As related in my last entry, one area in which contemporary history textbook authors continue to misrepresent the past is in their treatment of Communist infiltration of the U.S.
The test bank for the 13th edition of the Carnes/Garraty text “The American Nation” contains the following prospective question:
28) The most effective weapon used by Senator Joseph McCarthy in his anti-communist crusade was the
A) Central Intelligence Agency.
B) McCarran Internal Security Act.
C) "counterforce" syndrome.
D) Federal Bureau of Investigation.
E) "big lie".
Answer: E
Diff: 3 Page Ref: 758, AD 796
Topic: McCarthyism
Despite the fact that this question comes from the 13th edition of the text, I will confine my remarks to the 12th edition, as it is that edition that is still being used by Central Texas College
First of all, just what is the “Big Lie”?
It is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf for a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.
Hitler’s primary rules were:
· never allow the public to cool off;
· never admit a fault or wrong;
· never concede that there may be some good in your enemy;
· never leave room for alternatives;
· never accept blame;
· concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong;
· people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and
· if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
According to Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”When the treatment of “McCarthyism” in contemporary textbooks continues to portray McCarthy as simply a “loose cannon”, perhaps it’s appropriate to investigate just exactly WHO is engaging in the “Big Lie”.
In the text, the authors state that McCarthy “had no shred of evidence to back up his charges, as a Senate Committee headed by the conservative Millard Tydings of Maryland soon demonstrated”.
This is an example of the historians’ Fallacy of Motivation.
The text describes Tydings as a “conservative”. One must ask, "Why use this adjective?" There is certainly no reason to describe Tydings' political ideology in this context. In this case, the authors seek to suggest that since he was a conservative like McCarthy, the reader should infer that Tydings would have been somewhat sympathetic to McCarthy’s assertions, despite being a member of the opposition party. Thus, his committee’s finding, that McCarthy’s charges were groundless, is supposed to convince the student that McCarthy was a completely reckless demagogue who leveled totally unsubstantiated charges against patriotic Americans.
As we now know from the publication of Venona, as well as a review of the now declassified files of the closed Senate hearings that were conducted at the time, the assertion that McCarthy had no evidence to support his charges is completely false.
There is no mention anywhere in the text of either Whittaker Chambers or Elizabeth Bentley and their revelations in the late 40s of their work for the Communist Party USA and the secret cells led by individuals holding high government offices, as I mentioned in my last post dealing with the Rosenbergs.
In the Instructor’s Manual that accompanies the text, here is how the authors recommend McCarthy be described and discussed
McCarthyism. In February 1950, Joseph R. McCarthy, an obscure senator from Wisconsin
As discussed in my last entry regarding the Rosenbergs, the evidence was there. It was simply classified to protect the source and, hence, could not be revealed in open Senate hearings.
Since the publication of Venona, a number of authors have published works that attempt to somewhat “rehabilitate” McCarthy, or to publicize the truth at the very least.
Since the publication of Venona, a number of authors have published works that attempt to somewhat “rehabilitate” McCarthy, or to publicize the truth at the very least.
In her work, “Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism” (Three Rivers Press, 2003), Ann Coulter writes:
“Everything you THINK you know about McCarthy is a lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as that of the Nazis”.
Of course, Coulter is the contemporary "McCarthy" according to liberals and other fellow travelers. She is vilified because she has the audacity to turn over the rocks under which they have been hiding for the past 40 years.
But, Coulter's view is substantiated by authors such as M. Stanton Evans and William Norman Grigg.
In his book "Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" (Crown Forum, 2007), Evans completely substantiated all that Coulter had written 4 years earlier.
But, Coulter's view is substantiated by authors such as M. Stanton Evans and William Norman Grigg.
In his book "Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" (Crown Forum, 2007), Evans completely substantiated all that Coulter had written 4 years earlier.
Now, it’s not my intent here to let McCarthy completely off the hook. He was, after all, an alcoholic and a politician (two traits which many believe go together). In seeking the limelight to advance his political career, McCarthy ultimately reached too far, leveling charges against the Army. And, Golly, he just wasn't a nice man.
In fact, the way he went about his investigations of Communist infiltration into our government actually set BACK the effort to identify and root them out.
