← The Lawfare Podcast
The Lawfare Podcast
Lawfare Daily: McCarthyism and Its Echoes in Modern Politics with Clay Risen
00:43:24
Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:01]
Renee Diresta
The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of lawfare@patreon.com lawfare that's patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security, Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull, and the Aftermath.
- [00:32]
Hesu Jo
Ever feel like you're carrying something heavy and don't know where to put it down? Or wonder what on earth you're supposed to do when you just can't seem to cope? I'm Hesi Jo, a licensed therapist with years of experience providing individual and family therapy, and I've teamed up with BetterHelp to create mind if We Talk, a podcast to demystify what therapy's really about. In each episode, you'll hear guests talk about struggles we all face, like living with grief or managing anger. Then we break it all down with a fellow mental health professional to give you actionable tips you can apply to your own life. Follow and listen to Mind if We Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget, your happiness matters.
- [01:12]
Gab
The youth mental health crisis is growing and social media is a major driver. Kids are spending up to nine hours a day on screens, often unsupervised, and studies show a direct link to anxiety, depression, and even suicidal thoughts. That's where Gab comes in. Gab offers SAF save phones and watches with no Internet or social media, just the right tech at the right time. From smart watches for young kids to advanced parent managed phones for teens, Gab keeps kids connected safely. Visit gab.com getgab and use code getgab for a special offer. That's gabb.com getgab Gab Tech insteps independence for them, peace of mind for parrots.
- [01:58]
Clay Risen
What is the line between national security and individual rights in a context when you know that people are going to abuse that line and it's going to be taken advantage of in a very dangerous way. So you know, and I think the Red Scare is an example of where we really failed to do that as a country.
- [02:17]
Renee Diresta
It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Renee Diresta, contributing editor at Lawfare and associate research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. I am here with Clay Risen, author of the book Red Scare.
- [02:30]
Clay Risen
The bigger impact, I think, is just on civil liberties generally and the freedom of speech. So many people just decided that it wasn't a good idea to take certain positions, and that meant a lot if you were a Teacher or someone in a position of influence on the rest of the public, but also just if you were an everyday person. Social discourse, political discourse suffered greatly in the 1950s.
- [02:54]
Renee Diresta
We're going to talk about a bunch of things, primarily McCarthyism, its connection to the present, and also to Clay's excellent book. I want to start with just you, I guess. You have a fascinating background. You live in New York. You write for the New York Times. You grew up in Nashville. You are at the New York Times. You're on the obituaries desk. I feel like we have to start there. Um, why not just for a second, just. Just tell us a little bit about that.
- [03:22]
Clay Risen
Yeah, I mean, it's. It's a great job. I've been here, been doing it for about a little over four years. And, you know, every day's. Every assignment's a new adventure. You know, I've learned more on this job than any other job because one day I write about a historian, and the next day about a carnival performer, and the next day about a business leader. And it's just one new world after the next. It's actually great training for writing popular history or for general interest history, because you really have to be able to do these little sketches of characters very quickly. You know, how do you explain someone in a short bit that makes them compelling? You know, in my book, there's no main character. They're just a bunch of somewhat main characters. And so being able to sort of explain real quickly why they matter is a challenge. So writing OP its has been a great, great part of that. Real help.
- [04:18]
Renee Diresta
How many, how many of people have pre written drafted obits? Is that like a very, very small number or.
- [04:25]
Clay Risen
Yeah, we have about 2,000, which sounds like a lot, but you know, we probably publish well over that every year. So there are obits for everybody you'd expect. There are lots of obits for maybe some people you wouldn't expect. And then every once in a while there are obits for people that you, I don't know, you think we would have ready. And they've fallen through the cracks. So, you know, that happens too.
- [04:49]
Renee Diresta
And so prior to Red Scare, you have written several other books. You have an incredible collection of books about whiskey. So yes, you have the impossible collection of Whiskey, single Malt, A Guide to the Whiskies of Scotland, the spirits bestseller, American Whiskey, Bourbon and Rye, A guide to the Nation's favorite spirit that is now in its sixth printing with more than 100,000 copies sold. The Bible on American Whiskey. I think we're going to return to that at the end of the pod when we will need a drink. You can make some suggestions to people on how we should be thinking about. Whiskey then, maybe. But outside of the spirits category, in addition to Red Scare, you've also written the Crowded Hour, Teddy Roosevelt, the Rough Riders and the dawn of the American Century, A Nation on Fire, America in the Wake of the King Assassination and the Bill of the Century, the Epic Battle for the Civil Rights Act. So you have not shied away from some very, very tough topics, some major historical moments. And I'm curious, what drew you to the topic of the Red Scare for this latest one?
