McCarthy/McCain: The Lattimore Connection
Owen Lattimore was one of America's best-respected scholars of east
Asian civilization. For more than a decade he directed the Walter Hines
Page School of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University; for
years he sat on the board of the Institute of Pacific Relations and
edited its journal, Pacific Affairs.
He was dispatched by Presidents to collaborate with allies and advise
foreign heads of state. He was a liberal technocrat disposed to
embracing controversial points of view.
In all this the arc of Lattimore's life traces a similar line to Rashid Khalidi's.
Both are the kind of men reviled by many on the right -- refined in taste, scholarly in habit, esoteric in thought, internationalist in point of view. In Lattimore's day they were called 'pin-stripe men' by their detractors; today it's 'liberal elitists'. Both Lattimore and Khalidi attracted the scorn of self-proclaimed patriots because of their foreign sympathies: Khalidi for his support of Palestinians, Lattimore for his tolerance of Chinese communists. Both were murkily associated in conservative minds with ostensible traitors selling out American interests abroad, leaving Israel vulnerable to hostile neighbors or allowing China to fall into Mao's hands. Both were accused of conspiring with the forces that seemed to pose the greatest existential threat to America at the time, terrorism and communism. Both men were subject to angry denunciations by writers at the National Review.
Both now share something else in common: their names and reputations have been publicly dragged through the mud by unscrupulous politicians looking to advance their careers. John McCain and his campaign underlings are accusing Dr. Khalidi of anti-Semitism and trying to link him with Arab terrorists. Dr. Lattimore's accuser called him the 'top Soviet agent' and dragged him before Congress to testify.
The ambitious Senator who called Lattimore a spy was a previously little-known freshman from Wisconsin named Joseph Raymond McCarthy. Lattimore was his first high-profile victim. It was McCarthy's accusations against Lattimore that prompted Herbert Block to coin the term 'McCarthyism'.
Fifty-odd years later the term is used pretty liberally and usually incorrectly. What is happening today is literally its definition.
It is to these depths that Senator McCain has sunk.
If you think this post was valuable, please click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
In all this the arc of Lattimore's life traces a similar line to Rashid Khalidi's.
Both are the kind of men reviled by many on the right -- refined in taste, scholarly in habit, esoteric in thought, internationalist in point of view. In Lattimore's day they were called 'pin-stripe men' by their detractors; today it's 'liberal elitists'. Both Lattimore and Khalidi attracted the scorn of self-proclaimed patriots because of their foreign sympathies: Khalidi for his support of Palestinians, Lattimore for his tolerance of Chinese communists. Both were murkily associated in conservative minds with ostensible traitors selling out American interests abroad, leaving Israel vulnerable to hostile neighbors or allowing China to fall into Mao's hands. Both were accused of conspiring with the forces that seemed to pose the greatest existential threat to America at the time, terrorism and communism. Both men were subject to angry denunciations by writers at the National Review.
Both now share something else in common: their names and reputations have been publicly dragged through the mud by unscrupulous politicians looking to advance their careers. John McCain and his campaign underlings are accusing Dr. Khalidi of anti-Semitism and trying to link him with Arab terrorists. Dr. Lattimore's accuser called him the 'top Soviet agent' and dragged him before Congress to testify.
The ambitious Senator who called Lattimore a spy was a previously little-known freshman from Wisconsin named Joseph Raymond McCarthy. Lattimore was his first high-profile victim. It was McCarthy's accusations against Lattimore that prompted Herbert Block to coin the term 'McCarthyism'.
Fifty-odd years later the term is used pretty liberally and usually incorrectly. What is happening today is literally its definition.
It is to these depths that Senator McCain has sunk.
If you think this post was valuable, please click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
Advertisement
Excellent post. Thanks!
October 30, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to TPM, Matthew. This seems to be but the latest in a string of thoughtful posts - it's nice to have a voice like yours in the mix.
I would raise a small objection to your analogy, though. Lattimore was part-and-parcel of the American foreign policy establishment. The biggest problem he encountered was that power shifted and the world changed; views that had been unremarkable among his cohort in one decade suddenly became grist for aspiring demagogues in the next.
Khalidi, in a variety of respects, followed a different trajectory. He has been a part of the intellectual and academic establishment all of his life, but his views have always left him estranged from the formal foreign policy establishment. Where Lattimore found the world drifting away from him, Khalidi has found it drifting toward him - Palestinian nationalism is a far more mainstream cause today than it was at the start of his career, and his early associations look less radical. Khalidi has invited controversy, self-consciously sought to use his scholarship to advance a cause that has not always been popular, and generally courted attention. Lattimore, on the other hand, was mortified to find himself a figure of controversy.
