Murrow - McCarthy: Good Night and Good Luck

[cmac2012]

Finally got around to seeing "Good Night and Good Luck." It's worth seeing. Slow in spots but I saw some footage of McCarthy that I've never seen before and got a glimpse of newsroom life. Yeah, sure it's fiction but Clooney's dad was a newsman, and he grew up around it.

I've not seen Clooney in many flicks -- "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou" is the only other one I can think of right now. I think he's more on top of his politics than most of the Hollywood crowd.

Any of you young guys who've heard about McCarthy, like through Ann Coulter, but don't know much about him, I highly recommend this. They used actual footage of McCarthy because they knew no matter what actor they choose or how he played it, they'd get accused of slanting it somehow.

Communist infiltration may have been a problem, but McCarthy was a bigger problem, IMHO. The guy was obsessed with his witch hunt. Dude died in a nut-house, assaulting orderlies now and then. Coulter don't watch out, she's going to follow him one day.

Trailer at:

http://wip.warnerbros.com/goodnightgoodluck/

[MS Fowler]

You might appreciate some additional perspective on this era. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the release of some of their espionage files, it has been shown that McCarthy was right--as far as the US State Dept being infiltrated. There were a lot of commies in the US governemt, as well as all areas of nulear research.
McCarthy's personality made him an easy target, and the left in this country still villifies him, but his basic instincts were correct.
Don't make the simplistic mistake of discounting what he said becasue he said it poorly.

[kerry]

I saw it on Friday and was not very impressed. The problem I see is that the film in some ways reinforces the idea that to be a socialist or a communist is not to be an American. In other words, McCarthy's problem is presented as one of accusing innocents, whereas the more basic issue is whether americans should be free to be socialists or communists. When Murrow was accused of having joined the IWW, the opportunity was there to defend the freedom of association and the right to organize unions. He didn't. I read the movie as an account of the conflict between the right wing of the capitalist establishment and the left wing.
Even if McCarthy was right, he was wrong.
Anyone have any links to sites that detail the opinions on Murrow of leftists of the 50's?

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You might appreciate some additional perspective on this era. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the release of some of their espionage files, it has been shown that McCarthy was right--as far as the US State Dept being infiltrated. There were a lot of commies in the US governemt, as well as all areas of nulear research.
McCarthy's personality made him an easy target, and the left in this country still villifies him, but his basic instincts were correct.
Don't make the simplistic mistake of discounting what he said becasue he said it poorly.

What, and we weren't busy infiltrating the Soviet Union? I think we were way too unappreciative of the strength and appeal of our system. Communism is a flawed system, deeply flawed because it disempowers individual innitiative too much, way too much.

Some caution was useful, but McCarthy got caught up in being the center of attention and went about 27 orders of magnitude too far. The film showed the footage of McCarthy fabricating charges against Murrow because Murrow had the audacity to question the trashing of people's careers and lives based on hearsay and sealed "evidence." McCarthy's assumption that anyone who had an interest in understanding what made communists tick, even reading a Serbian newspaper in one case, was a menace and a communist was way over the top.

Sorry, I don't find his instincts at all correct. He was a self-righteous, vengeful man who loved the spotlight. Watch the movie. It's all recorded fact, except for the off camera moments which were well researched.

As for the Soviets infiltrating our nuclear research depts., what would we have done if the Soviets had 1,000 warheads pointed at us and were talking about using them, and we had none? Thank God Eisenhower had enough wisdom and humanity to keep a lid on all the joint chiefs who thought nuking Russia and China was a good idea.

[MS Fowler]

You'd have to document a time when we had 1000 warheads aimed at the Soviet Union while thay had none. There was no such time in my memory.

Originally Posted by cmac2012

What, and we weren't busy infiltrating the Soviet Union? I think we were way too unappreciative of the strength and appeal of our system. Communism is a flawed system, deeply flawed because it disempowers individual innitiative too much, way too much.