- [05:49]
Clay Risen
Yeah, you know, it was, in part, personal. My grandfather was an FBI agent, and I grew up hearing his stories about doing loyalty investigations and background checks. And, you know, for him, these are kind of funny anecdotes that you would tell. But it sort of stuck with me that, you know, there were people who really didn't need to have their backgrounds investigated being looked into by the FBI. And I don't know, that was. That was always interesting to me. And so that kind of. I often, when I write a book, I look for, you know, something, some kernel that can really animate me in my personal life. And then, you know, I've written other books, not the Rough Writers book, but certainly my others, where the Red Scare is sort of in the background and not even. It may never be explicitly there. But, you know, I wrote a book about the Civil Rights act and, you know, hanging behind the Civil Rights movement was this accusation of being communists. And there, you know, that Martin Luther King was a communist. And this was. There was always, you know, a line over which leaders could not go because the FBI was always after them. And. And so it's always sort of there as this kind of penumbra. And so when I sat down to think of a new book, I thought, well, you know, this is something that hasn't really been written about in a while. There's been a lot of new material to come out, and there's a lot of sort of there's a new book to be written, and why not? Why not me? So that's kind of the genesis. And. And then it just kind of went from there.
- [07:19]
Renee Diresta
And, you know, you opened by describing that there had been actually what we might call the first Red Scare and the second Red Scare. Right. There's this period of time after World War I, and then there's the period that I think the average reader might be a little bit more familiar with, McCarthyism the period in the late 50s. What happens a little bit later? Why don't you maybe contextualize for the reader what we should think of as the Red Scare, how you describe it in the book?
- [07:42]
Clay Risen
Yeah, so really the Red Scare starts pretty soon after the end of World War II. I date it from early 1946 when the House on American Activities Committee really got really, got going as a permanent committee. And you know, it had, it had been approved. But in early 46 is when it really started going after people and you know, issuing its first, you know, hard subpoenas. First contempt of Congress charges came out then and it really snowballed from there. There are a lot of things that people know about with regards to the red Scarab, but maybe they don't know the chronology. So it wasn't long after that that they went after Hollywood and the Hollywood 10 famously had their hearings. That was in 1947. The Hiss Chambers affair started soon after that. And so it all, you know, kind of snowballs. And so by the time McCarthy comes around in 1950, it was really in full, full bore. But you know, the, there are kind of two aspects too. There's, there's the Red Scare that's happening from that point in Hollywood and in Washington and, and there's also a grassroots Red scare. It's, these are linked close together. But it, it took a while for, you know, the kind of Reds under the bed sentiment to, to come along. And that really was after the Soviet Union got a nuclear bomb and, and really once the Korean War started, you know, where people really started having what they felt like were really legitimate fears of World War three.
- [09:16]
Renee Diresta
We have, I think, the, the sort of domestic tension. You have the social conservatives facing off against the progressives of the New Deal. And then you have the kind of, the very sudden onset of the Cold War. Right. And the, as you mentioned, right. This, this nuclear, all of a sudden the fear of a nuclear conflict and the all consuming demand for loyalty that, that brings. And so you have these two kind of domestic and then global tensions colliding. And that's the sort of historical, I think, environment that we're operating in. Can you maybe discuss the Algerhist case and just kind of help the reader understand the significance of it?
- [09:52]
Clay Risen
Yeah, sure. So the FBI had been, it had been focusing its approach and its investigations into communist espionage. It had kind of dragged its feet or had not been encouraged to pursue the issue for a while. And then after the war it really, Hoover really started to feel like he had the capacity, he had the approval and the capital to go after communism. And they started, you know, really digging into leads that had been sitting around for a while. And there was, there had already been pretty strong evidence that Alger Hiss had been, had been a spy. And you know, from there it snowballed to the point where they brought a couple of witnesses. Elizabeth Bentley was the first. And then very famously, Whitaker Chambers, who had been a Soviet spy and then turned, he appeared before Congress and named his as not just a spy, but as a significant spy. And Hiss appeared the next day, said, I deny it. And the two went back and forth like that and it was front page news. And, and finally spilled into the courts because Chambers repeated his accusations outside of the Congress so that his could sue him. And then once Chambers was sued, he pushed back and said, you know, I actually have evidence not just that he was a communist, but he was actually a spy. Right? He was, he was very much in the thick of this. And that's the famous pumpkin papers that he had hidden away. And then that led to a court trial, not the slander trial against Chambers, but an actual perjury trial against Hiss and his ended up losing that and going to jail for it.
- [11:38]
Renee Diresta
There were a lot of these really fascinating moments of accusation and denouncement. And that's the dynamic that we see happening over and over again throughout House on American activities committee, throughout McCarthyism for a period of several decades. Some that go this direction, some that go the direction of very little evidence, in fact, where the accusation is in fact enough. How do you, how do you think about the. I guess maybe the relative volume of those two things and the dynamic that accusation versus evidence or lack thereof, the way in which expectation versus reality shapes public discourse about the topic at the time.
