drawn from the two primary documents as well as knowledge culled from class discussion and the Good Night and Good Luck film.

Other essay topics might include a summary of the short- and long-term effects of McCarthyism or an analysis of Edward R. Murrow's quote, "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."

Students could also research and write a biography of a famous American who was blacklisted following investigation by McCarthy or the HUAC.


Sadržaj

Philippines Edit

In the Philippines, red-tagging poses threats to the lives or safety of its targets [10] and impinges on the right to free expression and dissent. [11] Red-tagged individuals also tend to become vulnerable to death threats [12] and allegations of terrorism. [11] The United Nations warn that red-tagging is a “criminalizing discourse” that undermines the value of the work of human rights defenders and places them at risk of violence and various forms of harassment. [13]

Communism has generally been viewed with disfavour and particular distrust by large sectors of Philippine society ever since the country gained independence from the United States on July 4, 1946. Shared ideological preferences with the United States, resulting from more than four decades of assimilation and exacerbated by the onset of the Cold War, has resulted in Filipinos being understandably predisposed to suspecting groups and individuals of Communist sympathies. [14] [15] This predisposition makes redtagging an effective tool used by players in the political arena, given that it authorizes law-enforcement agencies and the military to act on the taggings. [16] [15] [17] [18] [19]

Redtagging is almost never employed against foreigners, including members of ruling communist parties, owing to the principle in international law of noninterference in another country's domestic affairs. This can be seen especially in the government's cordial relations with the Lao People's Revolutionary Party and the Communist Party of Vietnam, [20] [21] both of which are ruling parties of ASEAN member states. ASEAN itself strongly upholds the principle of noninterference, [22] [23] given Southeast Asia's long and traumatic experience of division along colonial lines. One of the notable exceptions to the nontagging of foreigners was US citizen Brandon Lee, an ancestral-domain paralegal in the Cordillera Region. Lee was tagged as a Communist and automatically therefore an "enemy of the state", and was subsequently shot four times. [24] Liza Soberano and Catriona Gray, US and Australian citizens respectively, have also since been publicly threatened, the former with assassination and the latter with rape. [25] [26]

Sjedinjene Američke Države Edit

20. stoljeće Edit

Red-baiting was employed in opposition to anarchists in the United States as early as the late 1870s when businessmen, religious leaders, politicians and editorial writers tried to rally poor and middle-class workers to oppose dissident railroad workers and again during the Haymarket affair in the mid-1880s. Red-baiting was well established in the United States during the decade before World War I. In the post-war period of 1919–1921, the United States government employed it as a central tactic in dealing with labor radicals, anarchists, communists, socialists and foreign agents. These actions in reaction to the First Red Scare and the concurrent Red Terror served as part of the organizing principle shaping counter-revolutionary policies and serving to institutionalize anti-communism as a force in American politics. [9] [27]

The period between the first and second Red Scares was relatively calm owing to the success of government anti-communism, the suppressive effects of New Deal policies on radical organized labor and the patriotism associated with total mobilization and war effort during World War II. [27] Red-baiting re-emerged in the late 1940s and early 1950s during the period known as the Second Red Scare due to mounting Cold War tensions and the spread of communism abroad. Senator Joseph McCarthy's controversial red-baiting of suspected communists and communist sympathizers in the United States Department of State and the creation of a Hollywood blacklist led to the term McCarthyism being coined to signify any type of reckless political persecution or witch-hunt. [6]

The history of anti-communist red-baiting in general and McCarthyism in particular continues to be hotly debated and political divisions this controversy created continue to make themselves felt. Conservative critics contend that revelations such as the Venona project decryptions and the FBI Silvermaster File at least mute if not outright refute the charge that red-baiting in general was unjustified. [28] Historian Nicholas von Hoffman wrote in Washington Post that evidence revealed in the Venona project forced him to admit that McCarthy was "closer to the truth than those who ridiculed him". [29] Liberal critics contend that even if someone could prove that the United States government was infiltrated by Soviet spies, McCarthy was censured by the Senate because he was in fact reckless and politically opportunistic and his red-baiting ruined the lives of countless innocent people. [30] Historian Ellen Schrecker wrote that "McCarthyism did more damage to the constitution than the American Communist Party ever did". [31]