Some caution was useful, but McCarthy got caught up in being the center of attention and went about 27 orders of magnitude too far. The film showed the footage of McCarthy fabricating charges against Murrow because Murrow had the audacity to question the trashing of people's careers and lives based on hearsay and sealed "evidence." McCarthy's assumption that anyone who had an interest in understanding what made communists tick, even reading a Serbian newspaper in one case, was a menace and a communist was way over the top.

Sorry, I don't find his instincts at all correct. He was a self-righteous, vengeful man who loved the spotlight. Watch the movie. It's all recorded fact, except for the off camera moments which were well researched.

As for the Soviets infiltrating our nuclear research depts., what would we have done if the Soviets had 1,000 warheads pointed at us and were talking about using them, and we had none? Thank God Eisenhower had enough wisdom and humanity to keep a lid on all the joint chiefs who thought nuking Russia and China was a good idea.

[mikemover]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You'd have to document a time when we had 1000 warheads aimed at the Soviet Union while thay had none. There was no such time in my memory.

Yep.

Mike

[mikemover]

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

I saw it on Friday and was not very impressed. The problem I see is that the film in some ways reinforces the idea that to be a socialist or a communist is not to be an American. In other words, McCarthy's problem is presented as one of accusing innocents, whereas the more basic issue is whether americans should be free to be socialists or communists. When Murrow was accused of having joined the IWW, the opportunity was there to defend the freedom of association and the right to organize unions. He didn't. I read the movie as an account of the conflict between the right wing of the capitalist establishment and the left wing.
Even if McCarthy was right, he was wrong.
Anyone have any links to sites that detail the opinions on Murrow of leftists of the 50's?

Yes, an American citizen who aligns himself with socialists or communists is still "technically" an "American"....but communist ideals and interests are in direct and nearly complete conflict with American ideals and interests, and this was particularly exaggerated and amplified during the time of the Soviet Union, and the Cold War.

I agree that Americans should be free to call themselves "socialist" or "communist", and to freely express those views (even as misguided as they may be).... but they must also be willing to live with the consequences of doing so while living in a country founded upon, and operating under, a system of government and economics that are (for now, at least) the polar opposites of their aforementioned ideals.

History has shown that McCarthy, as extreme and over-the-top as he was, was right on target with the majority of his suspicions and accusations.

Mike

[cmac2012]

http://vicpeace.ca/centre/readings/nukeuse.htm

This site states that we had 1200 warheads in '54 while the Soviet number of warheads was unknown. I think that's the statistic I had read years ago and I think I misinterpeted it to mean the Soviets had none.

Best I can tell from this site, we had 400 warheads when the Soviets developed their first one, still a pretty serious arsenal to have pointed at them, specially after all the sabers we'd been rattling. I'm not trying to apologize for the Soviets but this is another example for me of where we seem to disregard human nature. Russia had been bludgeoned by Germany twice in 30 years, losing roughly 20 million people in each war. Then, we had Patton and others lobbying for invading Russia. WTF did we expect them to do? Commit suicide and solve our problem for us? Agree that we should just put them out of their misery?

I read the story about Eisenhower and the joint chiefs years ago in Stephen Ambrose's biography (authorized) about Ike. I couldn't find a full account of it on the web but I did find Ike's semi-famous response, which is below. The joint chiefs were saying that we would never again have such a lead in nuclear firepower and we better take them (Russia) out while we can. Ike said that, in that case, we'd have to take out China also, being a strong ally of Russia's and perhaps having the bomb as well. The joint chiefs agreed. Some introduction from the site and the quote, the site being:

http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/poli419n/lectures/lecture19.html

The US military took advantage of Soviet shortcomings in command and control having to do with its reluctance to decentralize authority because of its mistrust of its own population, and prepared decapitation attack plans.

However, there was not universal support: President Eisenhower on the option of a preemptive nuclear attack option on the USSR in 1954:

“No matter how well prepared we may be, no matter how certain we are that within 24 hours we could destroy Kuibyshev and Moscow and Leningrad and Baku and all the other places that would allow the Soviets to carry on war, I want you to carry this question home with you: Gain such a victory, and what do you do with it? Here would be a great area from the Elbe to Vladivostok and down through Southeast Asia torn up and destroyed without government, without its communications, just an area of starvation and disaster. I ask you what would the civilized world do about it? I repeat there is no victory in any war except through our imaginations, through our dedication, and through our hard work to avoid it.”

