Featured Post

New book available! David Kaiser, A Life in History

Mount Greylock Books LLC has published my autobiography as an historian,  A Life in History.   Long-time readers who want to find out how th...

Saturday, January 09, 2021

The Real Analog to Trump

 On Wednesday morning, about 140 Congressmen and about a dozen Senators planned to argue in effect, that Joe Biden had not really been elected President.  Well after midnight that night, the House and Senate certified Biden's election.  Now, three days later, the impeachment of Trump is almost certain, he has been forever banned from Twitter, several key cabinet members have quit, Mike Pence is under pressure to invoke the 25th amendment, and his two foremost Senatorial defenders face pressure to resign.  Trump's spectacular fall, parallel to his extraordinary rise, confirms the parallel between his career and the most famous demagogue of the last century, Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin.  That parallel is worth exploring.

One important parallel relates to their personalities. McCarthy was an alcoholic who died in 1957 of liver failure, just three years after his political downfall Trump does not drink, but it occurred to me the other day that he is a perfect example of what some therapists call a "dry drunk"--someone who displays all the instability, narcissism, and continual rage of an alcoholic without drinking.  I googled this association and was astonished to find only a few hits, although one of them was this excellent article by a 12-step veteran.  The question  of why such people can exert such a hold on those around them--and in some cases, on the broader public as well--remains open.

Let us first review the key details of McCarthy's career.  A judge in Wisconsin, he reached the Senate in the Republican sweep of 1946 thanks in part to a split in his own party.  He made no real impression in Washington for three years.  Then, in February 1950, in a Lincoln Day dinner in Wheeling, West Virginia, he announced that he had evidence that 205 members of the Communist Party were working at the State Department.  This was what Trump's ghostwriter for The Art of the Deal called "truthful hyperbole." The evidence was simply a letter written by the Secretary of State to Congress in 1946, explaining that extensive security investigations had led to a "recommendation against permanent employment" for 284 employees of which 79 had been "separated from the service." McCarthy had subtracted 79 from 284, assumed without evidence that the rest still worked there, and converted them into Communist Party members.

Like Trump with his rants about NAFTA and immigration, McCarthy was building on a foundation of actual facts.  Alger Hiss, once a high State Department official, had recently been convicted of perjury for denying that he was a Communist spy.  We know now thanks to Venona intercepts that the Soviet spy network within the government was much larger than anyone realized at the time. McCarthy, however, never added anything to what was already known.  He accused many people of Communist ties in the next four years, but he never uncovered a single Communist himself.  Everyone he identified had either already been so identified, like Hiss, or was innocent of the charge.

 In addition, McCarthy, like Trump, tapped into the enormous resentment of large parts of the American people against the eastern (now bicoastal) elite, which seemed to feel that it knew best for everyone, and had led the nation into the Second World War and was about to lead it into the Korean War,. Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State who became McCarthy's no. 1 target, symbolized that elite then in exactly the same way that Hillary Clinton came to symbolize it in the 2010s. And just as the tide was running somewhat against the Democratic Party in 2016 after eight years in power, it was running against the Democrats in 1950-2 after nearly twenty  years in power.  After McCarthy's initial charges, a subcommittee of the Senate led by four term Senator Millard Tydings of Maryland, a Democrat, investigated them and found them baseless. McCarthy threw everything he had against Tydings in his campaign for re-election that fall, including a faked photo of Tydings with the head of the US Communist Party, and Tydings lost his seat.  McCarthy also developed the same symbiotic relationship with the press that Trump has: although they knew most of what he said was false, they felt they had to report it--and he sold a lot of newspapers.  And he used the Senate floor the way Trump has used Twitter, blasting anyone who dared to stand up to him as a witting or unwitting dupe of the Communist conspiracy behind the cloak of Congressional immunity.

Like all such historical comparisons, this one illuminates the differences between two time periods, as well as the similarities between the main actors. McCarthy became a national figure and the center of controversy as a junior US Senator because of one speech in a small city in the heartland.  No sitting Senator today could get 1/10 as much attention from anything he or she said or did on the floor of the Senate or off of it, because we no longer take our politics so seriously,. Trump on the other hand became a national figure with a personal following no other Republican candidate in 2016 could match thanks to reality TV.  Radio personalities like Father Coughlin on the right and Drew Pearson on the left had enormous followings in the 1930s and 1940s, but none of them ever tried to parlay their stature into high office. And no one ever regarded McCarthy as a serious presidential candidate--even the man himself. 

Still crucially, McCarthy, like Trump, quickly got the active help and support of most of the Republican establishment, who welcomed a new weapon against the hated Democrats and thought that they could control him. Senator Robert Taft, the Mitch McConnell of the day, told McCarthy to keep swinging for the fences--"if one case doesn't work, try another."  Senator Richard Nixon, who had already made his name from the Hiss case, became a staunch ally.  Dwight Eisenhower kowtowed to him in his 1952 campaign for President.  McCarthy had accused General George Marshall of having handed China to the Communists, and Eisenhower planned to defend Marshall--who had made Eisenhower's career--in a campaign stop in Wisconsin.  Campaign operatives talked him out of it.  Trump took longer to win the support of the Republican establishment, but by 2018 they were firmly in his pocket, and loyally defended him in his impeachment trial, at enormous cost to the nation, in 2019. Eisenhower won in a landslide, and the Republicans narrowly regained control of the Congress.  That gave McCarthy an important committee chairmanship. 

