https://preview.redd.it/zztx1m0bqyg71.png?width=1454&format=png&auto=webp&s=d1cbea800d4c53358c0ab0427e268452747fb060
https://preview.redd.it/vstz7h0dqyg71.png?width=1454&format=png&auto=webp&s=14a9b43762affe027acca55155203330c0bfc8e4
^(Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it. -) ^(Harry S. Truman)
Heard on the grapevine about the anti-Israel strat as Truman 1948, so I took it up a notch. I veto'd the Taft-Hartley Act but conceded to Thurmond after refusing to recognize Israel. Otherwise, the standard Truman except I wished HUAC would be more aggressive just to piss off Henry Wallace.
In the end, after spamming Illinois and criss-crossing the state on the final question, I won the state and the election (and the PV(!?)) by an extremely close margin in what would perhaps be an even more unlikely victory over Dewey.
Dewey's career would likely be even more so in shambles than in OTL, given the extremely controversial circumstances of Truman in this world would have secured the idea that a more invigorated effort on Dewey's part would have been a win. Thurmond would have been satisfied with the continuing status quo on racial issues, which leaves Henry Wallace to take his place albeit on the other side of the aisle.
Wallace, given Truman's dismissal of HHH's call for a civil rights plank, becomes the definitive standard-bearer of the progressives and the Progressive Party's respectable showing ensures their survival for the time-being.
The GOP campaign in 1952 would likely capitalize on the lagging of the Democratic party on Civil Rights; Eisenhower (if he is selected) would likely be more willing to espouse pro-Civil Rights positions with Progressive Democrats growing disaffected with their party. If Taft however becomes the nominee, perhaps by Dewey being too embarrassed and too much of a pariah to attempt to connect with Eisenhower or if Truman's economic positions become too closely associated with a perceived segregationist conciliation, then he will be doomed to lose most of the progressive vote to the Progressive Party thanks to the Taft-Hartley Act and his name being plastered on it. If that occurs, the Progressive Party may be to the GOP ITTL what Byrd and Wallace were to the Democrats in real life.
Pragmatists like Nixon might adopt more pro-Civil Rights stances; those already bearing the Civil Rights cause like Rockefeller and Humphrey might be fired up and attempt exert more control. Humphrey in par
... keep reading on reddit ➡I feel like I’m missing something but I can’t seem to find a reason as to why McCarthy wasn’t involved with the HUAC? It seems right up his alley and I presumed he was either on the committee or involved with, as both McCarthy and HUAC’s values seem to align.
I understand McCarthy was a senator and not a house representative, but surely as senator with technically more given power than the average congressman, he could have had a hand with the HUAC?
Apologies if this a stupid question, I’m just quite stuck on it.
More broadly, what was the context and reaction to his quote?
Hi all,
Looking for a book on the McCarthyite era. My preference generally lies with non-fiction that creates a narrative (à la The Splendid and the Vile by Erik Larsen or All the Presidents Men by Woodward & Bernstein). I searched previous recommendations and found one scarce thread.
Is there a definitive book on the period?
Thank You!
I see references to The Crucible a lot in more modern political discourse, whenever someone is accused of something and other people think it’s unjust, but I’m curious about how it affected conversations when it came out.
The brilliant Paul Robeson in full swing during USA's strong anti-Communist witch-hunts. McCarthyism, 'Reds Under the Bed', call it what you will, but it was a massive scare campaign that destroyed the lives of many innocent people, of many prominent people. As Robeson tells the HUAC, 'The first to die in the struggle against Fascism, were the Communists'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Qxr1wdxbg
From Parenti's Make-Believe Media
"HUAC had a number of goals:
First: expose movies that were "Communistic" or "sympathetic to the Communist point of view." Aside from the few openly pro-Soviet World War II pictures, none was actually found, unless one counts the various liberalistic pro-New Deal motion pictures that some committee members denounced.
Second: prevent any further production of films that harbored "un-American" views and dealt with social issues in a manner that might be detrimental to free-enterprise ideology. Even though HUAC found little to justify its anticommunist inquisition, it did succeed in imposing a chill on Hollywood's already lukewarm desire to make movies that explored iconoclastic political themes.
Third: purge leftist screenwriters, directors, and actors from the industry. Here the congressional inquisitors succeeded quite well. "Many progressive film-workers were driven out of the industry... A few committed suicide, some were imprisoned, others went into exile, and many merely went underground. Those who continued working avoided subjects or social issues."
Fourth: curb labor militancy in Hollywood. Along with exercising an ideological control, the corporate-loving members of HUAC were interested in smothering the bitter labor agitation that the motion-picture industry was experiencing. Of course, the studio bosses cooperated fully with the committee's red-baiting of the Screen Writers Guild.
Fifth: make more anticommunist film. In 1947, HUAC members J. Parnell Thomas and Richard Nixon prodded the movie moguls to enter the fray against the Red Menace. Louis B. Mayer hastily rereleased Ninotchka, one month after the HUAC hearings. In short time, Hollywood joined the cold-war crusade with a score of Grade B, second-feature, anticommunist flicks that were usually financial disasters. In this instance, ideology took precedence over box-office considerations."
Quite simply, did any of these bodies ever convict, blackball, etc. anyone wrongly accused? Not in terms of whether it's morally right or wrong to censor dissidents or socialists, just straight up did anyone end up punished for actions they never took or values they never held?
I am definitely a history layman, but in my mind the first amendment is clear on the issue of political affiliation (very important to our political process, right?). But somehow HUAC was able to blacklist people from working in their industry, Communist or not. I fail to see how even a registered Communist could have been the subject of legal professional discrimination even with a degree of anti-Communist social fervor (aka even unpopular movements/groups like KKK have clear legal rights).
Thanks for fielding my question!
I feel like I’m missing something but I can’t seem to find a reason as to why McCarthy wasn’t involved with the HUAC? It seems right up his alley and I presumed he was either on the committee or involved with, as both McCarthy and HUAC’s values seem to align.
I understand McCarthy was a senator and not a house representative, but surely as senator with technically more given power than the average congressman, he could have had a hand with the HUAC?
Apologies if this a stupid question, I’m just quite stuck on it.