Let me add that I'm no fan of Khalidi's - I've found his scholarship somewhat slapdash and dislike both his politics and his manner of expressing them. But he's no terrorist, and he's certainly no Islamist. To suggest, as McCain has done, that he is anti-Semitic is absurd. Khalidi is a dogmatic foe of Jewish nationalism, but has never, to my knowledge, displayed a similar antipathy to Jews. The underlying claim is indeed McCarthyite, trading on a grim suspicion that beneath Obama's veneer of respectable liberalism lurks a radical commitment to un-American ideas. i'd be disturbed if I thought Obama were taking his cues on Middle Eastern policy from Khalidi, but this is nothing more than guilt by association with an associate of the guilty. And frankly, I can think of nothing more un-American than that.
October 30, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks, Fly, for the kind words. Though I'm new to posting here I've been reading Cafe posts for close to a year now, and during the primaries I read your pretty religiously. I was happy to see your recent return.
That said -- you're right about the imperfection of the analogy; it was something I was aware of when writing. In particular (and I hope I'm not arguing too strongly against my own point!) the fact that Lattimore was an institutional figure is an important difference; after all, McCarthyism came to mean not simply naming and shaming ostensible communists for political gain, but naming ostensible communists in government. In that sense what McCain is doing is actually not, strictly speaking, McCarthyist -- although I would proffer that the 'within government' modifier is a bit of a technical limitation of the term that, if ignored, doesn't drastically alter its meaning.
I should warn before continuing: I'm close to nodding off as I type, and so I can't vouch for the coherence of the preceding paragraph. I'm gonna wing it; hope I got it right.
You certainly raise an interesting point with regard to the intellectual currents in Lattimore's time versus Khalidi's. I agree with almost everything you've written, but wouldn't really characterize Lattimore the victim of outmoded ideology.
It was really the shabby conduct of Chinese nationalist troops that sparked the splitting of ways within the IPR. Some, including Lattimore, turned increasingly toward settlement with the Communists while others, particularly Kohlberg, continued to favor Jieshi. So Lattimore's views weren't exactly static. (And while his line of thought remained dominant in Truman's State Department, it probably wouldn't have been well-taken outside of government and -- I can't believe I'm about to say this -- Georgetown cocktail parties.)
Moreover, while Kohlberg's China Lobby and the fledgling modern conservative movement were important ideologically and institutionally to McCarthy and his allies, it was not shifting ideas but the loss of China, just a few months before McCarthy's accusations, that really proved instrumental. This provided a politically profitable line of attack for Republicans against the Dem-controlled White House and Congress. The new conservatives and Senator McCarthy himself were able to leverage that to their benefit, and their views would gain increasing prominence over the coming years and decades (arguably up until this coming Tuesday). But I think it's fair to say both that Lattimore's views had shifted further away from the mainstream, and that it was politics more than shifting ideas that did him in. (Not to mention that his leftward drift anticipated New Left thought in the 1960s, although that wasn't exactly influential in foreign policy circles.)
Incidentally, Lattimore was actually pretty eager to show up for his first hearing -- and Millard Tydings happy to have him there. The consensus amongst the pundits in the immediate aftermath was that Lattimore's testimony was devastating and McCarthy's career would never recover. I find it bizarrely comforting to know that today's crop of media hacks aren't the only ones to get things spectacularly wrong.
October 31, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for an illuminating response.
October 31, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
High level of analysis here, but I have to add to FlyOntheWall's knowledgeable account the following.
The internationalist Democrats of the New Deal were under attack by republicans and southern democrats long before McCarthy went to Wheeling and the fundamental political dynamic between the two parties was reversed. In the 1948 to 1952 period the Republican Party, gathering strength from nothing so much as a public weariness with the now eternal-seeming Democratic party lock on the White House, essayed to lock in an electoral victory by damaging the Democrats beyond repair. Their instrument was McCarthy and McCarthy's star victim, his "Top Communist" was Owen Lattimore, a not entirely sympathetic character, even to his associates. In the current campaign, the Republicans are the ones on top, trying to maintain their control of the White House but once again they have seized on similar tactics to try and tarnish their opponents.
It should be noted that the Democratic Party was not spotless: Martin Dies, John Rankin, and Pat McCarran all democrats, were equally as odious as any republican in their pursuit of the "un-american" other for political advantage.
In fact the origin of the notorious HUAC was in a marriage of convenience between republicans and southern conservative democrats hoping to strike back at the New Deal. I hope we never see its like again.
October 30, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
All really good points. The range of ideological diversity in both parties in that era is remarkable in comparison to today -- for better or for worse. That said, McCarthy was in many ways a transitional figure for old conservatives and new conservatives (as were his enemies). He not only damaged Democrats; he also provided something old guys like Taft and young guys like Jenner could both rally around. He was the sharp end of an anti-communist movement around which the Goldwater coalition -- which held strong until, well, now -- was built.