21. stoljeće Edit

In the 21st century, red-baiting does not have quite the same effect it previously did due to the fall of most Marxist–Leninist governments, [7] but some pundits have argued that events in current American politics indicates a resurgence of red-baiting consistent with the 1950s. [8] The United States government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program were not only criticized as corporate welfare but red-baited as a "gateway to socialism". [32] [33] [34] [35] Political activist and author Tim Wise argued that the emergence of red-baiting may be motivated by racism towards President Barack Obama and fear that the progressive policies of his administration would erode white privilege in the United States. [8]

Some commentators argue that red-baiting was used by John McCain, Republican presidential nominee in the 2008 presidential election, when he argued that Obama's improvised comments on wealth redistribution to Joe the Plumber was a promotion of "socialism". [9] Journalist David Remnick, who wrote the biography The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, [36] countered that it should now be obvious that after one year in office Obama is a center-left president and the majority of his policies are in line with the center-left Democratic tradition. [37] In July 2011, The Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Barlett argued that an honest examination of the Obama presidency must conclude that he has in fact been a moderately conservative Democrat and that it may take twenty years before Obama's basic conservatism is widely accepted. [38] Similarly, author and columnist Chris Hedges argued that the Obama administration's policies are mostly right-wing. [9] [39]

In April 2009, Representative Spencer Bachus claimed that seventeen of his Congressional colleagues were socialists, but he would only name Senator Bernie Sanders, who has been openly describing himself as a democratic socialist for years. [40] Sanders countered that American conservatives blur the differences between democratic socialism and authoritarian socialism and between democracy and totalitarianism. He argued that the United States would benefit from a serious debate about comparing the quality of life for the middle class in the United States and in Nordic countries with a long social-democratic tradition. [41]

In May 2009, a number of conservative members of the Republican National Committee were pressing the committee and by extension chairman Michael Steele to officially adopt the position that the Democratic Party is "socialist". Over a dozen members of the conservative wing of the committee submitted a new resolution, to be eventually voted on by the entire committee, that would call on the Democratic Party to rename itself the Democrat Socialist Party. Had this resolution been adopted, the committee's official view would have been that Democrats are "socialists". [42] The resolution stated as follows:

RESOLVED, that we the members of the Republican National Committee call on the Democratic Party to be truthful and honest with the American people by acknowledging that they have evolved from a party of tax and spend to a party of tax and nationalize and, therefore, should agree to rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party. [43]

On Wednesday 20 May 2009, supporters of the resolution instead agreed to accept language urging Democrats to "stop pushing our country towards socialism and government control", ending a fight within the ranks of the Republican Party that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice such as the one expressed by the Tea Party movement. [44] Frank Llewellyn, national director of Democratic Socialists of America, argued that Republicans never really define what they mean by socialism and are simply engaging in the politics of fear. [45]

In July 2009, talk show host Glenn Beck began to devote what would become many episodes on his TV and radio shows, focusing on Van Jones, a special advisor in President Obama's White House Council on Environmental Quality. Beck was especially critical of Jones' previous involvement in radical protest movements and referred to him as a "communist-anarchist radical". [46] In September 2009, Jones resigned his position in the Obama administration after a number of his past statements became fodder for conservative critics and Republican officials. [46] Vrijeme credited Beck with leading conservatives' attack on Jones, [47] who characterized it as a "vicious smear campaign" and an effort to use "lies and distortions to distract and divide". [48]


How Hollywood Thrived Through the Red Scare

A young Richard Nixon started asking studio executives why they didn’t produce anti-Communist movies. The studios quickly responded with anti-Red films.

