McCarthy and His Enemies; The Record and Its Meaning

by William F. Buckley Jr., L. Brent Bozell, William Schlamm (Foreword)

An objective study of the record and purpose of the controversial Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Genres: History, Politics, Biography

425 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1954

About the author

William Frank Buckley, Jr. was an American author and conservative commentator. He founded the political magazine National Review in 1955, hosted 1,429 episodes of the television show Firing Line from 1966 until 1999, and was a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist. His writing style was famed for its erudition, wit, and use of uncommon words.

Buckley was "arguably the most important public intellectual in the United States in the past half century," according to George H. Nash, a historian of the modern American conservative movement. "For an entire generation he was the preeminent voice of American conservatism and its first great ecumenical figure." Buckley's primary intellectual achievement was to fuse traditional American political conservatism with economic libertarianism and anti-communism, laying the groundwork for the modern American conservatism of US Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and US President Ronald Reagan.

Buckley came on the public scene with his critical book God and Man at Yale (1951); among over fifty further books on writing, speaking, history, politics and sailing, were a series of novels featuring CIA agent Blackford Oakes. Buckley referred to himself "on and off" as either libertarian or conservative. He resided in New York City and Stamford, Connecticut, and often signed his name as "WFB." He was a practicing Catholic, regularly attending the traditional Latin Mass in Connecticut.

Reviews

[ProfX · Rating 5 out of 5]

I give this book five stars because it's one of the only times I've seen this topic discussed dispassionately. It defends McCarthy where the record backs him up, and is quick to criticize him where he oversteps or fibs. This book is NOT simply "a defense of Joe McCarthy." It is much more an attack on the Tydings Committee, which Buckley illustrates clearly was just as, if not more, unfair and untruthful as the man they set out to crucify ever was. Knowing that McCarthy got much worse after the committee hearings leads me personally to conclude that McCarthy's frustration with them contributed to his angry state of mind which hurt his cause more than it helped it.

It's fine if you ultimately disagree with some of Buckley's conclusions, especially given the time of the book's writing (some of McCarthy's worst excesses came later), but it's a fair and well written book. If you are interested in the topic I found this book far more informative and impartial than any coverage I've seen in any class room (the worst place to learn about people like McCarthy, in my experience).

[Edward]

“Yet in reading their book of more than 400 pages, I discovered something very different than what I’d expected to find.

Buckley and Bozell were writing at a time when McCarthy’s public activities were well known to all of their informed readers, and they were both young intellectuals still in their late twenties, so any attempt to completely conceal the unpleasant facts would have failed and also would have severely damaged their future credibility. Therefore, their candid appraisal seemed just as fair and even-handed as they claimed it would be. And the story they told was absolutely devastating to the reputation of their subject.

In dozens of different cases, they fully admitted that McCarthy’s public accusations were wildly exaggerated and unfair, so much so that these clearly amounted to lies.”
-Ron Unz, “McCarthyism Part I”

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

History repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

p303: "Harry Truman lacked the suavity of his predecessor; but clearly, he had no intention of deserting Roosevelt's basic formula, i.e., that of persuading the people that their choice was not between two mildly different political parties, but between unscrupulous highwaymen and selfless public servants. ... On October 30, in a final blast, Mr. Truman warned the country, 'Powerful forces, like those that created European Fascists, are working through the Republican Party [to] undermine ... American democracy.'"

p309: "Those of us who have not felt the Reign of Terror are warned not to take the threat lightly. The professional mourners at the wake of American freedom are unimpressed, in fact angered, by consolations, especially of the empirical sort. They appear to resent any distractions from their gloomy introspections."

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

A sympathetic but fairly critical look at the McCarthy era, written right after it happened in 1954. The book mainly deals with the state department security policies of the 1940s and then McCarthy’s public cases. The authors conclude that security risk and reasonable doubt are the appropriate standards for national security employment which is a “privilege not a right.” The standard of loyalty is too subjective and reasonable grounds too akin to a criminal proceeding. The proper criterion is whether an individual’s employment furthers the interests of the United States as defined by law rather than one’s intentions. Under these standards almost all of McCarthy’s targets either pursued or promoted policy at odds with US national security interests or associated with those who did or potentially would. Those let go as security risks ought not to be defamed in public but treated the same as others let go who in some way did not further US interests in their employment and free to seek employment elsewhere. This is pretty neutral fair criteria in my opinion. McCarthy despite his reputation and reckless behavior recounted in the book did not conduct a witch-hunt (he even wanted the Tidings committee to be a private executive session) but sought to bring greater attention to the issue often from known information to get greater transparency from the executive branch who would then decide whether these individuals ought to be let go which did happen.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read that gives a different perspective on the events of the early 1950's. One negative is that this version, published in the late '60's is just the original and not updated. The book, while a defense of McCarthy also brings out his weaknesses and errors and an attempt is made for balance. McCarthy comes off as occasionally brash and irresponsible, prone to bouts of hyperbole. Indeed, in the decades that followed, few of the names McCarthy listed, were ever confirmed to be active communist agents or working for the KGB. The authors make a more nuanced argument that even if not active communist, many of these names were associated with communist organizations in the past, perhaps unwittingly, and were therefore security risks. Buckley and Bozell contention is that, while associating with communist was not a crime, it clearly was a security risk and that the agencies (in particular the State Department) were negligent in performing background checks. The fact is since communism, by its own definition, requires a revolution and is globalist in its approach, hiring communists to represent the US were a security risk. The Tydings Commision, and the State Department, as well as liberal journalists, seemed to spend more effort on discrediting McCarthy rather than investigate possible communist influence. This book probably will not change many minds but may at least moderate some of your beliefs. I probably would be more negatively inclined to McCarthy if I did not remember hearing about the Rosenburg's when I was a kid and how they were innocent victim's of a witch hunt. I remember hearing their children protest their parents' innocents and unjust execution. Years later it was confirmed that the Rosenburg's had indeed passed on secrets to the USSR. Their kids now said, yes, they did give away secrets, but they were still victims of a witch hunt. I remember thinking one hearing the kids response- never trust what a communist says. They will never change their story even when confronted with facts.

[Frederick]

A very early entry in the William F. Buckley catalogue, this was a defense of Joe McCarthy. Buckley certainly came out from under his own illusions with a clear head and a clear conscience, but I wonder why so many conservatives settled for McCarthy as a mouthpiece when there were upright people who could, indeed, show that the Soviets had plants in positions of power in the United States. With the stakes as high as they were in the Cold War, why did so many influential politicos stand for McCarthy's divisiveness?
An obvious answer, which is one I reject, is that the left's divisiveness called for McCarthy's divisiveness. Machiavelli would probably say that McCarthy's divisiveness was flawed because it was visible. But, Machiavelli gave his name to a very dark brand of politics, a brand Joseph McCarthy adopted in a clumsy fashion.
It can never hurt to remind ourselves that McCarthy was callow.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

A rebuttal of accusations against Joseph McCarthy on his role in the Tyding committee. Sometimes it drags a bit, but has some interesting information.