Over the next year McCarthy turned out to be just as dangerous to a Republican administration as to a Democratic one.  His subcommittee on investigations continued terrorizing various government agencies with phony investigations, including the Voice of America, the US Information Agency, and the Army Signal Corps at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.  That last investigation led to the Army-McCarthy hearings in the spring of 1954 and to his downfall.

The sources of McCarthy's political demise also make for interesting comparisons. One key episode was Edward R. Murrow's masterful attack upon him on CBS, beautifully dramatized nearly 20 years ago by George Clooney in Good Night and Good Luck,.  Fourteen years later Walter Cronkhite used his comparable prestige to help turn public opinion against the Vietnam War, but there is no nonpartisan television personality today with anything like that degree of respect.  Another big factor in the McCarthy hearings--at least as important as Joseph Welch's famous monologue--was the revelation that one of his staffers, Roy Cohn, had constantly interceded with Army authorities to try to get special treatment for his good friend and fellow staffer G. David Schine after Schine was drafted.  Every young American man had been subject to the draft for most of the last fourteen years in 1954, and they and their families were accustomed to standing up for their equal rights. Now we have lost that sense of shared service, shared sacrifice, and common rights.  Trump was a draft avoider, and proud of it.

The televised hearings showed McCarthy to the country as he really was, and the Republican Party now recognized him as an embarrassment with Congressional elections just months away.  They agreed to a new, bipartisan committee which majority leader Lyndon Johnson handpicked to ensure McCarthy's downfall. The committee found that he had brought disrepute upon the Senate recommended his censure.  While the issue was hanging fire, the Republicans lost their majorities in the House and Senate in the Congressional election.   A month later, the Senate "condemned" McCarthy by a vote of 67-22.  The parallels to Trump's downfall are almost exact.  Like McCarthy, he had turned against leaders of his own party after they failed to back his attempt to steal the election.  He had been heard browbeating the Georgia Secretary of State--a Republican-- and his own Vice President in the same way that McCarthy had publicly blasted an Army general before his committee. And last Tuesday, the day before the storming of the Capitol, Trump had cost the Republicans their Senate majority.  When he once again did the indefensible on Wednesday, they had no reason to defend him.

As Richard Rovere pointed out more than sixty years ago in his masterful polemic, Senator Joe McCarthy, McCarthy still had plenty of resources to work with early in 1955--including, like Trump, a devoted following of millions of Americans. But he fell apart because he could not live with defeat, and because most of the press now ignored him and he could no longer secure the attention he craved. In another hopeful sign, "McCarthyism" died with him.  Anti-Communist smears soon became unfashionable, the Supreme Court reversed itself on at least one key point, and within five years the Hollywood blacklist was broken. Indications suggest that Trump is staring at the same fate.   He now seems certain to be impeached and Mitch McConnell seems to be seriously considering convicting him to make sure that he cannot run for President again.  Much worse, for Trump personally, he has lost his Twitter platform, apparently forever.  (The major social media platforms have at least temporarily become the gatekeepers that define unacceptable speech, just as the major newspapers and tv networks were in the 1950s.)  He will probably try to create some new platform but anyone who can help him will come under enormous pressure not to. He has evidently contemplated living abroad, and I will not be surprised if he does.  Whether the tone of our politics will change remains to be seen.

Yet despite their parallel fates, the comparison of Trump and McCarthy still shows how much worse off we are in 2021 than in 1955.  McCarthy was never a serious candidate for higher office; Trump became President.  Between the 1950s and the 2020s, our political elites lost the confidence of the American people, and until they get it back we remain in grave danger.  The great crisis of 1929-45 gave us Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and then the whole generation of GI politicians from JFK through George H. W. Bush.  Not a single comparable political or military figure has emerged from the crisis of the last twenty years. Trump won election because he realized that tens of millions of Americans rejected the bipartisan political consensus on issues like trade, immigration, and the shape of our economy.  He did not, of course, do anything to really help his voters, but they, and many Democrats as well, still feel the same way.  Our greatest task still lies ahead.


8 comments:

sglover said...

It's a small thing, and God knows it's late in the day, but at least one bright spot is that the Dems finally seem to have shaken their idiotic devotion to "fiscal responsibility". Even "Paygo Nancy" has evolved. Biden's been saying sensible things about spending big, and now the flow of McConnell poison has been stanched. Maybe money will start flowing in a coherent, sensible fashion soon. And there's a ton of money accumulating in private accounts, waiting to be spent whenever business resumes.

It's a sad reality that Americans have the collective memory of a fruit fly, but for once it could work to the advantage of decency if in late '22 and into '24 what people remember is the "Biden public health crusade and economic recovery".

Matthew E said...

I think you might be a little premature in shoveling dirt on top of Trump. He still has one or two rolls of the dice left. I don't like his chances, but when we look back on this era I suspect we will not be describing the period of Jan 6-9 2021 as 'the part where it ended for Trump'.

