On Proudly Wearing the Scarlet "L"

- © Peggy Whiteneck

"By liberalism, I don't mean the creed of any party or century.
I mean a generosity of spirit ... a tolerance of others ... an attempt
to comprehend otherness ... a commitment to the rule of law ...
a high ideal of worth and the dignity of men ...
a repugnance for authoritarianism ... and a love of freedom."

- Alan Paton, South African author
of Cry the Beloved Country" and other books

I'm not the first person to notice that we're in the midst of what could be called a "New McCarthyism." Just type that phrase into your favorite search engine and you'll find countless entries, including a seminal article on "The New McCarthism" by Matthew Rothschild in the January 2002 issue of The Progressive, found online when I did my own search.

It would be tempting for the moderate within most of us to dismiss this charge as so much inflammatory rhetoric akin to calling somebody a Nazi because you don't agree with him. But I don't think it's too much of a stretch, nor much at all of an exaggeration, to claim that we are, indeed, in the midst of a new McCarthyism.


A 4th of July parade in Hometown USA. Whose country is it, anyway - now that the Right thinks it owns the Presidency?

As Nadine Strossen of the ACLU observes (cited in the Rothschild article), the scare-word "Terrorism" is these days a stand-in for McCarthy's bugbear "Communism." Just as anything whatever seemed to be justified then by the war against Communism, so now anything at all seems justified by the war on Terrorism. In such "wars for the national soul," the normal rules of engagement are thought not to apply. Ends justify means. "National security" trumps all other values. Sacrifices must be made - even if they involve torpedoing basic human rights.

Already, we're reaping the whirlwind for this ideology. Recently, we discovered what had hitherto seemed unthinkable: that some (and too many, at any number) U.S. soldiers (and however far you care to chase that up the chain of command) abused Iraqi prisoners with cold-blooded disregard for basic human rights and dignity. American soldiers! But where do we think they got that? You don't have to be a "liberal" senator at Jorge Gonzales's Attorney General confirmation to ask the question: Could it be that the ideological witch's brew in which this country has been stewing since 2000 provides the very warrant for abusive actions? Who, after all, is going to care about a bunch of "terrorists" and "enemy combatants?"

A road in an American countryside. Where in heaven's name are we going? (Photo by the author.)

Speaking of labels, Joe McCarthy was the first to use the term "liberal" as a synonym for "Communism" and other forms of un-American activity, thereby converting what had once been a relatively benign term of description into an epithet and slur that retains its "boogeyman" status to this very day. Arguably, "liberal" is considered a dirty word in a way that "conservative" never has been and probably never could be.

Liberal-baiting long predates the Bush administration and continues unabated. The strategy works: politicians will change their spots, turn themselves inside out, and tie themselves in knots to avoid being labeled "liberal." Personally, I don't mind wearing the scarlet "L." As Alan Paton defines it in the quote that introduces this commentary, it's a heritage worth carrying on.

 · "Finding a Voice in an Age of Intolerance" · 
 · "'Average Americans' Need Lessons in American Civics" ·   · "The Question for Election 2008"  · 
 · "Affirmative Action Discriminates
Against White Men? Give Me a Break!"  ·