7 of 13 people found the following review helpful
WHAT THE MANGY DOGS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!,
In a very recent e-mail to an Ammyland friend (Aaron of Davis, California - this website's funniest reviewer in my humble, expert opinion) I recommended McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES: The Record And Its Meaning by William F. Buckley Jr. and L. Brent Bozell. Then I added: "I should post a review of Buckley's book on Ammyland, too, one of these days. But I'm always thinking: Who's gonna read it now? Old out-of-print book about a subject that everyone thinks is dead and decided." But the fact is that recently I DID submit a review for Roy Cohn's excellent book, McCARTHY, and I got to thinking: If I don't inform the public about these outstanding old books that sort out the myths and the lies of the liberal spinmeisters from the truth and the hidden history, who will? Should I wait for Al Franken, Al Gore, or Alan Colmes to do it? It seems al be waiting a very long time if I do!
Along with Cohn's aforementioned title, it was the extraordinarily well-docmented information in McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES that transformed me years ago from being just another sheep in the flock of American Sheeple (who assume that the broadly used but seldom understood pejorative catchword "McCarthyism" stands for some injurious black mark on the American psyche) into a well-informed but heartbroken fan of the most unfairly maligned and tragically heroic character in our country's history. Heartbroken? As I said to a different Pal not long ago in referring to my Ammyland review of the movie Good Night, And Good Luck: "When it comes to Senator McCarthy, my heart is in a perpetually broken state. I loathe what the powers did to him and his good name. ... It is a national disgrace that the American people don't know the true McCarthy story and have instead been brainwashed (quite literally) into believing that he was some kind of evil and menace to American society and American principles. He was a flawed hero, but far more heroic than flawed!"
Before using the term "McCarthyism" (or allowing someone else to use it in your presence) you owe it to yourself to get acquainted with the facts of the case. Would you pronounce a man guilty of a crime before hearing the evidence? McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES will provide you with the information necessary to render a judgment either for or against the infamous Senator from Wisconsin. The book is meticulously researched and flawlessly organized, and to the best of my knowledge, remains the most comprehensive examination of McCarthy's part in the so-called "Red Scare" that is bound between covers. (This may change with M. Stanton Evans' forthcoming promised magnum opus, BLACKLISTED BY HISTORY: The Real Story Of Joseph McCarthy And His Fight Against America's Enemies. I can't wait to get my nasty, politically incorrect hands on a copy!)
Buckley and Bozell have herein addressed nearly every one of the oft repeated liberal complaints against McCarthy: unsubstantiated accusations; "smearing" innocent people; publicizing his charges; hiding behind Congressional immunity; impugning the loyalty of his critics; and even the assertion that "McCarthyism" represented some rogue "Reign of Terror" to enforce a strict conformity upon the country.
The authors make a concerted effort to bend over backwards in making the most of the liberal positions (e.g., in Appendix D, they state: "We have selected those of McCarthy's characterizations that are the most derogatory, thus those that make out the strongest case for a charge that he is a reckless smearer.") While this approach leads Buckley and Bozell to give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-McCarthyites in an instance here and an instance there (where I would not necessarily concur), I'll state unhesitatingly that they chose the right tactic, as this invalidates the predictable b*tching from the Leftists that McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES is a mere unfounded polemic.
Did you know that the derisive epithet "McCARTHYISM" was coined by a man later found by the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security to be "a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy"? [pg. 62] (Something you might want to consider before using it yourself or affixing too much value to it when you see it in print.) Did you know that McCarthy was once blamed by a New York Rabbi for "undergarment raids" committed by college men in women's dormitories? [pg. 308] (Give those Libs credit for fantastic imaginations that nearly match their inability to process facts and reach "reasonable" conclusions.) Did you know that McCarthy made public only 9 of the 110 security risks he named before the Tydings Committee (and only because his opposition, for all intents and purposes, pressured him into it), and that during his "Reign of Terror", the Grand Inquisitor of the 20th Century publicly accused only 46 persons of questionable loyalty or reliability? [pg. 273] According to the authors, "With the two exceptions of Drew Pearson and George Marshall, not a single person was accused by McCarthy whose loyalty could not be questioned on the basis of a most responsible reading of official records." [pg. 277]
I, however, do not agree with Buckley on every point: On page 313 he writes, "Impulsively, and absurdly, McCarthy denounced government sponsorship of books which follow the Communist party line." I would suggest you wait to read Roy Cohn's account of this episode in McCARTHY before assuming the Wisconsin Senator's stance was "absurd."
In chapter XII, Buckley over intellectualizes and renders unnecessarily convoluted the arriving at an acceptable definition of a "loyalty risk." The plain truth of the matter is that the USA was designed as a Constitutional Republic, and the Constitution proclaims itself to be "the supreme law of the land." (Article VI) Our elected leaders are sworn to uphold and protect our Constitution, and therefore, anyone who undermines, or enables another individual to undermine, the clear intent of the Constitution (and it IS clear; only judicial activists - usually Socialists - muddy its meaning) and/or our constitutional republican form of government is a "loyalty risk."
And in Appendix F, Buckley explains why he believes that McCarthy deserved to be criticized for his imputation of treasonable motives to George Marshall's policies regarding China. While Buckley concedes that Marshall probably deserves the title of "America's most disastrous general", he is willing to attribute his inordinate number of major foreign policy blunders (17) to "irrationality." And yet, in citing Dorothy Kenyon's involvement with 28 Communist front organizations, Buckley infers that her loyalty status was at least suspect. Sorry, Buckley Boy, but you can't have it both ways. I tend to agree with McCarthy: "If Marshall were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve his country's interest."
Nevertheless, McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES is profound; a remarkably well-researched and revealing study to which I give my highest recommendation. Roy Cohn's McCARTHY might be a better starting point for the neophyte student of "McCarthyism" as it is more personal and therefore more accessible. This book, being primarily a recitation of cold, hard evidence, may seem a bit "dry" to the uninitiated, but once your interest in the subject is whetted, I'm sure you'll devour every fascinating fact with the same relish that I did. (For a brief but accurate overview of the subject, put JOSEPH McCARTHY into the search window at THENEWAMERICAN I-net site and read, "The Real McCarthy Record" by James J. Drummey.)
"McCARTHYISM": Socialistic propaganda or a scandalous period on a formerly great country's record? Examine the evidence for yourself and render your verdict. While the uninformed may think that this is all just ancient history, I tell you this: The threat is NOT dead, only the vilified Wisconsin Senator is.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 15, 2008 10:39:07 PM PDT
Excellent review sir, and now that the book you mentioned "Blacklisted By History" By Evans is out which would you recommend a nave should read first?
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2008 9:34:57 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 28, 2008 1:54:48 PM PDT]
‹ Previous 1 Next ›