On December 2nd, 1954, Joseph McCarthy was censured by the U.S. Senate, a punishment for what many considered a reckless crusade against communists. McCarthy’s crusade had largely focused on the U.S. State Department and military, which he said were compromised by communist influence at the height of the Cold War. But the culture of suspicion he nurtured ended up targeting suspected communists in Hollywood as well.

According to historian Larry Ceplair, the attacks on Hollywood came in waves, the first of which was during the initial Red Scare of 1919, just two years after the success of the Russian Revolution. Then, in 1934, the Production Code Administration exerted pressure on productions that never saw the light of day because of alleged subversive content. For example, a production of Sinclair Lewis’ It Can’t Happen Here, about a fictional fascist takeover of the United States, was cancelled by MGM after its script was critiqued by the group.

When Stalin made an alliance with Hitler in 1939, the powers that be in Hollywood became more overtly anti-communist. Walt Disney prepared a campaign against communist agitators, but became sidetracked as American involvement in World War II began. As a young actor, Ronald Reagan was elected leader of the Screen Actors Guild on a platform of purging communist influence. Famously, in 1948, the “Hollywood 10” challenged a U.S. House committee. These writers, directors, and producers declined to answer whether they were communists. They were blacklisted, unable to land jobs in the movie industry.

As the Cold War began, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee descended on Hollywood with a young Republican congressman named Richard Nixon asking studio executives why they didn’t produce anti-Communist movies. The studios quickly responded with anti-Red films such as Iron Curtain (1948) and The Red Menace and I Married a Communist, both released in 1949. None did well at the box office.

Author Jon Lewis argues, however, that Hollywood’s response to the various Red Scares actually solidified the business. While the Red Scare created negative headlines for the short-term, the long-term results were actually favorable to the business side of the movie industry.

According to this view, the blacklist served more than an ideological purpose. Lewis writes that the U.S. House committee which investigated communists in Hollywood helped corporate interests, based in New York, assert power over the movies. He notes that committee members were openly suspicious of Jewish interests in Hollywood, ready to believe anti-Semitic arguments that Jews were hostile to mainstream American life.

The Red Scare and subsequent blacklist, according to Lewis, weakened the influence of two forces working against corporate influence over Hollywood. The old, mostly Jewish, entrepreneurs who dominated Hollywood in the 1930s began to fade as corporations dictated policies, echoing the way corporations began to dominate much of the rest of American economic life in the 1950s.

This assertion of corporate control successfully fended off the growth of unions which threatened profits. As the federal government grew more confident in Hollywood’s ability to fight the Red Menace, it allowed the movie industry to go its own way, waiving possible anti-monopoly actions and allowing the business to establish its own rating systems, fending off calls for government censorship of content.

Through it all, the patriotic American public continued to show up at the box office throughout the Cold War. McCarthy died in 1957, his memory largely disgraced by his overreach, and the seeking out of communists in the movie industry evaporated by the 1960s.


Republicans Resurrect The Red Menace

Republicans have decided not to craft an official party platform at their convention this week, so in lieu of a detailed agenda for the country, its top minds delivered a simple message on Monday night: The GOP is for Donald Trump, and Democrats are for socialism.

Fox News personality Kimberly Guilfoyle repeatedly decried the “socialists” running the Democratic Party, along with the “socialist Biden-Harris agenda,” which apparently would include shipping American jobs to China, welcoming sex traffickers across the Mexican border, the “policies that destroyed places like Cuba and Venezuela,” and, for good measure, “closed schools.”

“Their vision for America is socialism,” declared former Trump United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, adding that socialism is an experiment that “has failed everywhere.”

“They will turn our country into a socialist utopia,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) warned.

“President Trump is fighting against the forces of socialism,” intoned multimillionaire gasoline distributor Maximillian Alvarez.

This apocalyptic potpourri seems ludicrous to liberals and moderates who associate socialism with centrally planned economies, gulags and the Soviet Union. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are career moderates who have spent their time in public office defending the same neoliberal turn in economic policy that Republicans have pursued for the past 40 years, and they won their spots on the Democratic ticket by crushing their party’s progressive wing.