But, as the above quote from the Instructor’s Manual demonstrates, we are still being encouraged to use the term McCarthyism to “lead” students to the conclusion that it was nothing more than an unjustified “witch hunt”.
Additionally, little is done to differentiate in the students' minds between the actions of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1948 and the McCarthy hearings. The "blacklisting" of Hollywood writers is also assumed to have been the result of McCarthy's charges.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As Grigg pointed out in an article in 2006:
"Senator Joseph McCarthy is widely but falsely held to have been a reckless accuser of innocent persons suspected of having ties to Communism. Asked to name victims of his supposed irresponsibility, McCarthy haters invariably point to the script writers and producers known as the Hollywood Ten. While it is true that these individuals were indeed "blacklisted," barring them from the movie industry wasn't done either by McCarthy or the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The ten were denied work in the movie industry by its leaders."
Years later, once-blacklisted screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo, snickered while admitting, "Yeah, we were communists all right. So what!" In his own published memoirs, another Hollywood Communist named Ring Lardner, Jr. discussed his "conversion to Marxism-Leninism".
Finally, one last interesting bit of information that contemporary authors conveniently leave out is that one of McCarthy's staunchest supporters was a young Senator from Massachusetts named John F. Kennedy.
Additionally, little is done to differentiate in the students' minds between the actions of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1948 and the McCarthy hearings. The "blacklisting" of Hollywood writers is also assumed to have been the result of McCarthy's charges.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As Grigg pointed out in an article in 2006:
"Senator Joseph McCarthy is widely but falsely held to have been a reckless accuser of innocent persons suspected of having ties to Communism. Asked to name victims of his supposed irresponsibility, McCarthy haters invariably point to the script writers and producers known as the Hollywood Ten. While it is true that these individuals were indeed "blacklisted," barring them from the movie industry wasn't done either by McCarthy or the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The ten were denied work in the movie industry by its leaders."
Years later, once-blacklisted screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo, snickered while admitting, "Yeah, we were communists all right. So what!" In his own published memoirs, another Hollywood Communist named Ring Lardner, Jr. discussed his "conversion to Marxism-Leninism".
Finally, one last interesting bit of information that contemporary authors conveniently leave out is that one of McCarthy's staunchest supporters was a young Senator from Massachusetts named John F. Kennedy.
Given the facts that have been available for at least a decade, the question must again be asked, “Why are these authors refusing to incorporate more recent scholarship?” The very "raison d'etre" of higher education is the pursuit of truth. According to CTC's Code of Ethics and Conduct, page 2:
G. Scholastic Honesty: Employees will maintain the highest standards of scholastic honesty.
It is incumbent on every teacher, particularly from high school through the university, to continually strive to keep abreast of current scholarship in their chosen discipline and to bring such material to the classroom.
G. Scholastic Honesty: Employees will maintain the highest standards of scholastic honesty.
It is incumbent on every teacher, particularly from high school through the university, to continually strive to keep abreast of current scholarship in their chosen discipline and to bring such material to the classroom.
It becomes problematic, however, when a college seems to be placing its impramatur on incorrect material by putting its own name on the cover of the text as Central Texas College has done with Carnes/Garraty.
By so doing, it has associated itself with this "Big Lie".
To add insult to the injury of parents and students, the price tag for this text is a whopping $125.
As I've previously stated, parents and students should be seriously questioning why they are paying such outrageously high prices for a textbook that contains such distortions of history when there are less expensive texts on the market. Once such text is Give Me Liberty, written by Eric Foner, that was the subject of my Rosenberg post. Although it too contains errors and omissions, it costs only $49.95.
Were I paying college expenses today, I'd much rather be lied to at the reduced price.
By so doing, it has associated itself with this "Big Lie".
To add insult to the injury of parents and students, the price tag for this text is a whopping $125.
As I've previously stated, parents and students should be seriously questioning why they are paying such outrageously high prices for a textbook that contains such distortions of history when there are less expensive texts on the market. Once such text is Give Me Liberty, written by Eric Foner, that was the subject of my Rosenberg post. Although it too contains errors and omissions, it costs only $49.95.
Were I paying college expenses today, I'd much rather be lied to at the reduced price.
