Red Scare Yesteryear and Today (Part 1)
Parallels between McCarthyism and the collectivist narrative of today
As you know, very recently the secretary of state proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of all crimes — of being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust. The secretary of state, in attempting to justify his continued devotion to the man who sold out the Christian world to the atheistic world, referred to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount as a justification and reason therefore, and the reaction of the American people to this would have made the heart of Abraham Lincoln happy. When this pompous diplomat in ugly pants, with a phony British accent, proclaimed to the American people that Christ on the Mount endorsed communism, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred trust, the blasphemy was so great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the American people.
Joseph McCarthy, speech in Wheeling, West Virginia (February 9, 1950)
Words 2,461 | Read Time 12 min | Enjoy
Foreword
In the annals of American history, few periods evoke as much controversy and reflection as the McCarthy era. The fervent anti-communism crusade led by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s cast a long shadow over the nation, instilling fear, stifling dissent, and branding certain Americans as unpatriotic or treasonous for their political beliefs or associations. This chapter of history, often referred to as the Red Scare, serves as a stark reminder of the dangers inherent in allowing paranoia and ideological rigidity to override civil liberties and rational discourse.
Fast forward to the “New Red Scare” of today, and we grapple with a different yet disturbingly familiar phenomenon. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has stirred passionate debate and deep divisions within the United States and beyond. In this charged atmosphere, questioning the prevailing narrative around the Ukraine war can result in swift condemnation and accusations of disloyalty, eerily reminiscent of the tactics used to silence dissenters in the 1950s. This tactic applies even more so to the collectivists (e.g., blue donkey) who attack the New Reds (e.g., red elephant) for simply questioning the overarching nasty narratives of today.
This two-part essay, Red Scare of Yesteryear and Today: Parallels between McCarthyism and the collectivist narrative of today, embarks on a comparative exploration of these two periods of intense political scrutiny and societal pressure. By examining the similarities in rhetoric, tactics, and consequences, this work aims to highlight the cyclical nature of history and the importance of safeguarding freedom of expression, especially in times of national and international crisis.
Through careful analysis, this two-part essay seeks to illuminate how the fear of perceived enemies—whether communists in the mid-20th Century, Russians (i.e., Ukraine war), or right-wing domestic terrorists—can lead to the erosion of democratic principles and the marginalization of diverse viewpoints. It underscores the need for vigilance in protecting the rights of individuals to question and debate without fear of retribution or ostracism.
As we navigate the complexities of modern geopolitics and the narratives that shape public perception, this reflection on the parallels between the Red Scare (1950s) and the “New Red Scare” (today) is a crucial reminder. It calls on us to learn from the past, foster an environment where critical inquiry is tolerated and encouraged, and resist the temptation to suppress dissent in the name of “national security.” Recall how often we hear about the so-called “right-wing domestic terrorist” nexus but we get the sound of crickets concerning other odious ideologies. Only through honesty can we truly honor the ideals that form the bedrock of our society.
Introduction (Part One)
Part one looks through the lens of the heroic people who proved McCarthy was correct in his concern about Communism in the United States. However, as we shall analyze in Part 2, we must be honest and understand that some excesses occurred during the Red Scare of the early 50s. That underscores the hypocrisy of those who clamor about the McCarthy era’s excesses but disregard today’s atrocities. Specifically, the ignorance (or delight) of the plight of those who have perished, exist in horrific prison settings, or lost jobs for resisting the collectivist blue narrative of today.
Red Scare Heros of the 1950s
Elia Kazan (1909–2003) was born in Constantinople (now Istanbul). Kazan and his Greek parents came to the United States and settled in New York City in 1913. Kazan’s father, George Kazanjoglous, worked as a rug merchant and expected his son to follow him. However, Kazan’s mother, Athena, encouraged her son to make his own decisions.
Kazan attended public schools in the New York City area and graduated from Williams College in Massachusetts. After that, he studied drama at Yale. In the 1930s, Kazan took part in New York’s Group Theater, and it was during this acting stint, he worked with well-known actor Lee Strasberg. In 1935, Kazan directed his first stage production, and by the 1940s, he became one of the great Broadway actors/producers. Kazan also was one of the founders of the “Actor’s Studio” in 1947. The more notable achievements were his direction of the plays A Streetcar Named Desire (1947) by Tennessee Williams and “Death of a Salesman” (1948) by Arthur Miller. After Streetcar Named Desire, Kazan also developed William’s scripts. In 1955, William felt that Kazan had taken over his authority as the Cat on a Hot Tin Roof writer.
Kazan also started to work on films during this period, and his first feature film was A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945). In 1947, he won the Academy Award for the film Gentleman’s Agreement, in which Gregory Peck portrayed a reporter investigating Anti-Semitism. Kazan worked with Marlon Brando during the Broadway production of A Streetcar Named Desire. In 1951, the movie adaptation starred Kim Hunter and Karl Malden. Brando said:
Kazan is the best actor’s director you could ever want… because he was an actor himself, but a special kind of actor. He understands things that other directors do not. He also inspired you. Most actors are expected to come with their parts in their pockets and their emotions spring-loaded, when the director says, ‘Okay, hit it,’ they go into a time-slip. But Kazan brought a lot of things to the actor and he invited you to argue with him. He is one of the few directors creative and understanding enough to know where the actor's trying to go. He’d let you play a scene almost any way you’d want.1
Brando’s key roles in VIVA ZAPATA! (1952) and On the Waterfront (1954) won him eight Oscars. Budd Schulberg’s account of corruption in NYC harbor unions was the basis of On the Waterfront. Schulberg knew his subject as he testified as a friendly witness before a Congressional committee looking into the corruption of longshoremen. In this film, there are depictions of conflicting loyalties that parallel Kazan’s own life.