- [12:18]
Clay Risen
Yeah, no, that's a good question. And it's something that I tried really hard to balance in my book because on the one hand there. There was something there, you know, there really were spies. And A couple of them. Yeah, a couple of them. And you know, the Communist Party for the United States really was at the leadership level, you know, a bad actor in American politics. And so there were reasons, and this was in the context of the Cold War, so there were real reasons for concern. And the difficulty though is that the tools that were used to go after those people were also then used to go after perfectly innocent people and to kind of lower the bar for what it meant to be subversive, to be considered a loyalty threat. And so that people who had had perfectly innocent, if unpopular opinions and had expressed themselves maybe in ways that didn't fit the moment, but were not illegal. They came under attack. And it became possible to get fired from a job with the federal government simply on hearsay, for example, and you know, hearsay that you didn't get to challenge and often that you didn't know the details of because it was secret to the FBI. And so, you know, the tension, I guess then in the book is to say, well, both of these are true, right. And then so how do you balance one versus the other? And what is the line between national security and individual rights in a context when you know that people are going to abuse that line and it's going to be taken advantage of in a very dangerous way. So, you know, and I, I think the Red Scare is an example of where we really failed to do that as a country and essentially gave carte blanche to people who very, you know, like McCarthy, who very obviously were out there to abuse the moment and, and to go after political enemies.
- [14:22]
Renee Diresta
You write about the hunt. One of the things I liked about the book is, you know, I, I wrote for Lawfare recently a pretty long essay on House on American Activities Committee after my own experience dealing with the Weaponization committee. Yeah, it was a good piece. Thank you. And what I was interested in was, you know, you focus on this history that a lot of people, at least they recognize the name, they remember McCarthy, right, because he was such a character and he does evokes such strong emotions. And I think people remember, perhaps people who remember their even AP American History in high school or something, or American History in College, the Hollywood 10. But what I really liked about your book is that you get so much deeper into it. You talk about, for example, the hunt for communist teachers, school teachers, right. The encouragement of vigilantism, the call for parents to report on the people and their kids classrooms, the sort of loyalty investigations. Right, so, and I think you had a quote. During the decade long Red scare from roughly 1946 to 1957, not a single American teacher was actually found to have imparted communist ideas on their students, let alone acted subversively against the government. But that did little to allay the truly paranoid who insisted that communist influence worked in more subtle and sinister ways. And anti communist watchdog groups emerged everywhere, some national in scope and others hyperlocal. And I think people who read the book will immediately. One of the reasons I like it so much and one of the reasons why is I having my own bizarre experience over the last two years was just, you do have this sense of these connections to the present moment. When I was reading that, for example, I was thinking of some of the events at the Naval Academy. There's the book bands, the things that are removed for being particular types of literature that are all of a sudden deemed unfavorable. It does seem like there are lessons that we perhaps didn't learn from this. And I'm curious how you think about how people should read your book in. In light of the incredible parallels. And as you note, you know, again, there were grains of truth there. And then there are also these. These people that you point to, particularly some of the school teachers, where there is just no there, there. And yet we're. We're repeating a lot of this again.
- [16:26]
Clay Risen
Yeah, I mean, I think that that's unfortunately, one of the realities of certainly American life. It may just be part of the human condition that we don't learn lessons from history. And these things, in interesting ways, do repeat themselves. One of the things. And I was always struck by the book the Plague by Albert Camus, and the ending where he talks about, you know, the plague is a metaphor for fascism, obviously. And he talks about, you know, that the plague never really goes away. It always sort of remains, and sometimes it's hidden, and we think it's gone, but it's actually living in our now. I think he talks about our dressers and cabinets and every once in a while pops back out. And so it's absolutely necessary to remember that and to be able to come back and respond powerfully when it rears its head. Despite that, of course, we forget these things. And so we have to be reminded constantly. And I think it. It matters in that we actually were, I think, fairly successful after the Red Scare in creating institutions and understandings of what the proper limits of government overreach were. Not to say that we didn't violate that line very often when we did. But, for example, you know, the groups that you would have expected to stand up very powerfully during the Red Scare, like the ACLU or the American Bar association, simply failed, by and large, and the courts largely failed until they, you know, finally the Supreme Court got backbone. But it took a long time. And, you know, I think that after that, we had a much better sense of what civil liberties meant in America and had a much better record on it. Now, I think we've gotten far enough away from that era that we've sort of forgotten it. Which is not to say that things are as bad as they were back then with regards to groups like the aclu. Or the. So far, the courts, I think they've done much better than they did during the Red Scare. And I'd like to think part of that is, is an understanding of why that's so important. But by and large, look, I mean, you talk about book banning and you talk about kind of the cultural side of all of this, and it's, it's depressing how quickly those lessons fade. And, you know, I don't know really what it takes for that to come back around. I mean, people are just so willing, so willing to throw away the civil liberties of other people. And that's what, that's. What's so depressing to me is that time and again, a country that is, and purports to be, you know, built on civil liberties, we throw them away all the time and we don't really pay attention when sometimes it even threatens our own. I mean, it's one not to diminish this, but, you know, it's one thing to say I don't care about someone else's civil liberties, but we often let down the guards, even against our own civil liberties. And that's really scary.