That said, there are some strong arguments to be made that McCarthy's political power was pretty vastly overrated by both parties in 1950 and 1952, and it's telling that he never received above a 50% favorable rating even at the height of his influence.
October 31, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I visited your salon at the lion and gun. Impressive! I echo Fly's welcome!
But back to McCarthy. The congressional election of 1946 was as pivotal in its way as was 1912 for the forming of the modern Republican Party. We would find it horrifying to have been there and here people like Jenner calling for Truman's impeachment! People think the impeachment circus started with Nixon, but it actually was a Republican invention first rolled out in modern times against the New Dealers. The bloody shirt era had passed into distant legend, so they seized on Communism as their next crusade. "Terrorism" is only the latest model in their product line.
McCain's current campaign is the worst of Republicanism distilled and presented for all of us to marvel at.
October 31, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as things change. . . Have you seen The Living Room Candidate? A project of the Museum of the Living Image, it's a compendium of Presidential campaign television advertising from 1952. That's five decades of Republican slime.
Check out some of Nixon's ads from '68. They kind of frightened me. Makes even some of McCain's fear-mongering look amateurish.
October 31, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome, Matthew.
Did I miss the part where you revealed the rabid author's name at the National Review - the one looking to take Obama down based on his so-called Khalidi association?
Andrew McCarthy.
(Apologies if I missed the reference in this thread. Going to bed now.)
October 31, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Touché. Man, Andy McCarthy moved into self-parody mode ages ago; I think he peaked around that whole Bill Ayers-as-Obama's-ghostwriter shtick. Admittedly, most of the folks at NRO have moved into self-parody mode, but McCarthy was out there in front of them.
Does anybody believe Ann Coulter could say anything today that would get her dismissed from the magazine? And they were pretty hackish seven years ago. Now they're making The Weekly Standard look like Pravda.
October 31, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
At one time I bought McCarthy's- and more broadly the right wing's - line about Lattimore until a friend who knew Lattimore through a Hopkins' connection convinced me I was wrong.
That first crack in my entrenched conservative views ( I'd been deeply influenced by Peter Viereck-the poet, not the faschist father)started me examining the rest of my positions .Fortunately.
Later Viereck himself became a Democrat supporter if not actually a party member. Less perhaps because he'd moved left than because of the demise of the Eisenhower wing of the Republican.
October 31, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew:
Let me add a tip. If you open up your blog entry for editing, you'll notice that at the bottom of the right-hand sidebar, there are multiple boxes that you can check, which will feed the post into the various sections of TPM. A blog like this rightfully belongs in TPM Election Central as well as the Cafe; you can go back and check that box, too, and it will appear on the EC recommended list.
October 31, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks -- have taken your advice! I think I knew about that but forgot. Still getting used to this thing!
October 31, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCarthy-McCain
October 31, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
RNC-RICO
October 31, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
As one who survived The McCarthy Blacklist Period in Show Business (and wrote a novel titled after The Blacklist's bastard child, "The Dead File"), I appreciate the journalistic challenge to McCain's McCarthism. McCarthyism is the coward's way of trying to win what cannot be won legitimately, in the open, in fair contest.
October 31, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
An honor to have you here in this online community.
The republican anti-communist crusade was used by their southern democrat allies to attack the Civil Rights organizations of the era. It was the case that a great friend of the Civil Rights movement in the early years was the communist party and the Right seized on the relations that had sprung up in various places to attack the organizations themselves when the latter began to exert real power. It was classic de-legitimization through smear associations, so while you and your friends in Hollywood and New York were enduring the blacklist era, the friends and adherents of the NAACP were simultaneously being accused of being communists in the South.
My mother ultimately lost her teaching job in the South on refusing to sign a loyalty oath. She went on to greater things, but in our family that era is remembered.
The Republicans and their fellow-travelers cynically used the communist smear to strike at opposing political and social organizations and it is sad to see they are still at it, now using terrorism as their bogey-man. What detestable tactics.
For those interested in the subject:
Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil Rights 1919-1950, Glenda E Gilmore, W W Norton [2008]
October 31, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's been dismaying is how effective McCarthyism has been (or been perceived to be) -- as long as it persists as a useful political tool innocent lives and careers will continue to be ruined. Here's hoping that this election will dilute its attractiveness, but I'm doubtful it will. At any rate, conservatives seem determined to learn precisely the wrong lessons from their coming defeat.
That said, a number of bloggers have responded to the smearing of Khalidi's reputation by buying his book The Iron Cage. It's maybe a small gesture, but we do what we can. I've got my copy on order; you can get yours here.
November 1, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink