I feel like he was basically right in much of his claims, and today society proves his warnings were correct. I'll start with this news reel of the socialist toon our parent's listened to, who some say was a liberal socialist. Seems the news does that to people.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e8a4...aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvTWNDYXJ0aHlpc20&ntb=1 McCarthyism is the practice of making false or unfounded accusations of subversion and treason, especially when related to anarchism, communism and socialism, and especially when done in a public and attention-grabbing manner.[1][2] The term originally referred to the controversial practices and policies of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy and covers the period of the late 1940s through the 1950s.[3] It was characterized by heightened political rep
Claims of Homosexuals being selectively recruited into the Army ...[18minutes into video] , is my take of this, Note this Cohen was Trumps lawyer too till he died.
This was brought up about 5 years ago on another forum and I thought it interersting historical subject,
Dear God, watching this once again, brought back the memories of those days when we followed this spectacle daily on our TVs. I'd get off work and snap on the TV to try to catch up the proceedings of the day. McCarthy was absolutely maniacal in his accusations, and we were totally mesmerized by his rantings. There was no doubt that the Communist scare was real, but as Edward R. Murrow pointed out, there is a fine line between investigation and accusation, which McCarthy abrogated. His rantings began to broaden to a myriad of subjects, and I began to wonder what he was doing in the Senate. Well, he was a seriously deranged alcoholic for one thing, and finally diagnosed as a sociopath as well. He certainly was nuts, that's for sure.
I became interested in the study of this on a forum and it was definitely mixed views and opinions on the man and Edward Murrow. I still am not sure who the villains are i this that's why I brought it here to debate. I found both opinions interesting but was banned before I could finish the debate. Knowing what I see today I'm leaning toward Joe. He may have lost it in the two wars and maybe everybody looked like a commie to him, but then he wasn't making anything money or power either way, unlike all those politician's flying around him in the room.  I may change my mind and lean more to the others, but now I'm leaning on side of Joe M. Mainly because I didn't like Ed Murrow, he seemed like a liberal. Skip to 5:00 mi. Into video to get to point, or if you have time listen to it from beginning,
I enjoyed the theory, and decided I think both were whack jobs and neither were innocent or guilty, just very opinionated about their politics and each other's associates.
After further investigation McCarthy was right unless somebody can prove we didn't turn into the exact kind of nation he warned us of.
It was McCarthy's approach with his fanaticism that did him in. Everyone was in his crosshairs, which was erroneous to say the least. All he accused were not Commies at all, and as for the nation he warned us of, well, time will tell. At the time, Communism was illegal in the U.S., just as Nazism. Today, it is frowned upon, but Socialism certainly is not. To me, they are close to being synonymous. You still cannot legally declare yourself a Nazi in this country, but I've seen actions from some very prominent people that hinge on that very philosophy.
I would think that a man who witnessed what communism really looks like while fighting it would be more trustworthy than one who made major bucks being a war correspondent. Thank you, Lois, for politely debating the subject. So far from what I've read I'll go with McCarthy, that may change after further study. I do agree he lost his mind and an alcoholic in the end.
In retrospect, McCarty seems to have found an issue (fear of the Soviet Union, and hence communism) and used it for personal gain. Socialism, of which communism is a subset, is always going to be an easy sell to the bulk of the populace in almost any given society. This is because the ability of individuals follows a Gauss distribution (bell curve) and the appeal of socialism is primarily to the 3 lower quartiles, at the expense of the upper quartile. Too, to believe that socialism can work as a stable system in a large scale, multi-ethnic, multi-racial society is to optimistically assume that everyone likes and trusts everyone else, and that all sharing will be voluntary, and all those receiving benefit will never falsify their need.
Marie, I am not debating anything at all. I am stating facts for I was there and followed it all daily. Murrow was right on the line during the Blitz in London by the way which hardly diminishes his various roles during WWII. He simply did not do any shooting.
Not so much after long costly war's, people only want tranquility not more strife. The "tell me something good' attitude is what people want. All the homes had the famous newscaster Mr.Good Night Good Luck. Once he and other suspected major media libs and congressional cowards joined forces to get us to here and now. Or was that just what some McCarthy supporters want us tio think? I find it interesting but then I like history and riddles.
LOL all righty then. Lois facts can be tricky. Not that it really matters at this point and time. Its just entertainment for me since my social life went from here to there. May as well study something else thats not going to do me one bit of good or accomplish anything but it does beat recipes I can't eat, places I can't go.