- [19:33]
Renee Diresta
Were there any figures that you thought of, you know, lesser known individuals or communities whose stories you think might inform our, you know, broader understanding of the Red scares impact people who really stuck out in your research?
- [19:47]
Clay Risen
Yeah, I mean, you know, I think you could take someone who, you know, is not forgotten today, but I think maybe is not understood as a hero of the era. Yeah, I think Earl Warren deserves a lot of credit for being the person who finally gave the Supreme Court a backbone and made it stand up for civil liberties. You know, I think he deserves, you know, he certainly gets credit for championing civil liberties with regards to criminal cases and with regards to voting rights and desegregation. But his role in rolling back this Red Scare is pretty important, and it was an early success for him. The woman who bookends my book, Helen Reed Bryan, she's both in the prologue and the epilogue, or her story sort of sets those up. And, you know, she's somebody who, unless you're really, really deep into this literature, you'll never come across. She's not a public figure, but she was the first person to go to jail for contempt of Congress during the Red Scare. And she was the head of, or the executive secretary of a group that, you know, was. Was left wing, pretty left wing, but its charge was helping refugees from the Spanish Civil War get to safe countries. And HUAC called her in. They demanded her group's papers. She refused to hand them over and they sent her to jail for it. Then they sent the board, the entire board of the group to jail, including Howard Fast, the novelist. And, you know, she got out and tried to remake her life. The FBI hounded her for years until it finally admitted that, yeah, she's not a communist. We've decided that she's not a communist. And you know, she was broken in a lot of ways, but also she was a survivor in other ways. She sort of had this quiet dignity that I think defines what courage can look like in the face of something like this. She simply, you know, as you write about in your article, you know, she was one of the people who simply refused to play along and she was punished for it and in some ways, you know, made it, made an example of. But nevertheless, that is, it is commendable what she did and stood as an example for other people who might follow her.
- [22:13]
Renee Diresta
Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online. At a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Deleteme does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. You sign up, you provide Deleteme with exactly what information you want deleted and their experts take it from there. It's not just a one time service. I get these regular privacy reports showing what they found, where they found it and what they removed. And every time there's new stuff because the data brokers keep collecting on me and Delete Me keeps coming back to get the stuff taken down. It is constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the Internet. Look, I'm someone with an online presence and you know, I put a lot out there, but my privacy is actually important to me. I've used Delete me since before they were an advertiser on Lawfare. I've been the victim of identity theft, of, you know, certain amount of harassment from my political activities. And if you haven't also, you probably know someone who has. Delete Me can help. So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare20 and use the promo code Lawfare20 at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com lawfare20 and and enter the code Lawfare20 at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare 20 code Lawfare20.
- [24:24]
Clay Risen
Each customer is unique. Every shopper is different. So why are your e Commerce search results still one size fits all? Generic experiences don't create loyal customers, they drive them away. Coveyo's AI search delivers relevance at every step, anticipating what shoppers want even before they ask the result? Better discovery, Higher conversions, more profit. Visit coveo.com commerce to see how it works. Picture this. You're halfway through a DIY car fix, tools scattered everywhere, and boom. You realise you're missing a part. It's okay because, you know, whatever it is, it's on ebay. They've got everything. Brakes, headlights, cold air intakes, whatever you need. And it's guaranteed to fit. Which means no more crossing your fingers and hoping you ordered the right thing. All the parts you need at prices you'll love. Guaranteed to fit every time. Ebay Things People Love Ever feel like.
- [25:22]
Hesu Jo
You'Re carrying something heavy and don't know where to put it down? Or wonder what on earth you're supposed to do when you just can't seem to cope? I'm Hesu Jo, a licensed therapist with years of experience providing individual and family therapy, and I've teamed up with BetterHelp to create mind if We Talk? A podcast to demystify what therapy's really about. In each episode, you'll hear guests talk about struggles we all face, like living with grief or managing anger. Then we break it all down with a fellow mental health professional to give you actionable tips you can apply to your own life. Follow and listen to Mind if We Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget, your happiness matters.
- [26:04]
Renee Diresta
I think the political opportunism that you cover also is really striking. Obviously, whenever you write about Congress, you're writing about political opportunism. Let's be real. This is not new. But maybe. Perhaps one of the things that sticks out to me is, for example, the Tidings hearings. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. Maybe you want to talk a little bit about what those were and just the sort of fascinating dynamics of the Tightings hearings. Particularly the maybe. I guess I see them as the futility of the effort to serve as a countervailing force on McCarthy himself. I don't know how you see them. I'm curious.
- [26:44]
Clay Risen
No, that's exactly how I see it, and I think it's a really important part of the story because, you know, just some background. What happened was McCarthy famously stood up in his West Virginia speech and said, you know, I have in my hand a list of Communists and State Department. And when he got back to Congress, the Democrats were in control at the time and they said, well, look, this guy is full of it, but people are listening to him. He's on the front page. We have to figure out a way to shut him down. And we don't believe he has anything. So we're going to have hearings. And Millard Tydings, who is a fairly conservative Democrat from Maryland, was chosen as the guy who would, who would run it. Because it was seen that, you know, he wasn't a bomb thrower, he wasn't a lefty. He would be the guy who was, but also a loyal Democrat. So he had these hearings where essentially it was just, let's open the door and let McCarthy prove what he's trying to say. And assuming that he's going to fall flat on his face and will disprove himself out the door. Well, you know, this is that futility that you were talking about because they didn't realize the political game that McCarthy was playing. And McCarthy didn't care whether he had anything. Right. McCarthy knew that all he had to do was keep shouting and keep going from one accusation to the other. If he could stay one step ahead of the fact checkers and the political system, then he was going to win. And it's stunning how successful he was. Person after person, name after name, he would bring in front of the committee, they would investigate, they would find this is not true. And by the time they got to say, hey, McCarthy, you're, you know, you're full of it on this one person, he'd say, well, that doesn't matter because I have even bigger news. I have an even bigger scandal to reveal. And both the political system are a lot of political figures and the media just went for it and they just played into his hand time after time. So that by the time the Tidings committee finished and handed in a report or a, you know, a hearing, a finding that said, hey, McCarthy's not, he's dying, McCarthy had moved so far beyond all of it that no one paid attention. And the other thing that's important is that, you know, most Republicans or a lot of Republicans didn't believe McCarthy either, but they were either cowed by him, they were, they were scared of him coming after them, or they saw him as a politically useful figure, right? Whether they believed it or not, they thought, well, this is a guy who's really Got a number on the Democrats. And so the Republicans on the Tightings Committee went to bat for McCarthy, even though these were guys like Henry Cabot Lodge, who very clearly did not believe anything McCarthy was saying, but he saw him as a tool. And that's another. I think that's also a lesson from McCarthy. It's just how you talk about opportunism. And, you know, it cuts both ways. It's both the individual taking the opportunistic stance, but then also how other people see that sort of second order. Here's a guy doing something that I'm not willing to do, but it's going to be to my benefit, so I'll use him as he's using the system.
- [30:07]
Renee Diresta
Right. And I think it was also McCarthy manages to use the hearings as, you know, a way to portray himself as a victim of establishment persecution. Right. And Tidings is the one who suffers the political consequences.
- [30:23]
Clay Risen
Both. Yeah, both Tight. So this. And this is fascinating, right, because Scott Lucas, who is the Senate Majority leader, he was from Illinois. He was the one who led the charge against McCarthy in the Senate. He said, you know, this guy's full of it. Let's create this committee. Let's go after. And then Tidings was, you know, his. His hitman, so to speak. And McCarthy then went after both of them in the 1950 election, and both of them went down. And. And in both cases, they were replaced by McCarthy allies. And so that has a lot of resonance to today as well. And it became. Those guys became models of what not to do. Right. The risk that you run by going out to McCarthy is that he will prime or he will go after you after your campaign. And so it shut a lot of people up.
- [31:15]
Renee Diresta
All right. So one of the figures that we see really central to the Tidings hearings, of course, is Owen Latimore. So he's a scholar and expert on East Asia, professor at Hopkins, Johns Hopkins University, editor of the journal Pacific Affairs. And he was, I think, known for kind of a cautionary approach and advisor to President Roosevelt on China. Cautionary approach regarding involvement in the Chinese Civil war, I think it was.
- [31:40]
Clay Risen
Yeah.
- [31:41]
Renee Diresta
And this, I think, gets spun as him having pro Communist sensibilities, perhaps, is where that. That the allegations against him emerge from. And he's accused by McCarthy in March of 1950 of being, quote, a top Soviet spy, a Communist sympathizer who has shaped US Foreign policy to favor Communist interests. And so Lattimore denies these allegations, calls them false and groundless, but the accusations really explode, and he becomes one of these central controversies, testifies, he denies it. What happens next?
