If you did read "Treason", I'm sure that you have researched "The Venona Papers."

It now appears that Senator McCarthy was correct in his assertions. This has been spelt out in detail in Ann Coulter's recent book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. (1) In describing attacks by liberals as "a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name", Coulter comments, (2)

"But after a half century of liberal mythmaking, it would be Judgement Day for liberals on July 11, 1995. On that day, the U.S. government released a cache of Soviet cables that had been decoded during the Cold War in a top-secret undertaking known as the Venona Project. The cables proved the overwhelming truth of McCarthy's charges. It was a mind-boggling discovery. Professors would be compelled to retract their theses about the extent of Soviet espionage. Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg, even American journalist I.F.Stone, were exposed as agents of Moscow. And yet, most people reading this book are hearing about the Venona Project for the very first time. The release of decrypted Soviet cables was barely mentioned by the New York Times. It might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of 'McCarthyism'. They were not so innocent after all, it turns out."

In fact, as Coulson notes, (9)

"McCarthy's contribution to 'McCarthyism' consisted exclusively of his investigation of loyalty risks working for the federal government. He was not even particularly interested in the Communists themselves. His targets were government officials charged with removing loyalty risks from sensitive public jobs. His campaign lasted only a few years, from 1950 to 1953, until liberals immobilised him in 1954 with their Army-McCarthy hearings and censure investigation. He conducted his investigations from the Senate Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations, the express mandate of which was--surprisingly enough--to investigate the federal government."

An example of improper attacks on McCarthy is found in the Annie Moss case. Annie Moss was a cleaner who worked in the Code Room at the Pentagon. Democrats defended her vigorously, although it later was learned that she was a member of the Communist Party. Democrat Senator Stuart Symington shielded her, mocking the case against her, but she was ultimately moved by her employer, the Army, away from the Code Room. Liberals thereafter attempted to use the Moss case to discredit McCarthy. In fact, the case was one of many in which government departments had acted rashly, employing in sensitive positions people who, in retrospect, can be clearly seen to have been Soviet agents.

Indeed, McCarthy set out strictly not to reveal publicly the names of those whom he was investigating. He stated that although he had enough evidence to convince himself that they were either members of the Communist Party or had given great aid to the Communists, he would not publish their names, since it was possible that some of them would eventually receive "a clean bill of health". (10) However it was the Democrat grouping in the Senate that compelled him to reveal the names. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Scott Lucas said, "I want to remain here until he [Senator McCarthy] names them." And so McCarthy was compelled against his wishes to name the persons in question. Then the Democrats and their liberal supporters used the fact of naming as the most odious aspect of what they chose to call McCarthyism. The naming and consequent loss of reputation (in fact, a loss that was almost invariably justified by the evidence) of a Soviet agent or communist was a consequence of the insistence of McCarthy's liberal detractors. (These detractors included, incidentally, Arthur Schlesinger. Schlesinger bitterly denounced those who stated that Richard Duggan was a spy, until finally in addition to other overwhelming evidence to this effect, the Venona decrypts provided further corroboration that not even he could ignore.)

Accordingly the essential question about Senator McCarthy is, was he substantially correct in his statements?

The Venona Project and the subsequent release of information from Russia indicate that in fact Senator McCarthy's statements were substantially correct, and that his liberal critics were substantially wrong. It appears also that there was an organised campaign against him, in which many senior Democrats who ought to have known better unfortunately joined.

There is hence reason to be more optimistic on this subject than Coulter allows. In regard to Senator McCarthy we have only recently seen the public release of facts that support his statements. In view of the accumulated prejudice of fifty years, it could hardly be expected that liberals would at once cede their position. But as that position receives critical examination, and is seen to be defective, there will doubtless be a gradual change. Those in the centre will be the first to acknowledge errors of assessment, and intransigence will increase as one moves further to the left. But facts are facts.

Senator McCarthy was evidently moved by patriotic considerations. He saw himself as defending America. Of course good motives would not excuse a misguided approach. But the Venona Project and Soviet archives indicate that Senator McCarthy was, as a matter of fact, substantially correct. He should be now defended by persons with honest intentions, although this will, in the short term, attract criticism from liberals and from the uninformed.

As for your supplication, It's a deal!

Very well stated.

I wonder though, are authoritarian personalities looking for the voice of truth, or the voice of simplicity (simplistic thinking) in a non-simple world?