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by mikemover

Yes, an American citizen who aligns himself with socialists or communists is still "technically" an "American"....but communist ideals and interests are in direct and nearly complete conflict with American ideals and interests, and this was particularly exaggerated and amplified during the time of the Soviet Union, and the Cold War.

I agree that Americans should be free to call themselves "socialist" or "communist", and to freely express those views (even as misguided as they may be).... but they must also be willing to live with the consequences of doing so while living in a country founded upon, and operating under, a system of government and economics that are (for now, at least) the polar opposites of their aforementioned ideals.

History has shown that McCarthy, as extreme and over-the-top as he was, was right on target with the majority of his suspicions and accusations.

You've seen extensive footage of McCarthy's rantings? You're certain that the many people whose lives he upended based on hidden evidence were a threat to our country? If you haven't I've got a movie to suggest to catch up.

If he was so right on, why did his fears, about communist takeover from within not come to pass? I think Murrow was the one who was right on. The Soviets were going to get the bomb, no stopping it. They weren't the dumb monkeys Truman thought they were. Why are we so willing to give ourselves the right to fear the Russkies and to seek to crush them but to think that their similar sentiments were nefarious?

[mikemover]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

You've seen extensive footage of McCarthy's rantings? You're certain that the many people whose lives he upended based on hidden evidence were a threat to our country? If you haven't I've got a movie to suggest to catch up.

Yes, I've seen a good deal of it. Thus, the comments I made regard his extremism and over-the-top approach. I guess you missed that part of my post?......

Originally Posted by cmac2012

If he was so right on, why did his fears, about communist takeover from within not come to pass? I think Murrow was the one who was right on. The Soviets were going to get the bomb, no stopping it. They weren't the dumb monkeys Truman thought they were. Why are we so willing to give ourselves the right to fear the Russkies and to seek to crush them but to think that their similar sentiments were nefarious?

Left unchecked, it very well could have happened. Or not. There is, of course, no way to know. But I always prefer to err on the side of caution in such situations, and assume a posture of defense, and pre-emption if possible.

I also never said that their fear of us was unfounded. Quite understandable, actually.

But as usual, all of the complexities and subtleties eventually boil down to the same core: Human nature. Survival of the fittest. Us or them. As much as we'd like to think we're above it or beyond it somehow, we are not.

I also happen to believe that our economic system and representative government was, and still is, superior to what they were offering.... So in an "us or them" scenario, which the cold war indisputably was, I unapologetically choose "us".

Mike

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by mikemover

Yes, I've seen a good deal of it. Thus, the comments I made regard his extremism and over-the-top approach. I guess you missed that part of my post?......

No I didn't miss it nor did I miss the part "...right on target with the majority of his suspicions and accusations." That's the part I don't agree with...t'all.

Originally Posted by mikemover

Left unchecked, it very well could have happened. Or not. There is, of course, no way to know. But I always prefer to err on the side of caution in such situations, and assume a posture of defense, and pre-emption if possible.

I also never said that their fear of us was unfounded. Quite understandable, actually.

But as usual, all of the complexities and subtleties eventually boil down to the same core: Human nature. Survival of the fittest. Us or them. As much as we'd like to think we're above it or beyond it somehow, we are not.

I also happen to believe that our economic system and representative government was, and still is, superior to what they were offering.... So in an "us or them" scenario, which the cold war indisputably was, I unapologetically choose "us".

Survival of the fittest doesn't really come into play when you're continents apart when you have a balance of power which we had more than enough of in McCarthy's time. Us or them? Both nations endure. Ambitious hawks on both sides to be sure but I don't think either side actually thought they could eliminate the other from existance, nobody sane anyway, and as Eisenhower showed, they did not have a majority of power; here anyway and apparently there as well.

I no way suggest that we should have disarmed so they wouldn't have been so afraid of us. We continued to develop our military force and they theirs. I believe we could have gotten by with way less if we a hadn't been so fixated on fear of them and had made earlier overtures of cooperation. You know, "that which I feared came upon me," -- self fulfilling prophecies and all.