- [32:11]
Clay Risen
Yeah, so, you know, he is absolutely one of the characters who is, I think, best exemplifies the dangers of this moment because he was someone who, as you said, had been cautionary on questions of the Chinese Civil war. I mean, there was a nuanced question, right, whether if you thought the communists were going to win, it didn't mean that you were a Communist, but if you just realistically thought that, then maybe you would advise, hey, let's not support the Nationalists and let's maybe figure out a way to bring the Mao and his people on our side. Let's, or at least make sure they don't line up with the Soviet Union. But that was in McCarthy's telling. And not just McCarthy, but a whole world of people who after the Communist victory were looking for anybody they could blame for that. And, you know, so Lattimore was probably the chief figure who was blamed for the victory of Mao during the Chinese Civil War. And you know, setting aside whether any one person outside of China could actually determine that, the idea that this professor at Hopkins was the guy could only have happened, could only have taken root as an accusation in a moment of just absolute political hysteria. So, and, and also given that there was so little evidence, I mean, no one really looked under the hood of what McCarthy was saying and came away, no one in a position of responsibility came away and said, hey, this guy is absolutely clear and I'm going to fight on his side. The people who did know that were not willing to stand up for him, and the people who could stand up for him were not willing or didn't pay attention to the absence of evidence. And so Lattimore ended up going to court. He had to fight perjury charges. This went on and on for years. And you know, his career was largely destroyed and it never, nothing ever emerged. In fact, every time the case came up, it was weaker and weaker. But because of the context of the time, it was very hard just to get all of that thrown out. And so, you know, Lattimore and there were other people, the so called China hands, you know, this network of State Department officials, academics like Lattimore, some journalists who really understood China very well, but almost for that very reason were, were suspect. And it's one of the great tragedies of American foreign policy that a lot of these people were either sidelined or completely removed from government service at a time when we really needed folks with 20, 30 years experience in East Asia.
- [34:42]
Renee Diresta
Exactly. And one of the things that really becomes very clear here is you have this. This dynamic of the. The shifting of the allegations. Right. First he's a Soviet agent, then he's a Communist sympathizer, then he's part of an influential group shaping pro Communist foreign policy. So you see that inflammatory charges, where the goalposts move as there's no evidence to support them. And I think that that's also very evocative of the dynamics that we see today.
- [35:11]
Clay Risen
I think you're. You're absolutely correct. And it's often, I think, a sign of when things are getting really bad that accusations do move around a lot. I mean, if you want to. If you want some sort of yardstick for, you know, are we in a moment of political hysteria? Yeah. Look at where, where the accusations are, where how are they shifting, how accurate are or how willing are individual accusers to go to bat for a particular charge versus shifting to another one very quickly? I think that's a great, you know, whether it's today or back then, I think it's a great way to sort of. If you had to say, are we in a moment of political hysteria?
- [35:48]
Renee Diresta
That's one of them, I think. I think you're exactly right. We see a lot of that today. So we talk a lot about the specific targets. What do you think the impact of McCarthyism or the Red Scare was on the lives of ordinary Americans?
- [36:01]
Clay Risen
Yeah, I mean, I think there are a couple of things. I mean, first of all, there were so many ordinary Americans who were dragged into this. Right. Either because there was, you know, in some cases, a kernel of a truth that could be spun out into something. Maybe, maybe they had been in the Communist Party. Not that there's. It's not illegal, right. But there's. If that's what you're looking for, then there were Communists, but these folks at the same time had nothing to hide. So. So there's that. And a lot of people lost their jobs, they lost their livelihoods. But the bigger impact, I think, is just on civil liberties generally and the freedom of speech. So many people just decided that it wasn't a good idea to take certain positions. And that meant a lot if you were a teacher or someone in a position of influence on the rest of the public, but also just if you were an everyday person. Social discourse, political discourse suffered greatly in the 1950s. And, you know, I think is one of the. One of the lasting impacts of the Red Scare is that for generations afterward, you know, people sort of were wary of taking positions that they might believe in, but were afraid were maybe not popular or wouldn't be supported by, by the majority.
- [37:15]
Renee Diresta
So how do you think about the role of media in some of this? Both in contextualizing it for the public or in both? You know, we've seen in House on American Activities Committee, media was really instrumental in assisting the blacklists. Right. And in creating demand for them for a very long time prior to shifting the narrative, assisting the mitigation. How do you think about that in the context of the Red Scare? And, and I guess also in what we see now, right, in the parallels today.