On April 10, 1952, Kazan testified at the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) hearings and admitted past membership in the Communist Party. It was there that he committed the secular sin that certain people have never forgotten — he named others in his former secret Communist group. Kazan not only admitted to being a Communist member for 18 months (1934-36) but named eight people who had been in the party with him. He did not denounce them, as some newspapers erroneously reported. The unreported truth: Kazan felt they joined for the same reasons he did: anger against Hitler and sympathy for people with low incomes. Just two days after his appearance, Kazan placed an ad in the New York Times urging others who knew about this “dangerous and alien conspiracy” to inform the public or “the appropriate government agency.” Many were ballistic, as they could not stand such “betrayal” from one of their own.
Other former party members had appeared before the HCUA and spoke of ex-comrades. However, the media focused on and vilified Kazan to the hilt because he was the most well-known former Communist from the entertainment industry to have cooperated with the HCUA. As an indirect insult to the media, Kazan became even more anti-Communist. While he was initially reluctant, he thought that cooperating with HCUA was a justifiable position because of the menace that Communism posed to world stability. He also supplied information on how key Communist leaders would show his Red Cell how to assist the party’s front organizations and make Group Theatre a Communist organ. Other leftist publications, including The Nation (still an open socialist rag) and the New York Post (then a far-left newspaper), went after Kazan. Playwright Arthur Miller (his longtime friend and collaborator) and Stalinist/writer Lillian Hellman joined in the assault. Even today, legacy media will portray the “Kazan affair” as an illustration of “McCarthyism” but never mention the salient facts. The most outstanding item to consider is that HCUA was a project of the House of Representatives; McCarthy was a senator.
Even today, people will invoke the “terror” of the “blacklist.” Kazan’s exposure that peeled open the Communist infiltration was the reason for the blacklist. The list would have occurred even without Kazan’s exposure. On their own, after the HCUA hearings, Hollywood executives felt compelled to deny jobs to about three hundred Communists in Hollywood. About 150 more people faced job denials on television and radio.2 Nevertheless, the reporters who do not know history will spout off that “thousands” of people (Communist or not) had their careers ruined because of Kazan and others such as McCarthy. The media failed to report the correct numbers (as supplied above). Furthermore, a number of those blacklisted could continue to work under assumed names. The above illustrates why the McCarthyism mantra continues to this day — people are unaware of the facts at best, or at worst, they are in sympathy with Communism.
Just two years after his testimony, Kazan directed “On the Water Front,” which he considered an allegory about his life. The brave Budd Schulberg, who also turned against Communism in 1951, wrote the script. This work by these two brave former Communists inspired the public and Hollywood. Kazan forged ahead to produce many more wholesome movies. Other well-known actors who starred in his movies included Montgomery Cliff, Lee Remick, Natalie Wood, Warren Beatty, and Kirk Douglas. In the 1970s, Kazan devoted more of his time to writing. In his autobiography Elia Kazan: A Life, he wrote:
No one who did what I did, whatever his reasons, came out of it undamaged… I did not. Here I am, thirty-five years later, still worrying over it. I knew what it would cost me. Do I now feel ashamed of what I did? ... The truth is that within a year I’d stopped feeling guilty or even embarrassed about what I’d done...
The measure of the success of Communist infiltration in Hollywood is the virtually total absence of movies that chronicle the primary drama of the last Century: the struggle for freedom against totalitarian Communism. There are just a few examples, with one notable, the motion picture Dr. Zhivago. Nevertheless, not one Hollywood film has ever depicted the horrors of the Soviet-induced famine in Ukraine, the Gulags, the Moscow show trials, or the Hungarian uprising against the Soviet military. For the cogent-thinking reader, this sure proves a salient point.
In 1983, Kazan was honored with a Life Achievement award at a Kennedy Center ceremony. In 1999, he received an Honorary Oscar, and your author can clearly remember the television footage showing Warren Beatty applauding while Nick Nolte remained seated with his arms folded in his lap. This award was partly due to the persistent lobbying by Karl Malden and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (sponsor of the Oscar night). Sad to say, the announcement of this event gave birth to some bitter protests, and right on cue, legacy media made much of Kazan’s supposed “betrayal” of old friends.
In 1932, Kazan married playwright Molly Day Thatcher and had four children. She passed away in 1963. In 1967, he married the actress/writer Barbara Loden, who passed away in 1980. In 1982, Kazan married Frances Rudge.
On September 28, 2003, Elia Kazan passed away in his Manhattan home. Legacy media gave just a fleeting mention of the passing of this wonderful 94-year-old man. Films directed by Kazan garnered 22 Academy Awards, 62 nominations, and two Directing Oscars. Kazan had a liberal worldview but would be “moderate” by today’s standards. He gave us wonderful memories of the once-upon-a-time decent entertainment industry.
Other notables who exposed the real Communist threat during the 1940s included Bella V. Dodd and Whittaker Chambers.
School of Darkness & Salvation
Wonderful Whittaker Chambers
Stay tuned for Part 2, where we will explore the abuses of “Yesteryear and Today.” 📕
I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!
The “Hollywood Ten” were on this “list.” These were the unfriendly Communist witnesses who refused to cooperate with HCUA. While it is not illegal to be a member of the Communist Party, each of the Hollywood Ten served time for contempt of Congress.
As usual, another piece of our history the left has lied about. Thanks for stating the facts Frederick.
Good stuff here