Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator

( 2 )

Overview

Remembered as an unscrupulous, self-serving, and hypocritical man who recklessly destroyed people's reputations and lives through hysterical, anticommunist witch hunting, Senator Joseph McCarthy is one of the most vilified figures in American history. Yet Arthur Herman's reassessment of McCarthy's legacy shows that, in retrospect, his disgrace came at a certain price to historical truth. Historians have been reluctant to examine all the evidence. McCarthy's true role in anticommunism, as well as his place in the ...
See more details below
Available through our Marketplace sellers.
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (26) from $2.99   
  • New (4) from $49.95   
  • Used (22) from $2.99   
Close
Sort by
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Note: Marketplace items are not eligible for any BN.com coupons and promotions
$49.95
Seller since 2015

Feedback rating:

(6)

Condition:

New — never opened or used in original packaging.

Like New — packaging may have been opened. A "Like New" item is suitable to give as a gift.

Very Good — may have minor signs of wear on packaging but item works perfectly and has no damage.

Good — item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Acceptable — item is in working order but may show signs of wear such as scratches or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Used — An item that has been opened and may show signs of wear. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Refurbished — A used item that has been renewed or updated and verified to be in proper working condition. Not necessarily completed by the original manufacturer.

New
New first edition, first printing hardcover and dust jacket in excellent condition. Protective mylar cover. 1.22 x 9.51 x 6.37 Inches 416 pages

Ships from: Arlington, TX

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$74.95
Seller since 2008

Feedback rating:

(81)

Condition: New
Excellent condition. Small remainder mark on the bottom of book; otherwise the book is in brand new condition. Free Tracking information available.

Ships from: Naperville, IL

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$359.00
Seller since 2005

Feedback rating:

(374)

Condition: New
New York, NY 1999 Hardcover Edition Unstated New Condition in As New jacket 1st printing! Light shelf wear to DJ otherwise never used. Never opened...Quantity Available: 1. ... Category: Biography & Autobiography; ISBN: 0684836254. ISBN/EAN: 9780684836256. Inventory No: 1560729661. Read more Show Less

Ships from: Burgin, KY

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$621.42
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(0)

Condition: New
Old Tappan, New Jersey, U.S.A. 1999 Hardcover New 0684836254. FLAWLESS COPY, BRAND NEW, PRISTINE, NEVER OPENED-

Ships from: New Hampton, NY

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Close
Sort by
Sending request ...

Overview

Remembered as an unscrupulous, self-serving, and hypocritical man who recklessly destroyed people's reputations and lives through hysterical, anticommunist witch hunting, Senator Joseph McCarthy is one of the most vilified figures in American history. Yet Arthur Herman's reassessment of McCarthy's legacy shows that, in retrospect, his disgrace came at a certain price to historical truth. Historians have been reluctant to examine all the evidence. McCarthy's true role in anticommunism, as well as his place in the making of modern American political culture, remains both unexplored and unexplained.

In this fascinating reevaluation, Herman shows that the more we learn about communism in America, the more McCarthy is proven to have been accurate in his charges. Many people in the State Department truly were security risks; there were individual cases of spies and traitors; and there were many sympathizers with influence over American foreign policy. Based on information not available while the man behind these claims was being condemned, this is a riveting exploration of McCarthy's life and legacy from a never-before-glimpsed perspective.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Larry I. Bland
A political tract disguised as a scholarly history, this book is intended to be a contribution to the right-wing side of the current “culture war” in the United States. Nevertheless, it could have been written in 1956 as a companion piece to William Buckley and Brent Bozell’s McCarthy and His Enemies. Contrary to appearances, the author is not McCarthy’s defense lawyer but a cultural historian who received his Ph.D. in history from Johns Hopkins University (1985), is adjunct professor at George Mason University, and coordinator of the Western Civilization Program at the Smithsonian Institution. In 1997 he published The Idea of Decline in Western History.

According to Herman, McCarthy was justified and correct in all important political ideas and actions. The senator’s liberal enemies in academia, government, and the media were elitist gullible fools (at best). Sometimes they were irresponsibly blind (“in complicity with evil”) to the enormous danger communist subversion and propaganda posed to American society, but just as often they were actual traitors or Marxist-inclined dupes. Revisionist and antiwar writers of the 1960s and after are the ideological descendants of this evil crew.

Most of the author’s sources are secondary, but he also uses contemporary publications, published congressional hearings, a few interviews, and some manuscript collections. The book is nicely published, illustrated, and indexed. Nobody left of Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond will be convinced by the author’s exegesis, but the book is a must for all conservatives and conspiracy buffs. One presumes that right-wing foundations and corporations will wish to buy it in bulk for distribution to true believers.
American Diplomacy, Summer 2000
Library Journal
The principal victim of McCarthyism, according to Herman (George Mason Univ., Washington, DC), was Joe McCarthy himself. A body of recent scholarship has sought to recast what usually has been viewed as a hysteria instead as a period when Communist subversion was an authentic threat. Herman (The Idea of Decline in Western History) attempts an ambitious job indeed: the historical rehabilitation of the Wisconsin senator whose name became an ism. For all his recklessness, this book's McCarthy was essentially correct that Soviet operatives and fellow travelers had a free pass into the government. And for every brutality committed by McCarthy, Herman has one to cite on the part of opponents in politics or the press, who finally did in a man weakened by alcoholism and by the roguery of aide Roy Cohn. Provocative and well written, the book is really an extended argument, with Herman as interested in skinning liberals as he is in McCarthy's story. It might be an opposite bookend to the classic anti-McCarthy work by Richard Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy (LJ 6/15/59). Thomas C. Reeves's The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy (LJ 4/1/82) remains a more reliable biography than either. Optional for public and academic libraries.--Robert F. Nardini, Chichester, NH Copyright 1999 Cahners Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
A combative corrective to the view of McCarthy as red-baiting demagogue that finds the true villains in the liberal establishment and the mainstream media. Using archival materials from the former USSR and declassified US materials, Herman (History/George Mason Univ.) offers evidence validating McCarthy's anti-Communist pursuits: Alger Hiss, the US Army, pro-Communist federal employees. Most satisfying are his Senate scenes, which have the page-turning life of an Allan Drury novel. But overriding these virtues is the tortuous string of narrow characterizations that make much of the book read like a radio talk-show transcript. FDR envoy to Russia Harry Hopkins is a "Communist dupe," J. Robert Oppenheimer "a conscious Soviet asset," General Douglas MacArthur's insubordination to President Truman "a daring experiment." Predictably, those most responsible for unseating McCarthy are the most radically revised targets. Rather than acting as a moral barometer, Army counsel Joseph Welch is a crafty Eastern Establishment regular mainly interested in how he appeared on TV. Edward R. Murrow is no beacon of truth but an opportunist whose manipulative McCarthy interviews are central to "the modern media's exalted self-image." One of the few events escaping revision is McCarthy's physical attack on adversarial columnist Drew Pearson: The knee in the groin and flattening slap are registered with disapproval. Herman's own rhetorical punches point to his reductionist definition of the McCarthy era—a battle pitting atheist commie liberals against churchgoing moral conservatives. This limits the author's credibility and discounts human complexity. To his credit, Herman provides a moredistanced view than Richard Rovere did in his benchmark 1959 biography; yet Herman's relentless politicizing deprives McCarthy of the dignity of a fallen man. A well-researched but hectoring book that fails to redeem McCarthy and antagonizes readers through its reductionist views of the American people. Librarians, prepare for opinion-blackened margins; readers, argue and run—to more balanced historians.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780684836256
  • Publisher: Free Press
  • Publication date: 12/2/1999
  • Pages: 416
  • Product dimensions: 6.54 (w) x 9.54 (h) x 1.21 (d)

Read an Excerpt

Epilogue

McCarthyism is a very old American custom. It is an age-old American determination to get rid of traitors and grafters and disloyal servants
-- Alfred Kohlberg

McCarthy and McCarthyism had not been entirely laid to rest. Even as its last gleanings were being swept out of the American public sphere, the McCarthyite idiom was making an interesting double reappearance. At one end of the political spectrum, it fed the rebirth of American conservatism. At the other, and more unexpectedly, it found its bizarre doppelgänger in a host of new conspiracy theorists, this time from the far left rather than the right.