- [37:43]
Clay Risen
Yeah, absolutely. And this is something that I is sort of in the background of my book, but is, you know, I'm as, you know, as a, as an author or maybe you don't, maybe you're lucky you don't know this, but, you know, you write a book and it's all good. And then when, you know, you later on have thoughts about things and think, I really wish I had approached that directly in my book or dealt more with it, and media is one of them because I think the media learned a lot during the Red Scare, became a lot better. But initially, and even up through the early days of McCarthy, the media generally, and mostly we're talking about newspapers and I guess radio, TV was still very much in its infancy, but, you know, they largely parroted what was coming out of Washington. And there were two things that I think really held them back or two sort of conventions, Right. One was if a politician says it, then it has to be treated as some form of truth. Right. It would be improper to question them. And so if someone says this group is communist, then it's kind of up to everybody else to prove them wrong as opposed to being skeptical from the beginning and saying, well, maybe that politician is incorrect. Right. So you sort of give them the benefit of the doubt. The other thing is that at the time, the media didn't really report behind a story. So there was. They really only did reporting about what was out in public. So, you know, if a senator says X or if you're told here's the backstory to an event or to a, to a group, you don't really go and dig into that. You sort of just present it as that's what the public record is. And it was really only with McCarthy that newspapers started to realize that, A, politicians lie and, or, or not that they didn't know politicians lied, but politicians lie and it's our responsibility to call them out on it. B, we don't have a responsibility to print everything people say verbatim. You know, we can, we can be skeptical. We should be skeptical. We should call it, you know, and, and then, you know, that we, you know, it's our responsibility to maybe not report things, you know, we don't have to say, report everything McCarthy says just because he's good copy. You know, we need to hold back on that. And it's, it's, it's funny. And there were actually some. The New York Post put out a pretty impressive report for other newspapers, saying, basically, here's how we're now going to approach McCarthy. And it was with these points, like, we're going to be more skeptical. We're going to dig behind the story. We're not always going to report what he says. We're going to say he's lying if we think he's lying. And there were some other papers that did similar things, and it's interesting to look at those in light of today because you talk about what did we learn? What did we not learn? What have we forgotten? And that New York Post report in particular is one that, you know, I Wish Everyone in 2016 had had a copy of, because it was once again, exactly what you shouldn't be doing. Exactly what the Post said would happen was happening again. And I think we've got, I think we as a, I'd say we, you know, part of the media, we've gotten better since 2016, but I think we're still playing catch up to a part of society, well, to an administration that is willing, that is just playing a different game.
- [41:11]
Renee Diresta
Right. I agree. I, I, I look at those moments and I think how quaint it feels the idea that, that, that would even happen today. I also was struck even the tidings, hearings and some of the reports that came out of Congress at the time. I remember my son was studying. You know, he was in, gosh, I guess he would have been in third or fourth grade when the weaponization committee started. And when the first interim report came out and just I was reading it and it was about my work, you know, some of it. And I was thinking like, well, this is all bullshit. I mean, my God, there's so much bullshit in here, it's incredible. Just, you know, first they move the goalpost and then they write a whole bunch of bullshit about the moved goal posts. So we had been accused of, like, censoring 22 million tweets. Just this extraordinary allegation. And of course that's not true. None of that was true. And so they find no Evidence of it. And they move the goal posts and then they write some, some nonsense that supports, you know, based on, again, bullshit. And so you have these reports that say nothing but they've got a congress.gogov domain. And, and then they get covered in the media. They get covered by sympathetic right wing media, which is like Jim Jordan's explosive bombshell report. And I think like, it's all just, it's just made up, you know, it's just, and then I'm talking to my son who's going through this whole process of like, first, like, what does Congress do? How does a bill become a law? And all this, you know, and I'm like, that's not. Congress doesn't pass laws. Are you kidding? That's not what. Let me tell you what Congress really does, kid. You know, and then, and then he's also doing all this, you know, as they teach you how to write reports in school. And they're like, what is a reputable source? Well, you can go and you know, what's got a.gov domain? It's, it's legitimate information coming from the government. I'm like, no, it's, no, it's not. You know, and then, and then it gets laundered into like, you know, AI now will, will process it for you and it'll, it'll treat it as a legitimate source. And I'm like, man, we are so far, so, so, so far down the rabbit hole at this point that, that I read some of the stuff now and I think, like, man, it's just so quaint to think that even as disastrous as it seemed then, I don't know, there's some aspects of it that feel worse. So I don't know. What do you hope readers will take away from your book, given the present moment?