Patton was a brilliant warrior but somewhat lacking as a diplomat and he and similar minded folks didn't do world peace and security any favors with their undisguised zeal at the prospect of taking out our "real" enemy, the Russians. The same Russians who's efforts in WW2 had just spared the lives of untold hundreds of thousands of US forces who would have had to fight in their stead had the Russians not been there.

[kerry]

Socialism is not in conflict with American principles at all. While the US might have been founded on Lockean principles of the protection of private property understand as 'real' property, those same principles also hold that each person owns their own body and its labor. So the protection of labor rights is equally as fundamental to US principles as the protection of 'real' property. Socialism is the defense of the rights of labor against the rights of capital. There is nothing anti-american about this at all.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

http://vicpeace.ca/centre/readings/nukeuse.htm

This site states that we had 1200 warheads in '54 while the Soviet number of warheads was unknown. I think that's the statistic I had read years ago and I think I misinterpeted it to mean the Soviets had none.

Best I can tell from this site, we had 400 warheads when the Soviets developed their first one, still a pretty serious arsenal to have pointed at them, specially after all the sabers we'd been rattling. I'm not trying to apologize for the Soviets but this is another example for me of where we seem to disregard human nature. Russia had been bludgeoned by Germany twice in 30 years, losing roughly 20 million people in each war. Then, we had Patton and others lobbying for invading Russia. WTF did we expect them to do? Commit suicide and solve our problem for us? Agree that we should just put them out of their misery?

I read the story about Eisenhower and the joint chiefs years ago in Stephen Ambrose's biography (authorized) about Ike. I couldn't find a full account of it on the web but I did find Ike's semi-famous response, which is below. The joint chiefs were saying that we would never again have such a lead in nuclear firepower and we better take them (Russia) out while we can. Ike said that, in that case, we'd have to take out China also, being a strong ally of Russia's and perhaps having the bomb as well. The joint chiefs agreed. Some introduction from the site and the quote, the site being:

http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/poli419n/lectures/lecture19.html

The US military took advantage of Soviet shortcomings in command and control having to do with its reluctance to decentralize authority because of its mistrust of its own population, and prepared decapitation attack plans.

However, there was not universal support: President Eisenhower on the option of a preemptive nuclear attack option on the USSR in 1954:

“No matter how well prepared we may be, no matter how certain we are that within 24 hours we could destroy Kuibyshev and Moscow and Leningrad and Baku and all the other places that would allow the Soviets to carry on war, I want you to carry this question home with you: Gain such a victory, and what do you do with it? Here would be a great area from the Elbe to Vladivostok and down through Southeast Asia torn up and destroyed without government, without its communications, just an area of starvation and disaster. I ask you what would the civilized world do about it? I repeat there is no victory in any war except through our imaginations, through our dedication, and through our hard work to avoid it.”

You imply a moral equivancy between the USSR and the USA.

Bot

[mikemover]

Originally Posted by Botnst

You imply a moral equivancy between the USSR and the USA.

Bot

How convenient, leaving that factor out of the equation, eh?....

Mike

[mikemover]

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Socialism is not in conflict with American principles at all. While the US might have been founded on Lockean principles of the protection of private property understand as 'real' property, those same principles also hold that each person owns their own body and its labor. So the protection of labor rights is equally as fundamental to US principles as the protection of 'real' property. Socialism is the defense of the rights of labor against the rights of capital. There is nothing anti-american about this at all.

Depends on who you ask....

Each PERSON does own his own body and labor. However, the INDIVIDUAL is the important part of this principle that you, and many supporters of socialism, seem to overlook.

The use of large lobbying groups (unions) to politically bully companies into paying workers more than their labor is worth, and into providing more benefits and perks than were originally promised, is NOT "American".

Any student of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights can see that America's founding fathers obviously had the concepts of INDIVIDUAL freedoms, liberties, and responsibilities on their minds. True socialism seeks to suppress the individual, and make the individual's wishes irrelevant, in favor of the "group". If this is not anti-American, then nothing is.

Mike