The first saga begins in October 1952 as the editorial staff of the Freeman split up over the issue of supporting McCarthy. Three of its editors, led by Forrest Davis, toyed with creating a new journal of conservative opinion, one that would appeal to a modern, less traditionalist, audience. A year later the catalyst for their efforts turned up in the person of McCarthy's youthful defender in his final days, William F. Buckley, Jr. Over the next year Buckley managed to persuade, bully, and cajole a diverse group of intellectuals, journalists, and financial backers into founding National Review, whose first issue appeared in November 1955.

Buckley's biographer notes that "support for McCarthyism, if not McCarthy himself, bound together the senior editors and shaped the list of contributors." Willi Schlamm, James Burnham, and Max Eastman had all at one time or another spoken up for McCarthy in the press. Editors Buckley and Brent Bozell had worked for him. Another McCarthy admirer, former Internal Security subcommittee staffer William Rusher, later joined them as publisher.

Although his name did not appear in the magazine's first issue, McCarthy's presence was tangible from the start. The editors of National Review firmly rejected the liberal axiom that the red scare had been unnecessary or a threat to civil liberties. They argued, much as McCarthy had, that the struggle for America had to be as much a struggle against modern liberalism as it was against communism. But at the same time, they banished conspiracy theorists like Robert Welch of the John Birch Society to the lunatic hinterlands. Modern conservatism's battle was going to be openly political and ideological, even dialectical. It would be waged in the public sphere and eventually at the ballot box rather than through surveillance cameras, wiretaps, affidavits, and loyalty programs. "Ideas have to go into exchange to become or remain operative," Buckley wrote in their first issue, "and the medium of such exchange is the printed word."

Buckley and his editors also rejected the claims of sociologists and political scientists that America's public culture in the fifties was conservative or even "pseudo-conservative." Everywhere they looked, including the Republican Party, they saw the automatic, often unthinking adoption of liberal assumptions and standards. "There is a liberal point of view on national and world affairs," they insisted, which fostered the spread of Communist influence instead of hindering it. Buckley wrote: "I happen to believe that if there were not a single Communist spy in America, we'd still be losing the Cold War -- because the classrooms of Harvard are simply no substitute for the playing fields of Eton."

National Review also severed its connections with the old right, which had predated McCarthyism and now seemed out of touch. It gave up on the campaign to revoke Social Security or undo the New Deal. It did not seek to refight World War II or to explain Franklin Roosevelt as an agent of communism -- or the Jews. In fact, several of National Review's senior editors were Jews. Anti-Semitic outbursts, worries about maintaining America's racial purity, and not diluting the "Anglo-Saxon stock," were banned from its pages. On ethnic issues, it reflected the same assumptions that McCarthy had brought to the anti-Communist crusade. It did not matter whether you were a Jew, or a Catholic, or black or white, or Democrat or Republican -- what counted was whether you were willing to take a stand as an American in a great moral struggle against international communism and its sympathizers.

In 1958, in the pages of National Review, Frank Meyer insisted that McCarthyism had established four key truths:

  • That communism and modern liberalism share the same basic goal -- socialism
  • That the key difference between them is not the end but the means to get there
  • That both regard "all inherited value," such as church, family, and national traditions, as invalid and without binding authority
  • That modern liberalism has shown itself unfit "for the leadership of a free society"

For Meyer, Buckley, and National Review, the liberal establishment had lost its legitimacy as a political class, a judgment that would soon be confirmed by the events in Vietnam.

National Review also touched a new upwardly mobile conservative audience, particularly among urban Catholics, many of whom had discovered an interest in politics through Joe McCarthy. Like McCarthy, their roots were working class. Like McCarthy, they saw no contradiction between their Catholicism and their commitment to the American proposition. One was Kieran O'Doherty, who later founded the Conservative Party in New York; another was Pat Buchanan. They and their generation would be the foot soldiers in a sixties cultural revolution at least as important as the one launched by student radicals: the Goldwater revolution in the Republican Party.

By 1960 McCarthy's old ally and friend Barry Goldwater had assumed the role as spokesman for a wholesale rejection of "modern" Republicanism, symbolized by Nelson Rockefeller. That year Brent Bozell ghost-wrote Goldwater's manifesto, The Conscience of a Conservative, which became an instant best-seller. The book heralded the reemergence of a political movement that owed its ideology to Robert Taft but found a much broader social and geographic base, running from the traditionally Democratic South to the West and the American heartland. By 1968 a farsighted political analyst named Kevin Phillips was already dubbing this "Southern, Western -- and Irish -- backed" antiestablishmentarian movement the New Republican Majority.

The truth was that it was not ordinary middle-class and working-class Americans who had been terrorized by McCarthy and the red scare, but the liberals and the intellectuals. "Whatever else Senator McCarthy did," Buckley had written in 1959, "he brought liberalism to a boil." It was they, even more than the Communists, who perceived him as a threat. In trying to undo his political legacy, they in fact unraveled themselves. Liberals used the specter of McCarthyism as a stick with which to beat back this conservative insurgency. That tactic worked in 1964 as Goldwater went down to a humiliating defeat. But below the waterline the movement had stuck fast, an increasingly heavy barnacle on the ship of state despite every attempt to scrape it off.

It may be true, as Michael Paul Rogin and others have claimed, that McCarthy failed to set off a populist revolt. But his ideological heirs did. When Ronald Reagan assumed the leadership of a reconstituted conservative GOP in 1980, it had a distinctly populist appeal. It was Republicans, not Democrats, who could now claim to represent "ordinary working Americans," while liberalism slid deeper and deeper into division and self-doubt.

In the end, then, McCarthy was always a more important figure to American liberals than to conservatives. The nightmarish image of his heavy, swarthy, sweaty features haunted the imaginations of thousands of anti-anti-Communists throughout the sixties and seventies. It appeared and reappeared in documentaries like Point of Order and Seeing Red and helped to set off the backlash that brought liberal anticommunism crashing to the floor. However, the next development in the political culture of the American left suddenly and very unexpectedly incorporated one of the ingredients of McCarthyism that sophisticated observers had most despised: the so-called paranoid style resurfaced with a vengeance.

At its center was an intense and charismatic university professor named William Appleman Williams. He also came from America's heartland, born in Atlantic, Iowa, and even taught at the University of Wisconsin in McCarthy's home state. Williams was also a World War II veteran who saw action in the Pacific, but unlike McCarthy, he really had suffered injuries there that tortured him the rest of his life. The pain of physical suffering and the bitterness associated with his experiences served to feed a resentment and an angry will to resist the prevailing liberalism in American intellectual life. However, he expressed this by moving not to the political right, as McCarthy had done, but further left. In 1959 he published The Tragedy of American Diplomacy. That year was a watershed year for American liberalism. It saw the publication of John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society, which enshrined Keynesianism as the new orthodoxy in liberal domestic policy, and Michael Harrington's The Other America, which inspired the war on poverty. It was the publication date for Richard Rovere's dark portrait of Joe McCarthy, which seemed to bury the senator's credibility once and for all. Then, all at once Williams's book shook the dirt from McCarthy's mangled remains and resurrected the old fears of corruptions of empire, this time with a distinctly Marxist coloring.

The Tragedy of American Diplomacy argued that America's relations with the outside world in the twentieth century had been guided by a single objective: "imperial expansion." By comparison, the geopolitical aims and efforts of Stalinist Russia had been more limited. The notion that America's foreign policy was traditionally isolationist was a myth. "Classical economics led to an expansionist foreign policy," Williams wrote, with Americans prepared to take direct action to keep their markets open. To make the world safe for American capitalism, Williams asserted, its corporate and political leaders had taken the United States to war not once but three times: in 1917 (including an expeditionary force to suppress the Russian Revolution), again in 1941, and then during the cold war. Far from being an effort to contain Stalinism, the cold war had been a huge frame-up, an effort by Wall Street and Washington insiders to deter socialist revolutions around the world under the guise of deterring "Soviet aggression." Publication of the book left orthodox diplomatic historians confused and baffled. However, Professor Williams trained a whole generation of influential radical historians at Wisconsin, including Walter Le Feber, Gar Alperovitz, Lloyd Gardner, and Ronald Radosh. When Williams and his disciples mixed his idea of a corporate elite pushing an informal American empire with sociologist C. Wright Mills's notion of an American "power elite" which secretly controlled the nation's institutions, the result was a kind of intellectual Molotov cocktail, ready to be hurled at the prevailing liberal consensus on the cold war and Vietnam. It was the birth of what came to be called cold war revisionism.

In 1965 Gar Alperovitz published Atomic Diplomacy, a book that claimed to show that the real target of the dropping of the bomb at Hiroshima was not Japan but the Soviet Union, and that President Truman and his advisers engineered the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese in order to intimidate Stalin. Despite the book's many flaws and misrepresentations, Alperovitz's thesis was greeted with rapture and relief by left-leaning intellectuals obsessed with the escalating war in Southeast Asia. The cold war was America's fault all along, they could now proclaim, the egregious product of a foreign policy directed by a privileged power elite, "the American mandarins," the title of an influential essay by a professor of linguistics at MIT named Noam Chomsky. America, in other words, was run by a corporate-government conspiracy, one as malign and manipulative as anything being dreamed up by the John Birch Society.

Williams described the revisionist as "someone who sees basic facts in a different way and as interconnected in a different way" -- again, not unlike the John Birch Society. However, revision took its basic form from old left propaganda that had been circulating for years about capitalism's endless vendetta against the peace-loving and progressive Soviet Union. Yet, significantly, some of the old anti-internationalist writers who had warned about America's degenerating into a "military state," like John T. Flynn, enjoyed a brief vogue among new left revisionists. In addition, the revisionists now shifted discussion of the red scare away from Joe McCarthy to Harry Truman, Dean Acheson, George Kennan, and George Marshall. The very figures McCarthy had accused of being soft on communism suddenly turned out to be rabid anti-Communists (the revisionists' own hero was Henry Wallace).

No one ignored McCarthy's role in encouraging the red scare, but he now turned out to be a minor figure in comparison with real villains, the architects of the American "national security state," a massive militarized totalitarian edifice that radicals like Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti even compared to Nazi Germany. Every diplomatic alliance, every counterinsurgency, every brushfire war, was carried out to protect American corporate capitalism, while America's domestic institutions, from Congress to the media and universities, had been carefully corrupted in order to disguise what was really happening.

As the Vietnam debacle ran its bloody course, the revisionist thesis captured the hearts and minds of antiwar intellectuals and academics. Its central thesis, which had originally been McCarthy's, now proved irresistible: the cold war, like history, "does not just happen." As Williams himself wrote, unconsciously echoing McCarthy, "one can never forget it is people who act -- not the policy or the program." It is planned and executed by a small but powerful group at the top. Loyalty programs (ruthlessly deconstructed by historian Athan Theoharis), Hoover and the FBI, secret wars and the CIA, nuclear power, the assassination of JFK, the illicit drug trade, were all swept into the theory's all-devouring maw. Like a good conspiracy theory should, it explained everything, including its own contradictions.

When Joe McCarthy had complained that America was being led to self-destruction by a "conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man," he had provoked catcalls and howls of derision, just as Robert Welch did when he repeated it. But by 1980 the radical left's version of that same conspiracy had gained widespread acceptance, thanks in large part to the machinations of Watergate. Conspiracy and cover-up suddenly became the secret dynamic of all Washington governance, although driven by the capitalist right rather than the Communist left. It still leaves its trace today, in stories like October Surprise or Navy missiles shooting down a TWA airliner, in TV programs like the X-Files, and films like Oliver Stone's JFK.

JFK is the McCarthy story told in a mirror, where left is right and right is left. An ordinary government prosecutor in Louisiana, played by Kevin Costner, discovers that John Kennedy was murdered in order to perpetuate a secret foreign policy run by the Establishment, built around covert operations and mass murder in Vietnam. His revelatory encounter with a Washington insider, so redolent of McCarthy's mythic meeting with James Forrestal, lifts the scales from his eyes on the size and immensity of the conspiracy he faces. The hero needs to ask himself a simple question: Who has the power for a cover-up of JFK's assassination? Answer that, his informant tells him, and you will also know who did it.

The forces arrayed against him are formidable. They include the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI, as well as the press and the media, who try to discredit him by garbling his stories and generally making him look like a kook. Like McCarthy, he suspects they are bugging his office and discovers that his private conversations are no longer so private. A cabal of homosexuals even puts in an appearance, as ultimate symbols of the corruptions of empire. One of them, absurdly named Fairey, used to work for the CIA. He tells Kevin Costner: "Man, you don't leave the agency; once they got you, they got for life" -- words that in an earlier time and place Elizabeth Bentley or Whittaker Chambers would have uttered about the Communist Party.

Like McCarthy, Stone's hero finds his bedrock of support from the little people. They are Louisiana Cajuns in this case rather than Boston Irish or Wisconsin farmers, with plain features and short, dumpy bodies, and twangy down-home southern accents. But the effect is the same. They believe "Jim" and rally to him because he is, in the end, "one of us."

At the same time, knowledge has changed him. He carries a burden that will haunt him until he dies. When the hero's wife complains that the discovery of this vast conspiracy, secretly undermining and destroying everything he believes in, has changed him, he angrily replies, "Of course, I've changed. My eyes have opened. What used to seem normal seems insane."

Later Costner's character says, "Telling the truth can be a scary thing. If you let yourself be scared, then the bad guys'll take over the country." He adds, "Somebody's gotta try, somebody."

It might have been the motto of Joe McCarthy.

Copyright © 2000 by Arthur Herman

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part I: Origins
1 Wisconsin and the Wider World
2 The Class of '46
3 Fatal Attraction: Liberals and Communism
4 The Forties: Democrats and Communists


Part II: Rise
5 The Enemy Within
6 The Tydings Committee


Part III: Fall
7 Failure at the Top
8 Supporters' Club
9 McCarthy Rampant
10 McCarthy Triumphant
11 Republicans Ascendant
12 McCarthy Against the Press
13 McCarthy Against the Army
14 McCarthy Against Himself
15 Censure
16 Extinction


Part IV: Legacy
17 Beyond McCarthy


Epilogue

Appendix I: McCarthy and the Doctors

Appendix II: The Strange Case of Annie Lee Moss


Notes
Bibliography
Acknowledgments
Index

Read More Show Less

First Chapter

When I walked into the mall in downtown Appleton, Wisconsin, on a late and lazy Sunday morning, I had no address for the place I was going. I didn't even know the name of the cemetery. The idea for doing this had come to me while my wife and I were flying to Wisconsin to visit my parents. Sitting in Chicago's O'Hare Airport during those heavy, boring moments before boarding our plane, I had suddenly decided that while I was out here, I should visit Joe McCarthy's grave.

Since I was writing a book on him, it seemed only fitting to pay a visit. It was also the fortieth anniversary of his death -- a lifetime ago in my case. I was barely five months old when McCarthy had been buried on May 7, 1957, in his home town of Appleton. In one sense he has never been laid to rest. Joe McCarthy was and remains the single most despised man in American political memory -- far more reviled than Aaron Burr or Richard Nixon or even George Wallace. Yet I knew that some people treat his grave as a kind of shrine. The John Birch Society, the final word in right-wing extremism and anti-Communist paranoia, made its home in Appleton -- keeping vigil, as it were, beside the fallen hero's tomb (although their offices are actually in a strip mall on the other side of town). One biographer, David Oshinsky, had published a picture of McCarthy's grave strewn with flowers from well-wishers. Thanks to the Oshinsky photo, I had an idea what the headstone looked like. My problem, since I hadn't brought any of my notes with me, was to find out exactly where it was.

McCarthy's grave. A shrine to die-hard supporters. A milestone of justice to his enemies. ("Joe McCarthy's death," Daniel Boorstin had growled to me when we had had lunch at the Cosmos Club a few weeks earlier, "isn't that the fifth proof for the existence of God?") The term enemies seems harsh for describing McCarthy's detractors and critics more than forty years after his death. But the bald truth is that the term does capture the spirit of their attacks, both then and now. "Senator McCarthy died yesterday in Washington," wrote the English newspaper News Chronicle in May 1957. "America was the cleaner by his fall, and is cleaner by his death." When Richard Rovere would publish his dark masterpiece, Senator Joe McCarthy, two years later, he asserted that, "like Hitler, McCarthy was a screamer, a political thug, a master of the mob," and that he "usurped executive and judicial authority whenever the fancy struck him." As for McCarthy's supporters, "the bat-haunted Minute Women of the U.S.A., to the Texas millionaires, to the China Lobby, to the 'hard' anti-Communist intelligentsia of New York," they came to McCarthy "from the outmost fringes, where grievances and anxieties were the strongest and the least grounded in reason; where the passion for authoritarian leadership was greatest; where the will to hate and condemn and punish could most easily be transformed into political action."

Rovere was a journalist and the quintessential liberal anti-Communist of that era. He despised the vicious and narrow-minded totalitarian spirit communism represented, but he and other liberals thought they saw the same spirit among their fellow Americans on the political right. McCarthyism was part of "a popular revolt against the upper classes," as Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons put it, and Rovere for one had no doubt about which side he himself was on. He had written a series of devastating pieces on McCarthy for the New Yorker and had crossed swords with him more than once. Yet he did not for a moment believe that his own personal involvement in those events disqualified him from passing historical judgment on the era or the man. Joe McCarthy, Rovere concluded, had never actually believed in the monstrous crusade he had set in motion; anticommunism, patriotism, the Catholic church, were all tools for self-promotion, never sacred causes. "To McCarthy, everything was profane." He had some decent instincts -- "who doesn't?" Rovere had to add -- but "in the mirror, McCarthy must have seen and recognized a fraud."

Have more recent commentators changed their perspective? Try William O'Neill (in American High: The Years of Confidence 1945-1960): "Dishonesty was the best policy to McCarthy until the bitter end." Or John Patrick Diggins: "A consummate demagogue, McCarthy played upon cold war emotions and made charges so fantastic that frightened people believed the worst." Or Michael Barone: "McCarthy was a pathological liar, an uninformed and obscure politician with certain demagogic gifts" (that classic word again, the favorite for describing McCarthy's rapport with his constituents). Or Paul Johnson (in Modern Times): "He was not a serious politician but an adventurer, who treated politics as a game." Or, David Halberstam (in The Fifties): "He instinctively knew how to brush aside the protests of his witnesses, how to humiliate vulnerable, scared people. In the end, he produced little beyond fear and headlines."

Even those who have belatedly recognized that some of what McCarthy said and did had genuine merit cannot resist joining in. In a 1996 piece that appeared in the Washington Post, provocatively titled "Was McCarthy Right About the Left," Nicholas von Hoffman acknowledged that McCarthy's charges did rest against a background of genuine Communist subversion and of liberal excuses for it, but still felt it necessary to add that he was "a loutish, duplicitous bully, who carried, not the names of Reds but bottles of hootch in his briefcase." And in their careful, painstaking summary of new evidence about the Communist Party of the United States taken from Soviet archives, which definitively shows that it was secretly financed by the Soviet Union and helped to support the KGB's espionage activities, historians John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr were quick to add, "None of this, however, offers any vindication for Senator McCarthy, or McCarthyism" -- a judgment I will leave to readers to assess by the time they finish this book.

In short, McCarthy remains what the Germans would call vogelfrei -- the "free bird" everyone and anyone is free to take a shot at, even forty years after his death. Today he exists in most people's imagination almost solely as an established icon of evil. In fact, when people learned that I was doing a biography of McCarthy, a standard response was, "Who are you going to write about next? Adolf Hitler?"

In retrospect, McCarthy's disgrace and obloquy has come at a certain price to historical truth. He has become so taboo a figure, someone presented only in Rovere-style caricature rather than flesh and blood, that confusion and ignorance about what he did and the times in which he operated are widespread. Books like David Caute's The Great Fear, which implicitly compared the anti-Communist crusade of the fifties to Stalin's Great Terror, or Ellen Schrecker's Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, can portray the entire period in the most terrifyingly nightmarish colors, and be believed. So part of dispelling the myths about Joe McCarthy has to include dispelling the myths about the 1950s and the so-called red scare.

We need to remember that during the entire period, from 1947 to 1958, no American citizens were interrogated without benefit of legal counsel, none was arrested or detained without due judicial process, and no one went to jail without trial. As George Kennan, no admirer of the investigations, stated, "Whoever could get his case before a court was generally assured of meeting there with a level of justice no smaller than at any time in recent American history." All through the "worst" of the McCarthy period, the Communist Party itself was never outlawed, membership in the party was never declared a crime, and it continued to maintain public offices, publish books and the Daily Worker, and recruit new members (admittedly a tough sell by then).

In fact, most of what people ordinarily mean when they talk about the "red scare" -- the House Un-American Activities Committee; anti-Communist probes into Hollywood, labor unions, and America's schools and universities; the Rosenberg trial; blacklisting in the media and schoolteachers fired for disloyalty -- had nothing to do with McCarthy and he had nothing to do with them (although when asked, he generally approved of them, as most other Americans did). McCarthy's own committee in the Senate, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which he chaired for less than two years, had a specific duty to investigate communism in the federal government and among government employees. It had done so before he became chairman, and it did so after he left, under Senator John McClellan and Bobby Kennedy. The men and women McCarthy targeted, rightly or wrongly, as Communists or Communist sympathizers all shared that single characteristic: they were federal employees and public servants, and therefore, McCarthy and his supporters argued, they ought be held accountable to a higher standard than other American citizens.

That fact tends to get lost when historians dwell exclusively on the stories of harassment, professional disgrace, and other indignities suffered as a result of McCarthy's and other anti-Communist investigations. Dalton Trumbo, Dashiell Hammett, Howard Fast, Paul Robeson, Steve Nelson, Frances Farmer, and Lillian Hellman appear in standard treatments of the period in the same way in which the names of martyrs grace the pages of histories of the early church. Their personal ordeals are constantly presented as proof that America in those days must have been in the grip of an anti-Communist hysteria and a "witch-hunt." (In order not to be left out, Hellman told her own tale of woe in a short book of breathtaking dishonesty, entitled Scoundrel Time.) The best and most generous estimate is that during the entire decade of the red scare, ten thousand Americans lost their jobs because of their past or present affiliation with the Communist Party or one of its auxiliary organizations. Of those who lost their jobs, two thousand worked in the government, and in perhaps forty cases McCarthy himself was directly or indirectly responsible for their being fired. In only one case -- that of Owen Lattimore -- can anyone make the argument that McCarthy's allegations led to any actual legal proceedings, and there a judge eventually threw out most of the indictment. Paradoxically, the fact that McCarthy never sent anyone to prison is also turned against him; opponents claimed that during his entire career, he never actually exposed a single spy or Communist -- a claim that is manifestly untrue, as we will see.

In fact, the number of people who did spend time in prison remained small. A grand total of 108 Communist Party members were convicted under the antisubversion provisions of the Smith Act, which Congress passed in 1941 (long before McCarthy was a member) and applied as equally to Nazi and fascist organizations as it did to Communists. Another twenty Communist Party members were imprisoned under state and local laws. Fewer than a dozen Americans went to jail for espionage activities (one of them being Alger Hiss, who was convicted of perjury). Exactly two were sentenced to death for conspiracy to commit espionage: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

We need to contrast all this with the three and a half million people who, according to the KGB's own official numbers, were arrested and sent to the gulag during the six years of Stalin's Great Terror, from 1935 to 1941. None had the benefit of any genuine legal protection; Stalin's secret police seized, interrogated, and sentenced the lot. The KGB states that of that number, 681,692 were executed in 1937-1938 alone. Taken with the four or five million people who died in Stalin's Great Famine of 1932-1933, the total number of human beings executed, exiled, imprisoned, or starved to death in those years comes to ten to eleven million. These are official KGB numbers released at the end of the cold war. They are almost certainly low. And during all the years when this was taking place, men and women like Trumbo, Robeson, and Hellman insisted that Stalin was the just and compassionate father of his people, asserted that Soviet citizens enjoyed a freedom and happiness unknown in American society, and celebrated the Soviet Union as the model society for the future. Others, such as Julius Rosenberg, Alger Hiss, Judith Coplon, Martin Sobell, and Steve Nelson, willingly served the Stalinist regime, as other espionage agents or as part of the Communist underground apparatus.

In the 1970s, it became fashionable to deny or at least avoid mentioning this part of the historical context in which McCarthy lived and breathed. If McCarthy was guilty, the reasoning goes, then those he tormented must be innocent. David Oshinsky could publish a 597-page biography of McCarthy that contained exactly one and a half pages on the Communist Party. As late as 1994, in The Era of McCarthyism, Ellen Schrecker could dismiss the charge that Julius Rosenberg gave atomic secrets to the Soviets as "uncertain," and present the Rosenbergs' conviction and execution in 1951 as just another example of anti-Communist hysteria.

Today we know better. Archival materials from the former Soviet Union have revealed that Stalin's intentions were aggressively malign and expansionist, just as America's coldest cold warriors had believed. We now know that Mao Tse-tung was not a progressive nationalist forced into the Soviet camp by American hostility and incomprehension, as revisionist scholars in the seventies like to pretend, but was a brutal and dedicated Communist who enthusiastically embraced Stalin from the beginning. Historians J. E. Haynes, Harvey Klehr, Ronald Radosh, Allan Weinstein, and Alexander Vassiliev have used new declassified American materials as well as Soviet sources to lay to rest any doubts about the Soviet Union's espionage activities, as well as the Communist Party's active support of it.

The declassified Venona decrypts have revealed to the public the full extent and depth of Soviet spying in America and proved that fears of Russian espionage networks at work in the highest reaches of the government were not fantasy but sober fact. Meanwhile, independent sources from iron curtain Hungary have confirmed Alger Hiss's role as a Soviet spy, just as Russian sources (including his former KGB case officer) have finally definitively established that Julius Rosenberg was a central figure in the Soviet spy network (although the importance of the material he provided on the atomic bomb, and the degree of his wife Ethel's involvement, is still under debate). Even the truth about Owen Lattimore, the most famous of McCarthy's "victims," has finally come out, thanks to a former Chinese espionage agent's memoirs and declassified FBI files, which go a long way to vindicate McCarthy's original charges. In retrospect, the cause McCarthy made his own -- anticommunism -- has proved to be more valid and durable than the basic assumptions of his anti-anti-Communist critics.

So in the midst of all this revision and reevaluation of the period and the issues at stake, what has happened to McCarthy himself? Virtually nothing. Even the professional historians who know better have shied away from attempting any major reassessment of McCarthy's place in the history of the cold war. The result is that his real role in the story of cold war anticommunism, and his place in the making of modern American political culture, remains unexplored and unexplained. In spite of everything, the old taboos and the old myths still hold.

I first encountered them growing up as a teenager in Wisconsin. Joe McCarthy was the Dairy State's dirty little secret. How could one of the most progressive states in the union, the original home of "Fighting Bob" La Follette, have sent that man to the U.S. Senate not once but twice, and by substantial margins? There were vague dark hints about his support among Wisconsin's German-American farmers, who had rallied around him when he defended Nazi war criminals early in his senate career -- which helped to feed the notion that McCarthy and his supporters were cryptofascists with neo-Nazi leanings. But presumably that same Wisconsin voter base which sent McCarthy to the Senate also voted for his predecessor, Robert La Follette, Jr., and then for his successor, William Proxmire. Hardly radical right-wingers. What had happened? Again, no one seemed inclined to supply me with any answers.

Now, two decades later, visiting Appleton, and McCarthy's grave, seemed a good place to start.


I went over to a phone booth near the mall entrance and glanced at the telephone directory. It listed two Catholic cemeteries. Which one: St. Joseph's or St. Mary's? I decided to try St. Joseph's and asked the elderly concierge sitting forlornly at the information desk (the mall shops were not open yet). He was heavyset, with a slow, shy manner typical of midwestern males.

"How do I get to St. Joseph's cemetery?" It turned out he knew but didn't really know. It was the sort of encounter you often have when traveling: natives who try to be helpful without being forthcoming. So after a minute or two, I decided on a different tack.

"I'm looking for the cemetery where Joe McCarthy is buried."

At first, there was no expression. Then a slow, sly smile started from the corner of his mouth and spread across his face. He leaned forward and actually got out of his chair with excitement -- clearly this was going to make his weekend. I had instantly acquired a gleeful ally.

"Lemme call my wife," he said with the same complicitous smile. "She'll know." He was dialing the number as my wife came back after looking in the mall window shops. I turned to her, barely containing my pleasure. "He's calling his wife. She knows where the grave is." Beth's eyes opened wide. I don't know what she expected from this impromptu pilgrimage -- certainly not this kind of instant service.

He hung up. His wife wasn't home. But now he was involved in the hunt too, so he asked: "You gonna be around for a while? Lemme find out for you."

When we came back ten minutes later, he had two numbers for me but nothing else. He had called St. Joseph's cemetery and the parish house. No answer. He was as crestfallen as I was. Then he glanced behind me and said, "Hey!"

He had stopped a slight man in his sixties wearing a straw hat who was on his way to McDonald's for an early lunch (it was now 11:30). "Where's Joe McCarthy buried?" he called out. The other man said without hesitation, "In St. Mary's cemetery," and then looked at me.

"You sure? Not St. Joseph's?" the concierge asked.

"Yeah, I'm sure -- I been out there a couple times. Right down near the river. Real pretty spot."

Getting directions turned out to be long, and involved, with each man describing the route to St. Mary's from a slightly different starting point, while I was trying to introduce a third starting point, namely, where our car was parked. Finally the concierge asked me, not unkindly, to be quiet for a minute and he turned to get his bearings straight with the man in the straw hat. I had no idea who this other man was, except that he was an old Appleton resident, obviously a McCarthy fan ("I go down there every year or so," he confided to me), and like the concierge, a Roman Catholic. Because Joe McCarthy, for better or worse, was one of their own.

I had grown up in a different midwestern tradition. Mine was Minnesota Scandinavian, either Lutheran or freethinking and sometimes both, and politically progressive. When my Lutheran grandmother had learned that I was studying Latin at college, she began to worry that I had fallen in with the wrong crowd -- meaning Catholics, possibly even Jesuits, who might try to woo me into the arms of the Scarlet Woman. I had been taught to think of the Roman Catholic church as a reactionary and authoritarian institution -- as witness the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, Cardinal Francis Spellman (deeply detested in our house), William F. Buckley, Jr. -- and Joe McCarthy.

But central Wisconsin, where I grew up, had a large Polish population, and although I didn't realize it at the time, it gave me my first clues for understanding the McCarthy phenomenon. At school I met the sort of working-class Catholics whose fathers and mothers had been McCarthy's bedrock of support. It became a familiar yet always foreign world: the world of Knights of Columbus and the Holy Name Society for Catholic men, and rosary groups for the women. It was a world of strange foods (kielbasa, golabki, and punchkas), of huge and elaborate weddings at churches illuminated by stained glass windows and topped by onion-shaped domes, with polka bands that played songs with titles like "Oj nasza Kasia" (O My Katy) and "Hupi Shupi Polka." There were classmates who had eight or nine brothers and sisters, some of whom attended church schools they called "St. Joe's" or "St. Pete's," and whose father worked for the paper mill and whose grandfather was named Roman or Casimir. Later those classmates went to the Catholic high school, with the very unmidwestern name of Pacelli, while still later one of their sisters might very occasionally take vows at the convent at the north end of town on Maria Drive.

In 1950, the year McCarthy gave his Wheeling, West Virginia, speech and launched himself into national prominence, nearly half of all churchgoers in Wisconsin were Catholics. His neighbors in the township of Grand Chute where he was born were Dutch Catholics, rather than Polish or Irish. Irishmen were rare in eastern Wisconsin -- neighbors called the McCarthy family "the Irish settlement" -- but there was a strong bond that drew them together, as fellow Catholics in a Protestant country that viewed them with fear and suspicion. Since the Irish were the first large-scale Catholic immigrants, they served as principal targets of American antipopery.

Unlike America's Jewish immigrants, of whom more than three-quarters were skilled workers, the Irish came from an overwhelmingly rural background. In the nineteenth century they had had to take jobs at the very bottom of the economic ladder and became caught up in urban political machines such as New York's Tammany Hall. To high-minded Anglo-Saxon Protestant observers, Irish politics was synonymous with corruption. "A more improvident, heedless, and dishonest class of people never defiled the fair face of the earth." Antebellum New Orleans even made up a rhyme about the Irish:


Ten thousand micks
Swung their picks
To dig the New Canal.
But the choleray
Was stronger'n they.
An' twice it killed them all.


"What ought to be surprising about the American Irish," writes Andrew Greeley, "is not that they have not been quite as socially and financially successful as the Jews, but that they have been successful at all." They did it by embracing what John Courtney Murray called "the American proposition," the principles of religious and economic liberty, of science and technological progress, and of democracy and the separation of church and state. For Irish Catholics of McCarthy's generation, anticommunism became one more way of erasing an ancient stigma. Having been unjustly accused of serving one secret conspiracy against America, they would dedicate themselves to rooting out another.

That determination to succeed in a hostile environment was one of the bonds that drew together Joe McCarthy and another prominent Irish Catholic family in the fifties, the Kennedys. Robert Kennedy had joined McCarthy's staff in 1953 at the behest of his father, the senator's keen admirer. Like McCarthy, Joseph Kennedy was a former Roosevelt Democrat and a fervent anti-Communist. He often invited McCarthy to stop by for drinks at the Kennedy house at Palm Beach and to stay at the family compound at Hyannis Port. The senior Kennedy's view of politics, and of life, was much like McCarthy's: "It's not what you are that counts, but what people think you are." McCarthy became a minor figure in the Kennedy circle. To the ex-ambassador's delight, he dated two of the Kennedy daughters, Patricia and Eunice, who discovered "he had a certain raw wit and charm when he had not had too much to drink," as Eunice later put it. Joe also played shortstop in family softball games (he did so badly that the Kennedys eventually had to bench him).

Robert Kennedy served McCarthy loyally as assistant counsel for his Subcommittee on Investigations, until a personal quarrel with the chief counsel, Roy Cohn, forced him to quit. But he and Joe remained close, and Joe McCarthy stood as godfather for Bobby and Ethel's first child. One day after McCarthy's censure by the Senate in 1954, Bobby was sailing on the Potomac with a group of reporters. He started defending McCarthy against their criticisms. "Why do you reporters...feel the way you do?" he wanted to know. "OK, Joe's methods may be a little rough, but after all, his goal was to expose Communists in government -- a worthy goal. So why are you reporters so critical of his methods?" Even after his own conversion to left-to-center liberalism, he refused to disown or even criticize his old boss. "A very complicated character," he would muse to himself years later. Robert Kennedy had seen in America's Grand Inquisitor a man who, for all his glaring faults, had "wanted so desperately to be liked."

John Kennedy's views, on communism and the Soviet threat, were not so different from McCarthy's either. Although a loyal Democrat, Kennedy had also bashed the Truman administration for its dismal China record. One night in February 1952 he heard a speaker at Harvard's Spree Club denounce McCarthy in the same breath as Alger Hiss. Kennedy shot back, "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!" Later he would back the Communist Control Act, a measure that went far beyond anything McCarthy had ever proposed, by virtually outlawing the Communist Party in the United States. During the debate on McCarthy's censure in 1954, while most Democrats lined up against him Kennedy warned that censure might have serious repercussions for "the social fabric of this country." And when the actual censure vote came, John Kennedy carefully contrived to be in the hospital for a back operation, so that he would not have to cast a vote against a man who was wildly popular with not only his father but his Irish and Italian constituents.

In many ways, McCarthy and John Kennedy represented the two divergent paths available to Irish Catholic politicians for success in what was still a predominantly Anglo-Saxon and Protestant nation. McCarthy never lost track of his roots. He attended mass every Sunday, built strong friendships with priests and clerics, and remained a strict Catholic. John Kennedy, by contrast, was embarrassed by the presence of priests and the outward trappings of Catholicism. He had attended Choate and Harvard rather than Catholic schools, while McCarthy was a graduate of the Jesuit university at Marquette. Kennedy avoided doing or saying anything in public that would make him identifiably or stereotypically "Irish" (although in private he enjoyed sitting at the piano and singing traditional Irish ballads with his sisters). Early on he had decided his destiny lay with the dominant eastern political establishment. He forged links to its key institutions: Harvard, the mainstream press, and groups like the Council on Foreign Relations and Americans for Democratic Action. Six years after McCarthy's censure, Kennedy ran for president as the standard-bearer for that establishment liberalism. He surrounded himself with its "best and brightest" -- some of the same men, as it happened, Joe McCarthy had spent his career attacking.

By contrast, Joe McCarthy was what a knowing observer would call "shanty Irish," as opposed to "lace curtain Irish," which John Kennedy's mother Rose Fitzgerald epitomized. McCarthy was authentic working class. His eldest brother, Steve, was a factory worker; another a local auctioneer; the third a truck driver. It was only in law school that he finally shed his broad Irish brogue. The grandiloquent gesture, the blarney, the do-or-die bravado, the inability to forget slights and humiliations, as well as the drinking and affinity for lost causes: it is not possible to understand McCarthy's career without this ethnic component.

The other side of that Catholic and Irish-American experience, however, was the desperate need for assimilation. The Irish wanted above all to be part of the mainstream of American life and to enjoy its most dazzling promise, that of personal success. Success was the best revenge on one's supposed social betters. That too was part of the McCarthy reality.

If Joe McCarthy had ever paused to consider his life as a whole, he would have looked at it as a typical American success story: son of a poor Wisconsin dirt farmer -- "I'm just a farm boy," he disarmingly told the audience at a debate in his first successful statewide campaign -- to U.S. senator. It engendered in him a deep emotional commitment to the nation that had enabled him to rise up from obscurity and a sense of pride, even hubris, that blinded him to the downside of his success. When talking about him, Robert Kennedy used to compare McCarthy's career to a toboggan ride: "It was so exciting and exhilarating as he went downhill that it didn't matter to him if he hit a tree at the bottom."

Here the better comparison is not with John Kennedy (or even Richard Nixon, whom he resembled in certain other ways), but with another Senate colleague, Lyndon Baines Johnson. It was Johnson who arranged for the Senate to censure McCarthy in December 1954, the move that effectively ended McCarthy's career. But in the end they shared more than they differed.

They were both big men, homely, even ugly, in appearance, with an intense physicality that some people found reassuring, but others intimidating and even repulsive. Both had a capacity for generosity, and for an explosive temper and incredible bullying. Both drank to excess. Both did not hesitate to lie for political effect. Both, in fact, did lie about their war record because it had been good politics to do so, and for both success in politics was their final measure of themselves as human beings.

Johnson and McCarthy reflected the degree to which politics in post-New Deal America had become a form of self-fashioning. By devoting himself to electoral politics, a man from a poor or provincial background could transform himself into someone new, and even become a substantial player on the national stage. McCarthy had risen from county circuit judge to the Senate at age thirty-eight; LBJ became minority leader at age forty-six. In terms of their origins, they stood at the opposite pole from what was then called ESA -- Eastern Socially Attractive types who normally ran Washington. Yet through simple command of majorities at the ballot box, McCarthy and Johnson made themselves their equals and earned their respect -- and in McCarthy's case, their fear. Like Johnson, McCarthy had had to rely on powerful local patrons in order to get launched in the political arena. In McCarthy's case, it was Wisconsin political boss Tom Coleman and various wealthy Milwaukee businessmen; in Johnson's case, it was the millionaire Brown Brothers of Texas. Like Johnson, McCarthy had lost his first run at the Senate, and in the same year: 1944. Like Johnson, he then won office by upsetting a major figure in their state's political establishment. For Johnson, this was former governor Coke Stevenson; for McCarthy, Robert La Follette, Jr.

Both men would also be haunted by their ruthless, single-minded pursuit of their ambitions. Johnson's razor-thin victory over Stevenson (by only eighty-three votes) was almost certainly fraudulent and earned him the derisive nickname "Landslide Lyndon." McCarthy became the "Pepsi-Cola Kid" because of his cozy relationship with the soft drink company, and his use of the anti-Communist issue for personal publicity earned him as many dedicated enemies as it did fanatical supporters.

Both men judged the world according to a harsh masculine standard. The world was divided into boys and men, and they knew to which category they wanted to belong. There were men who fought for what they believed and didn't back down, and those who did back down. There were those who were soft on issues like communism, and those who were not. That standard was reflected in McCarthy's fight against the "silk handkerchief liberals" who frustrated his efforts to ferret out Communists in government, and his push to get the "queers" as well as the "reds" out of the State Department and other government agencies. It turned up in Johnson's later campaign against Communist aggression abroad, in Southeast Asia. In the face of opposition, you stood tough and hit back, whether you were fighting the State Department or Ho Chi Minh. You accepted the rules of engagement (as did McCarthy, the former boxer) and fought with all your heart.

In the end, the cold war proved to be a point of no return for both. How strange, yet appropriate, how ironic that the man who had destroyed Joe McCarthy over domestic communism would himself be destroyed in less than fifteen years, over Vietnam. However, the wreckers in this case came not from the right but the left, and from within the ranks of his beloved Senate. The very people who had urged him on in the McCarthy censure, like William Fulbright and Wayne Morse and Mike Mansfield, would then turn against him and condemn him for his war against communism in Southeast Asia. Ironic, too, that another Irish Catholic senator, Eugene J. McCarthy of Minnesota, would be instrumental in his destruction, while Joe McCarthy's own successor, William Proxmire, became one of President Johnson's most bitter and effective critics.

Less than a decade after Joe McCarthy had been interred in St. Mary's cemetery, Lyndon Johnson would learn what it was like to be the target of hostile liberals and an unsympathetic national press. People would regularly attack him as a murderer, a tyrant, and a psychopath, and compare him to Hitler, much as they had McCarthy. A popular Broadway play, MacBird, by Barbara Garson, even implied that Johnson had murdered John Kennedy in order to seize power, a theme later picked up by various conspiracy theorists and exploited in Oliver Stone's film JFK.

In 1968 cartoonist Jules Feiffer published LBJ Lampooned. In the introduction to his grotesque caricatures, Feiffer revealed a great deal about not just liberal attacks on Johnson, but the earlier campaign against McCarthy as well. The "secret ingredient" to good cartooning, Feiffer said, was hate -- "not personal hate," he added, "but professional hate: the intensity of conviction that comes to a craftsman's work when he has made the decision to kill; a commitment to shun all political and behavioral complexities, so that the subject becomes...purely and simply, a demon."


Finally, the directions got settled and the man in the straw hat got back to the business of finding lunch. People were beginning to filter in as the shops began to get ready to open. My new-found friend was reluctant to see me go. I had obviously brightened up his otherwise routine day, and he took the opportunity to ask some questions of his own, and to reminisce.

"So are you studying him in school?" I explained that I was writing a book on McCarthy for The Free Press. Then I asked him if he remembered McCarthy at all.

"Sure, I remember him," he laughed. I didn't ask if he had voted for him. The concierge would have to be at least sixty-five (or born in 1931) to have done so, since the last time McCarthy last faced the voters was in 1952.

"Drank a lot, didn't he?" he asked. Yes, I said, he did, and I added that in my opinion his alcoholism was the principal cause of his downfall.

"But he married a pretty woman." That was a reference to Jean Kerr, who had buried her husband down by the river in May 1957. Smart, attractive, ambitious, and twenty years younger than her husband, she had come from a well-to-do Washington family, conservative and upright, and she had helped to steer the man who had voted for Roosevelt not twice, not thrice, but four times, into the conservative Republican camp. To the farm boy from Grand Chute township, with his five o'clock shadow and preference for working in sweat-stained shirt sleeves, she added a touch of class, even glamor. George Washington University had voted her the most beautiful girl on campus in 1945. Unlike her husband, she was remarkably photogenic, even on the day she attended her husband's memorial service at the Capitol, when his body lay in state in the Senate chamber and his colleagues paid him their belated respects.

As I discovered, the real story of Joe McCarthy is also Jean Kerr's story. When I told a friend, a member of Washington's old social establishment (she had been a bridesmaid at Margaret Truman's wedding), that I was writing a book on Joe McCarthy, she amazed me by telling me that Jean had been a sorority sister. Everyone, she said, had liked and admired her. None of her old Washington friends could understand why she had married a man they all regarded as a monster. But Jean's reasons had been as much political as personal. She was more than just a pretty face. She served as his chief staffer, wrote speeches for him, and even a book: his 1952 apologia, McCarthyism, The Fight for America, is largely her composition, with the help of friends J.B. and Ruth Matthews. She also had a hand in McCarthy's notorious attack on General George Marshall.

Jean believed in playing hardball, harder at times than Joe himself. She, not Joe, was responsible for the infamous "composite" photo showing Senator Millard Tydings cozying up to Communist Party boss Earl Browder, and while McCarthy admitted the attempt to smear his old nemesis from Maryland had gone too far, Jean was unapologetic. Joe's enemies were her enemies. They managed to pay her back with interest, since she had to endure constant rumors that her husband was a secret homosexual, and Herblock cartoons that ridiculed her husband so cruelly they left her in tears. Later she had to shield him from public scrutiny as his drinking ran out of control and his health declined. As in so many similar cases, in trying to prevent her husband from becoming an alcoholic, she became one herself. She would also act as the careful guardian of his memory, even long after his death and after she had remarried, declaring his papers off limits to snoopy and usually unsympathetic biographers and historians.

But my concierge friend was still reminiscing. "That senator from Arkansas. Tall and gravely voice. He really went after him, didn't he?" After a moment, I realized he was talking about J. William Fulbright, Democratic senator, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and nearly secretary of state under Kennedy. He and Joe McCarthy were long-standing adversaries. Articulate, erratic, complex, Fulbright was precisely the sort of cerebral, self-doubting liberal the brash and macho McCarthy despised, just as McCarthy represented a side of America that Fulbright could not stomach. Fulbright was a disciple of Dean Acheson, McCarthy's chief bête noire, and member of the Metropolitan Club. As David Halberstam later observed, "He was a public official, publicly elected, and yet he seemed to be an ally of the elitists, sharing their view of the private nature of national security." McCarthy used to ridicule him by calling him "Senator Half-bright." Once a senate employee caught Fulbright in a rage about McCarthy: "that SOB's referred to me so often as Halfbright, that the country is partially beginning to believe it!" Yet one day Fulbright astonished one of his own staffers, by remarking, "You know, considering McCarthy is such an SOB, he's a very interesting personality. You know, I enjoy him in the locker room."

And liberal though he was on most matters, on the matter of race Fulbright was a stalwart segregationist and an ardent opponent of civil rights for black Americans. McCarthy took the opposite view. His position on race and ethnicity was recognizably "liberal" in a fifties sense and even in a later sense (associates recalled him campaigning as vigorously in black neighborhoods in Milwaukee and other Wisconsin cities as in white ones), although he was dead before the issue really became part of the nation's agenda.

Fulbright the liberal segregationist versus McCarthy the color-blind Republican -- a strange juxtaposition, but perhaps not so strange. Most Republicans in the fifties, including Taftites, were aware that theirs was the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction, while Fulbright had learned to support his fellow Southern Democrats on Jim Crow in order to consolidate his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Afterward, with America mired in Vietnam and Fulbright now leading the charge to get the country out, he challenged Joseph Rauh of the Americans for Democratic Action (who had opposed Fulbright's hopes of heading the Department of State) to admit that he had done the right thing by his devil's bargain on Jim Crow, in order to secure the Foreign Relations Committee. Rauh felt it was an unanswerable proposition -- "to do wrong in order to do right." Yet that was precisely what McCarthy had done in overstepping the bounds of truth in his fight against communism -- and what Rauh himself had done, as we will see, in the Paul Hughes case.

The battle between McCarthy and his adversaries was not a simplistic confrontation between right and wrong, or good and evil, or even between the righteous and the damned. It was a complex struggle, with strange twists and ambiguities, and at its heart lay two very different visions of what the cold war meant and how it should be fought.

For Joe McCarthy, the struggle with Soviet communism was a matter of victory or defeat. There could be no middle ground. Fulbright, like so many fellow liberals, could not and would not see it in such forthright terms. Fulbright himself nourished secret doubts about whether the United States could really resist what seemed to him an inevitable tide of historical decline, of which the rise of communism was only one part. Those doubts about America's ability to fulfill its self-imposed global mission would eventually spill over into his opposition to the Vietnam War, and filled the pages of his book on American foreign policy, The Arrogance of Power. Both McCarthy and Fulbright agreed that the fate of civilization hung in the balance in the cold war. McCarthy believed that in the end, it and America would survive; Fulbright, in his own sardonic, cynical way, did not.

In this sense, politics was not a game to Joe McCarthy. In the glare of the cold war, the stakes seemed vast. He was convinced that the "liberals" of his day -- the heirs to progressivism and New Deal Democracy -- had failed in that fight. He believed in many of the things they did. Unlike some of his right-wing Republican colleagues, he saw no problem with an activist government and never challenged the New Deal's social welfare programs; he took a broad view on civil rights and race. In fact, when he came to the Senate in 1947, newspapers had originally described him as a moderate, until he took up the domestic communism issue. But it was on precisely that issue that Democrats and liberals had failed the American people, McCarthy believed, and had revealed their true colors, and he was going to prove it. In trying to do so, he sealed his own doom, as both a man and a historical figure. In the end, the principal and most pathetic victim of McCarthyism would be -- McCarthy himself.

