After becoming the leading cause of victory in World War II, patriotism in the United States was at an all-time high. But a huge cause of concern at the time was the political enigma that was the USSR. The unfamiliarity of “communism” and negative preconception from the first Red Scare fueled by the fear that it may attack the patriotic high ironically led to undemocratic policies that threatened activism and progress. The mid-20th century “Red Scare” was used as a means to vindicate a series of unethical subversions of constitutional rights of various activist groups to push the right-wing agenda resulting in a generation-worth of set-backs in progressive reforms.
The most memorable element of the second Red Scare is the infamous policy known as “McCarthyism.” The reason that the public bought into the policy was that the classless society that Marx preached seemed eerily similar to Hitler’s “one-race” ideology – which they all just fought a war tooth and nail stop – to the undiscerning eyes at the time. But the fear of this unknown “communism,” also stemming from the original Red Scare, resulted in the rise of McCarthyism, a federally-condoned method of debasing fundamental – literally penned – constitutional rights of suspects under the guise of patriotism utilizing public fear and abusing federal office. This policy only thrived because of the fear it instilled in the public which in turn fed into the policy which gave people in power even more power causing a cycle of fear, panic, and agitation on all parties that tore into the very fabric of our society, something only is commonly seen with fascist regimes. It essentially undermined the basic democratic-republic structure of our society and would have torn it apart if it were not for the checks and balances and other measures in place.
But the fear of the Soviets was not only cultivated through an American echo-chamber of anti-communist themes, but some of it was also based on Stalin’s ruthless techniques to stay in power resulting in the death and starvation of millions. Generalizing communist policies based these facts only seemed to further embed communist sympathizers as the enemy. The communist party in America (CPUSA) was targeted by various government institutions in order to “contain the threat.” Once established as the “others,” objectifying the communists as “threats” and “the enemy” made it easier to excuse the government stripping them of their rights. This is similar to what happened to the Japanese and Japanese-Americans after the bombing of Peral Harbor. Since they were established as the enemy and objectified through government propaganda, the US government got away with stripping away their rights with little to no resistance. While unethical, at least Japanese internment was only limited to just the Japanese. With communists, no one knew who or what exactly is a communist only a few of the things they have in common, and with the threat of Soviet spies, it became easier to dismiss your friends and neighbors.
Even if we ignore the rampant disregard of the humanity of “enemy”-sympathizers, the truly unethical aspect in the practice of McCarthyism was how blatantly abused it was against any criticizers of those in power or their actions in perusing their agenda. Those in power at the time used the murky definition of communist to accuse those who opposed their agenda. The most notable example of this is the subjugation labor unions like the Teachers Union (TU). Many members of the TU “campaigned vigorously for better pay and working conditions… [and] also fought against the unequal conditions for black and Puerto Rican children” who were often crowded into inferior public schools while the Board of Education “concentrated resources in largely white middle-class neighborhoods” (Jaffe 196). This unfair distribution of resources based on income and race serves to only further the class divisions as the policies at the time were set to oppose the so-called “classless” society of the Soviets. However, the teachers speaking out against this were eventually called into question of propagating communism and indoctrinating it into the impressionable minds of young children. While it is true many members of the TU were also CPUSA cardholders, the “enemy” and “other” objectification of communists and the generalization of Stalin’s policy prevented them from getting any massive public support. This led to many teachers being convicted and imprisoned, many of whom were the ones actively fighting the unfair distribution of resources across schools.
With the fear of wrongful imprisonment for speaking out began to settle in the minds of the upcoming generation, it led to a severe decline in activism even after McCarthy’s policy was finished. There were very few progressive reforms that were pushed through at the time. One of the most famous ones being the breaking of the color barrier by Jackie Robinson (Binder 217). However, it is important to note other “opportunities opened very slowly” for other minority groups, and this is largely in part of McCarthyism (Binder 218). But as the heat began to diminish, activists rose up again resulting in monumental breakthroughs for our society regarding segregation and feminism, some even orchestrated by the TU like “Brown vs. Board of Ed.” But it then begs the question, would these reforms have come sooner if it weren’t for McCarthy’s strict policies? If so, how far would we have come today then?
-PR