- [43:24]
Clay Risen
Oh, I mean, so much, hopefully. But I mean, on that point, one thing I think that's, you know, it's important. I mean, one thing that happened with the Red Scare, or let's say McCarthy in particular, one thing that helped take him down was the way that Edward R. Murrow and others, not just him, but that Edward R. Murrow used television to kind of reset the frame, right? To say visually the image of McCarthy can have a much bigger impact than the text, right? And that people can judge for themselves what they think of him when they see him on tv and they're going to have a different impression. And so, you know, take that to today. And I think that something similar has to happen in the sense that what Murrow did was kind of revolution using a new medium and using it very well to go after someone who had kind of mastered the art of the old medium. And so I wonder if today, you know, there isn't not necessarily a murotype, but you know, it's going to take somebody could be an influencer, could be a politician who just understands the media landscape in a way and can, can do it one better maybe than, than the people who are using it to, you know, nefarious ends. And so I don't know what that looks like. I don't know who that would be. It could be someone viral who just comes out of nowhere and suddenly has a huge TikTok presence. But I think that's what it's, that's what it's going to be. Yeah. And in a way, I mean, I guess the sort of general is that I do still maybe have some faith in bedrock kind of normalcy in America as it were and that, you know, things come along and shock the system and we don't respond very well. But over time there is kind of a mean that Americans revert to that our culture reverts to. It's a fairly pragmatic culture. It's fairly, you know, middle of the road culture. And so I'm maybe less worried in the long run of what our society looks like afterward. I'm very worried about what our government looks like. I'm very worried about what our economy looks like. But you know, as far as our social fabric, I don't know but I think that that's. So hopefully people take that away from the book. Is that, you know, as bad as all this is, there is a certain fever break that comes.
- [45:51]
Renee Diresta
Oh, I appreciate that. I think that's, it's an optimistic note to end on. And then I did promise at the start that we would get one whiskey tip from you at the end. So I guess let's, let's have that. I'm also curious, do you think, do you think any of the non alcoholic spirits don't suck? That would be my, my one other non obvious question.
- [46:13]
Clay Risen
Yeah, no, I think, I think non alcoholic beer is pretty good these days.
- [46:17]
Renee Diresta
Okay.
- [46:18]
Clay Risen
I think that, you know, I have not had a non alcoholic whiskey that I've liked.
- [46:23]
Renee Diresta
Neither have I. So it's all right. So, so those, all, those all still suck. Okay.
- [46:26]
Clay Risen
Those also still suck. And I, I've not had, I've been told there's some good non alcoholic wines. I have not had one.
- [46:32]
Renee Diresta
Okay.
- [46:32]
Clay Risen
But, but non alcoholic beer I think is great. All Right. They've really nailed that as far as a tip goes. Look, people ask me all the time, should you add water to your whiskey? And the general tip is you do whatever you want. It's your whiskey. Right. So I don't tell anyone what they should do. But I do have a. For me personally, I kind of go by the alcohol percentage. So if it's, you know, if it's a 40% to 45%, which is 80 to 90 proof, for those who are playing at home, I would never add water. Like water will just destroy a whiskey like that. Between 45 and 50 or between 90 and 100, kind of depends. Take a sip, see what I think. Anything over that, anything over 50% or a hundred, always add a couple of drops of water because it's just a big whiskey. It'll benefit. It's not about watering it down, it's about, about opening it up. And a couple of drops of water will just miraculously transform a whiskey like that. So that's, that's my approach. But again, there are some people who, they just love 110 proof whiskey and they will never put any water in it. And that's fine. But, you know, it's your drink. You do what you want.
- [47:48]
Renee Diresta
That's what it does. All right, well, there we go. And thank you so much for, for joining and chatting with me today. The book is Red Scare. It is fantastic. It is a highly, highly readable, very entertaining history of a moment that I think it is incredibly important for Americans today to really understand. And I think that many people will find it very applicable and relatable in this moment. So thank you so much for writing it. Thank you so much for talking to me.
- [48:16]
Clay Risen
Well, thanks. Thanks so much for having me. This is a real thrill.
- [48:21]
Renee Diresta
The Lawfare podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institute Institution. You can get ad free versions of this and other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare material supporter at our website, lawfairmedia.org support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Look out for our other podcasts including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation. Our latest Lawfare Present presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. Check out our written work@lawfaremedia.org this podcast is edited by Jen Pacha and our audio engineer. This episode was Kara Schillen of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening.
- [49:14]
Gab
This is Paige, the co host of Giggly Squad. I use Uber Eats for everything and I feel like people forget that you can truly order anything, especially living in New York City. It's why I love it. You can get Chinese food at any time of night, but it's not just for food. I order from CVS all the time. I'm always ordering from the grocery store. If a friend stops over, I have to order champagne. I also have this thing that whenever I travel, if I'm ever in a hotel room, I never feel like I'm missing something because I'll just Uber Eats it. The amount of times I've had to Uber eats hair items like hairspray, deodorant, you name it, I've ordered it On Uber Eats. You can get grocery alcohol everyday essentials in addition to restaurants and food you love. So in other words, get almost anything with Uber Eats. Order now for alcohol. You must be legal drinking age. Please enjoy responsibly. Product availability varies by region. See app for details.