But to students of history, there is a certain paranoid logic to the latest Red Scare. Socialism is not, and never has been, a consistently defined economic program. It is a malleable political term whose meaning has been shaped through American history predominantly by its enemies, rather than the practitioners of any concrete doctrine. To the conservative economist Milton Friedman, progressive taxation was a socialist policy. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) once claimed that same-sex marriage was part of a socialist plan to attack “individual liberty” by extending government benefits to LGBTQ families.

Such Red Scare tactics were de rigueur during the Cold War, as they could be used to associate Stalinist butchery with whatever it was the right was upset about. Conservatives seeking to beat back the civil rights movement would rail that Marxists had infiltrated the NAACP, or attack Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a devotee of “socialism and sex perversion.”

The attempts to link socialism with efforts to dismantle American racial hierarchy go back much further than the Cold War, however. After World War I, hard-right members of both parties ranted against the supposed flood of “Judeo-Bolshevik” immigrants from Eastern Europe who planned to overthrow America. When white mobs besieged Black neighborhoods in several American cities in the summer of 1919, The New York Times and other news outlets portrayed the violence as a response to “widespread propaganda” from labor unions to convert Black families to socialism. “Reds Try To Stir Negroes To Revolt,” read a Times headline on July 28, 1919. Similar newspaper headlines accompanied strikes and other labor activism in the 19th century.

In American history, freakouts over “socialism” aren’t really about socialism. They’re about democracy ― and everything about democracy that makes American conservatives uncomfortable. Too many rights for the wrong people not enough social distance between the elite and the rabble.

And yet even on the hard right, the idea of America as a democratic beacon of hope to the world, founded on core democratic principles, is too deeply cherished for a conservative political party to openly declare itself an enemy of democracy. They need a different word. Frequently, they choose “socialism.”

In this light, “socialism” can be understood as any political movement or policy agenda that threatens the existing racial and economic order. And the right’s targets in this project have often been individuals and organizations who really were trying to bring radical change to that order.

The wave of immigration that swept into American cities in the early 20th century did include many people from eastern and southern Europe who brought their left-wing politics with them. The NAACP was not packed with Soviet spies, but it was founded by, among others, W.E.B. Du Bois and William Walling, who both identified as socialists. And while Martin Luther King wasn’t trying to convert the country to queerness, in 1952 he wrote to his future wife Coretta Scott that he was “more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic.”

Was the right’s objection to King really about the prospect of nationalized industry bringing an era of weak economic growth? Naravno da ne. Nor are Mark and Patty McCloskey afraid that Biden will take over Facebook and Comcast and destroy so many hard-earned dividends. The McCloskeys ― two wealthy lawyers who earned an invite as RNC speakers after being charged with a class E felony for threatening Black Lives Matter protesters with guns in June ― were quite explicit about their concerns. They’re afraid that wealthy white neighborhoods will be integrated with everyone else.

“They want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning,” Patty McCloskey told RNC viewers on Monday. “These are the policies that are coming to a neighborhood near you. So make no mistake: No matter where you live, your family will not be safe in the radical Democrats’ America.”

Monday night was not an aberration. Republicans will be screaming “socialism!” for the rest of the convention and the rest of the campaign.

In their own way, they mean it. Trump’s constant praise for dictators isn’t for show he’s serious about his authoritarianism. So long as he is running the GOP ― and so long as the GOP’s entire agenda is “elect Trump” ― the party’s chief organizing principle will remain its antipathy to democracy.

Zach Carter is the author of “The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes,” now available from Random House wherever books are sold.


The Red Scare: How Joseph McCarthy’s Anti-Communist Hysteria Left a Mark on the U.S.

During a 1950 speech to the Women’s Republican Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, Senator Joe McCarthy made a bold accusation: Communists, he said, waving a piece of paper in his hand, had infiltrated the U.S. State Department.

“I have here in my hand a list of 205 — a list of names that were made known to the secretary of state as being members of the Communist Party, and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department,” he said.

No one in the Republican Party had expected the speech to make headlines. Unaware of the content of McCarthy’s remarks, the party sent him to Wheeling as part of a nationwide celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, an assignment that signaled his lowly status. But that speech propelled him to fame as a central figure in the anti-communist movement that came to be known as “the Red Scare.”

Starting in the late 1940s, America became obsessed with rooting out Communists and Communist-sympathizers, using allegations that were often founded on tenuous evidence or outright lies. Deeply destructive, the Red Scare not only ruined lives and movements, but pushed the country deeper into an era of gossip, paranoia, and a struggle between national security and individual rights.

At the time of McCarthy’s speech, Americans felt especially threatened by the rising tide of communism amid the Cold War. Communist Russia had become a nuclear power and China had fallen under Communist rule. During this tense moment, McCarthy’s genius as a demagogue and manipulator shone through.

Autor knjige Demagogue: The Life and Long Shadow of Senator Joe McCarthy, Larry Tye, tells Tinejdžerski Vogue that the senator had a “whatever it takes” approach to politics, with an eye on attracting attention and maintaining power. As McCarthy&aposs personal secretary told historian David Brinkley, the senator was “insane with excitement” over the speech’s press coverage and he had lied about the number of State Department spies. McCarthy continued to change the number from as high as 205 to as low as 10. Nonetheless, the American public was captivated by the senator&aposs claims.

𠇊mericans were afraid that we were losing the worldwide battle with the Soviet Union, and Joe McCarthy gave us an easy way to think about that,” Tye says. "We didn&apost have to worry about going and confronting the Soviets all we had to do was confront their spies hiding throughout Washington.”

Though McCarthy’s fears about Communists were certainly exaggerated, it’s unclear just how much of a threat American Communists posed to the U.S. government. A small number of probable Soviet spies, like Alger Hiss, were uncovered during the Red Scare however, historian Ellen Schrecker tells Tinejdžerski Vogue that the 1930s were the heyday of American Communism, and by 1947 most spies had already been driven from the U.S. government. While American Communists were known as fierce progressive organizers, the party simultaneously maintained ties to Russia, even recruiting Soviet spies in the 1930s and &apos40s, according to Schrecker. 

But American Communists’ understanding of what was happening within the Soviet Union was often negligible at best. “They really had this bifurcated view of the world. In their day-to-day activities, they were out there on the front lines. They were doing good work,” Schrecker says. “So when the party said, &aposGo out on the streets and leaflet,’ they didn&apost like it, but they felt it was all for a good cause. So they smothered their doubts about things like the purge trials of the late 1930s in the Soviet Union.”

To say that McCarthy was the lone actor in perpetuating the anti-communist backlash oversimplifies this panic, which had support in all three branches of the U.S. government. At the legislative level, the McCarthy-chaired Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) held congressional hearings for people suspected of Communist allegiance. In the executive branch, President Harry Truman, whose administration had been accused of being “soft on communism,” established “loyalty boards” that evaluated and dismissed federal employees on “reasonable grounds for belief in disloyalty.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Red Scare policies, including a law that banned Communist teachers from New York public schools.

“If you identify [the Red Scare] with McCarthy, who was a blatantly erratic individual, you can say, &aposThis is something marginal, but the system was working and it all ended.&apos That wasn&apost the case,” Schrecker points out. “It was a phenomenon that dominated American politics, which mainstream liberal organizations — like universities, film studios, local governments — all participated in. It&aposs that collaboration that made it so powerful.”

Regardless of motive, the crackdown had the cumulative effect of strangling progressive activism. HUAC and McCarthy’s subcommittee hearings were notorious for their biased, undemocratic tone. The two committees coordinated with the FBI, which maintained files containing everything from suspects’ voter registration history to testimony from friends and employers. The attorney general also kept a special list of “subversive organizations,” including the National Negro Congress and School of Jewish Studies.