Bozon said...

Professor
This is another in a series it seems, blundering Republicans compared.

I prefer to give at least equal time to comparing blundereing Democrats.

I lump both FDR and his left supporters and infiltrators, and Woodrow Wilson, as good examples to compare willy nilly.

Some of the revelations in your post need to be unpacked, so to speak.

Books on Venona should be read.

Also The Haunted Wood, and for post WWII matters, things like The Mitrokhin Archive is rather zesty.

Andrew's History of intelligence, The Secret World, is a good reference, but he defends British history against the truth where he likes.

All the best

noribori said...

After reading your post I rewatched "Good Night, and Good Luck" yesterday, and I couldn't help noticing that it does first and foremost defend the right of free speech and free thoughts.

From »Good Night, and Good Luck« (2005):

»Colonel Anderson: Wouldn't you guess that the people who have seen the contents of that envelope might have a better idea of what makes someone a danger to his country, or do you think it should just be you, sir, who decides?

Fred Friendly: Who? Who? Who are these people, sir? Who are the people? Are they elected? Are they appointed? Is it you?«

--–

Alexey Navalny on his Twitter Account:

I think that the ban of Donald Trump on Twitter is an unacceptable act of censorship (THREAD)
(…)
The ban on Twitter is a decision of people we don't know in accordance with a procedure we don't know.
(…)
This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter'.
(…)
If @twitter and @jack want to do things right, they need to create some sort of a committee that can make such decisions. We need to know the names of the members of this committee, understand how it works, how its members vote and how we can appeal against their decisions.

--–

From The Guardian:

German chancellor Angela Merkel sees Twitter’s ban on US president Donald Trump as “problematic”, her spokesperson said on Monday. Freedom of speech was “a fundamental right of elementary significance”, Merkel’s spokesperson Steffen Seibert told journalists. “This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,” Seibert added. “Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the US president have now been permanently blocked.” The kind of law and frameworks regulating social media use referred to by Merkel are considerably stricter in Germany than the US, however.

Under the German “network enforcement act” online platforms face fines of up to €50m (£44m) if they do not remove “obviously illegal” hate speech and other postings within 24 hours of receiving a notification. After the law was introduced in 2018, Facebook and Twitter fitted their German websites with additional features for flagging up controversial content, and trained moderators to cope with its requirements.

--–

So you wrote
»The major social media platforms have at least temporarily become the gatekeepers that define unacceptable speech, just as the major newspapers and tv networks were in the 1950s.« That's very problematic because McCarthy saw himself as the gatekeeper, and some newspapers, as shown in the movie, defended the right to have and articulate unagreeable thougths as long as they meet widely agreed upon standards. In the narration of the movie McCarthy failed because he "lacked decency". That standard wouldn't be enough today.

Gloucon X said...

"He now seems certain to be impeached and Mitch McConnell seems to be seriously considering convicting him to make sure that he cannot run for President again."

This is a vitally important fact. Impeachment gives the Republicans the opportunity to forever rid their party of the Trump Facehugger. If they fail, he will control them all the way through 2024. This is a miraculous gift for them if only they can find 17 Senators to vote to convict. As a leftist, I hope they fail.

Matthew E said...

"As a leftist, I hope they fail."

I think it's a lot better for leftism if Trump is prevented from ever holding power again. I would put any tactic that says otherwise in the "getting too cute about it" category.

Bozon said...

Professor
Re Glaucon X
Classic. Great stuff.
Glaucon X wants Trump as a moniker, and Tar Baby around the Republican neck into perpetuity!
Great stuff.
This is a fitting and reasonable leftist position, reminiscent of the position of Stalin's leftist subversive brigades, within Weimar Germany.
But surprisingly, Hitler somehow eventually came through his kampf to become chancellor!
Let's see who is more right.

All the best

5stonegames said...

Just wandered over here more by accident than design.

My guess is President Trump will not be impeached, no one will care much anyway certainly not his base and he won't run again.

To something Gloucon said, impeaching former President Trump might not stop him from running as it only counts for being appointed to office. That said, the man is nearly eighty and as I said above will never run for President or any office again. Its moot.

Matthew , Trump's brand of populism though isn't leaving no matter what. Populism is the wave of the future for Republicans and while the establishment will fight tooth and nail for Neo Conservatism, Cheap Labor and Corporatism the base that elected Trump the first time is at least half maybe two thirds of the entire Republican electorate and maybe 15% of the Democrat one as well. The party will change to accommodate them or they'll go to some other party, possibly one founded by former President Trump.

They will not care of he is impeached anyway.

For those hoping for a new consensus is no possible way to create one until after the current turning if we even make it through intact . It will also require a new crop of people in office with exceptional skills as the situation has become far more complex on every level. By comparison, Roosevelt's Social Democratic cramdown will be easy mode.

Now its possible the Neo Liberal /Neo Conservative Alliance will hold on to power for some time but the longer they shirk responsibility for the people the more the future belongs to the Ilhan Omar's and Marjorie Taylor Greene's.

That situation is basically political if not actual Balkanization on the vine.