These hearings corralled their subjects in such a way that even remaining silent could be a crime. HUAC’s most famous case was the Hollywood Ten, a group of producers, directors and screenwriters called before the committee in 1947. After refusing to answer the committee&aposs questions, they were convicted of contempt of Congress, sentenced to prison, and blacklisted by Hollywood. Other defendants in the industry who pleaded their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination were also ostracized. If a defendant denied involvement in the Communist Party, the prosecution would bring in an FBI or ex-Communist witness who would insist the defendant was Communist, so they could claim the defendant had committed perjury.

To avoid jail and maintain their livelihoods, activists watered down their philosophies. The era had major effects on the civil and labor rights movements, forcing individuals to obscure their personal politics. 

One such case may have been that of Mary Keyserling, a feminist, labor, and civil rights activist who worked in the Department of Commerce. In 1948, Keyserling was brought before a loyalty board after, among other things, being accused of signing an “Open Letter to American Liberals,” which appeared in Soviet Russia Today in 1937. Despite being cleared of the charges, Keyserling’s case was reopened in 1951, after Truman broadened the grounds for dismissal. She was eventually cleared a second time, but left her job in 1953 and did not work in government again until 1964.

In an article about Keyserling, history professor Landon R.Y. Storrs notes that she was probably not a Communist, but her personal papers suggest occasional socialist leanings and Communist sympathies. After her hearings, Keyserling’s politics became less radical, which Storr believes was no coincidence.

“Thus did an enthusiastic Popular Front feminist of the 1930s become a Cold War liberal of the 1960s,” Storr writes. “It is conceivable that Keyserling’s ideological shift would have occurred without her loyalty investigation, but the timing points strongly to the influence of the accusations against her. The fact that we are left guessing is attributable to the loyalty investigation, since it led her to obscure her intellectual evolution.”

As this paranoia trickled from the top down to the American public, everyone from academics to dock workers faced scrutiny. According to Schrecker, an FBI agent only needed to go to the head of a college or university, hand them a list of a faculty member’s supposed Communist connections, and that professor could be fired or worse. For the more than five million federal workers who faced suspicion through loyalty screenings, being called a Communist had the power to turn them into pariahs, cutting off all pathways to employment. In the most extreme case, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage, were sentenced to the electric chair and paid with their lives.

The death knell of the Red Scare came when McCarthy accused the U.S. Army of harboring Communists, leading to a series of televised trials that exposed the public to his bullying tactics. Also, the Supreme Court began rolling back charges against individuals on procedural grounds. This, combined with the Army’s popularity as an institution, gave the public permission to question the intentions and rabidness of the anti-communist movement.

�ter you&aposre told so many times that there is a ‘red’ behind every government agency in Washington, and it seems to be disproven again during those hearings where it looked like McCarthy had a personal agenda rather than a national security agenda, I think that helped America start raising questions that it hadn&apost before about the legitimacy of the whole movement,” says Tye. “If you cry wolf enough times, people stop believing there&aposs a wolf or there&aposs a red out there.”

McCarthy was eventually censured by the Senate, and died in 1957 from health issues likely exacerbated by alcoholism. Yet anti-communist suspicion lingered. Into the 1960s, people continued to be prosecuted and sent to prison for being Communists even today, labels like “socialist” are bandied about by fear-baiting conservatives against liberal political figures. The U.S. is still susceptible to sacrificing democratic tenets under the guise of defending democracy. The Patriot Act, a law created after 9/11 that expanded the government’s ability to surveil American citizens, ostensibly to fight terrorism, turns 20 this fall.

For some historians, however, the most notable testament to the endurance of the McCarthy era is the senator&aposs resemblance to former-president Donald Trump. “I would have liked to have said we&aposve outgrown that in America. The last four years show that we haven&apost,” Tye says. 

“The good news is America has seen its better nature and seen through these bullies and liars," Tye continues. "The bad news is it&aposs not just a senator who can lead us on a goose chase it is even the president of the United States. So we&aposre willing to buy these simplistic solutions the same way we were with McCarthy.”


Gledaj video: Estonia and Latvia Fight For Independence - Russian Civil War Baltic Front I THE GREAT WAR June 1919