I thanked my friend the concierge and got ready to set off. He wished me well, and gave a last smile: "That Joe McCarthy -- he sure shook things up, didn't he?"

Yes, I had to admit, he certainly did.

After lunch, my wife and I were ready to make our way to St. Mary's cemetery. On the way we drove through East Appleton, which had been the affluent part of town in McCarthy's day and is still studded with large Victorian houses and beautifully manicured lawns and shrubs. The elegant turreted and porticoed homes stand in striking contrast to the shabby clapboard farmhouses and dirt roads of Grand Chute township, where McCarthy was born and raised. East Appleton is also the town's intellectual center. Lawrence University, founded in 1847, sits quietly and confidently in its midst, a picture-perfect image of a liberal arts college. Its disdain, like that of East Appleton, for Senator Joe McCarthy, home town boy, was legendary. Lawrence's president, Nathan Pusey, sponsored one of the very first anti-McCarthy books, entitled The McCarthy Record, and helped to spread the rumor (which had no foundation) that McCarthy liked to carry around a copy of Mein Kampf.

Needless to say, McCarthy did not attend Lawrence College. He left school at fourteen to start his own business, raising chickens and buying a truck to drive the eggs to market. Years later, Edwin Bayley remembered how he and his East Appleton friends spent their leisurely Saturday mornings at the downtown YMCA. As they went home for lunch, they regularly passed Joe McCarthy (who had been up before dawn) with his bib overalls and his Irish brogue -- "a hick," as Bayley would recall -- and would yell good-natured insults at him as they rode by on their bikes. Joe would yell back in the same spirit, and chase them as they circled him. Big, burly, with a hearty, energetic manner, Joe McCarthy was someone people noticed: "I can't remember how we knew his name, but we did." Later, as editor of the Milwaukee Journal, Bayley would become one of McCarthy's bitterest opponents.

St. Mary's turned out to be a surprisingly small cemetery, a strip of level land running along the bluffs overlooking the Fox River. My wife and I got out of the car, Beth carrying the camera, and we began reading the headstones. Many, I noticed, had Dutch names -- the names of McCarthy's father's and mother's neighbors in Grand Chute, descendants of the Dutch Catholic settlers who had arrived in eastern Wisconsin in the 1840s and carved out their farms from the surrounding wilderness just as Joe's grandfather had done. Many of the other names were Polish, German, or Irish. In fact, it took some time to sort through all the headstones bearing the name McCarthy, and there were several false starts. We even found a "Joseph T. McCarthy," whose birth and death dates were near to Joe's own...until I realized he must be a cousin, the child of one of grandfather Stephen McCarthy's other sons. The McCarthys' "Irish settlement" had reproduced itself here in St. Mary's. Next came Joe's father's grave, and his mother's -- with Bridget Tierney McCarthy in large letters.

Then I saw it. Sitting by itself in the warm sunshine, flanked by marble urns and a pair of evergreen bushes -- these are vandalized from time to time but today they looked plain and unremarkable. We walked up to the dark gray cenotaph. It stood almost waist high, reading in large block letters, Joseph R. McCarthy, and underneath United States Senator, with the dates below, Nov. 14, 1908 and May 2, 1957. There was nothing else, no flowers or any other special votive offering. Not the martyr's shrine today. The view from the 50-foot bluff was now largely overgrown with trees and shrubs, but the man in the straw hat had been right, it was a pretty spot. McCarthy occupied it alone. No other grave, not even Jean's, interfered with its silent, almost eerie, isolation.

We paused for a moment, my wife took pictures, and she said something about the visit being a good omen. I turned for one last look and then headed for the car. Afterwards I thought about the words from the prayer said at the unveiling of McCarthy's memorial in 1959: "death is only a horizon, and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight." I realized that was true in an historical as well as a religious sense. It is now possible, forty years on, to set McCarthy's life and career against a broader and somewhat different horizon from the one he and his contemporaries had been limited to. The dark and uncertain future over which he and opponents like Rovere and Fulbright fought is now our present. Maybe it is time to try to understand what happened.

Read More Show Less

Introduction

Introduction When I walked into the mall in downtown Appleton, Wisconsin, on a late and lazy Sunday morning, I had no address for the place I was going. I didn't even know the name of the cemetery. The idea for doing this had come to me while my wife and I were flying to Wisconsin to visit my parents. Sitting in Chicago's O'Hare Airport during those heavy, boring moments before boarding our plane, I had suddenly decided that while I was out here, I should visit Joe McCarthy's grave.

Since I was writing a book on him, it seemed only fitting to pay a visit. It was also the fortieth anniversary of his death -- a lifetime ago in my case. I was barely five months old when McCarthy had been buried on May 7, 1957, in his home town of Appleton. In one sense he has never been laid to rest. Joe McCarthy was and remains the single most despised man in American political memory -- far more reviled than Aaron Burr or Richard Nixon or even George Wallace. Yet I knew that some people treat his grave as a kind of shrine. The John Birch Society, the final word in right-wing extremism and anti-Communist paranoia, made its home in Appleton -- keeping vigil, as it were, beside the fallen hero's tomb (although their offices are actually in a strip mall on the other side of town). One biographer, David Oshinsky, had published a picture of McCarthy's grave strewn with flowers from well-wishers. Thanks to the Oshinsky photo, I had an idea what the headstone looked like. My problem, since I hadn't brought any of my notes with me, was to find out exactly where it was.

McCarthy's grave. A shrine to die-hard supporters. A milestone of justice to his enemies. ("Joe McCarthy's death," Daniel Boorstin had growled to me when we had had lunch at the Cosmos Club a few weeks earlier, "isn't that the fifth proof for the existence of God?") The term enemies seems harsh for describing McCarthy's detractors and critics more than forty years after his death. But the bald truth is that the term does capture the spirit of their attacks, both then and now. "Senator McCarthy died yesterday in Washington," wrote the English newspaper News Chronicle in May 1957. "America was the cleaner by his fall, and is cleaner by his death." When Richard Rovere would publish his dark masterpiece, Senator Joe McCarthy, two years later, he asserted that, "like Hitler, McCarthy was a screamer, a political thug, a master of the mob," and that he "usurped executive and judicial authority whenever the fancy struck him." As for McCarthy's supporters, "the bat-haunted Minute Women of the U.S.A., to the Texas millionaires, to the China Lobby, to the 'hard' anti-Communist intelligentsia of New York," they came to McCarthy "from the outmost fringes, where grievances and anxieties were the strongest and the least grounded in reason; where the passion for authoritarian leadership was greatest; where the will to hate and condemn and punish could most easily be transformed into political action."

Rovere was a journalist and the quintessential liberal anti-Communist of that era. He despised the vicious and narrow-minded totalitarian spirit communism represented, but he and other liberals thought they saw the same spirit among their fellow Americans on the political right. McCarthyism was part of "a popular revolt against the upper classes," as Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons put it, and Rovere for one had no doubt about which side he himself was on. He had written a series of devastating pieces on McCarthy for the New Yorker and had crossed swords with him more than once. Yet he did not for a moment believe that his own personal involvement in those events disqualified him from passing historical judgment on the era or the man. Joe McCarthy, Rovere concluded, had never actually believed in the monstrous crusade he had set in motion; anticommunism, patriotism, the Catholic church, were all tools for self-promotion, never sacred causes. "To McCarthy, everything was profane." He had some decent instincts -- "who doesn't?" Rovere had to add -- but "in the mirror, McCarthy must have seen and recognized a fraud."

Have more recent commentators changed their perspective? Try William O'Neill (in American High: The Years of Confidence 1945-1960): "Dishonesty was the best policy to McCarthy until the bitter end." Or John Patrick Diggins: "A consummate demagogue, McCarthy played upon cold war emotions and made charges so fantastic that frightened people believed the worst." Or Michael Barone: "McCarthy was a pathological liar, an uninformed and obscure politician with certain demagogic gifts" (that classic word again, the favorite for describing McCarthy's rapport with his constituents). Or Paul Johnson (in Modern Times): "He was not a serious politician but an adventurer, who treated politics as a game." Or, David Halberstam (in The Fifties): "He instinctively knew how to brush aside the protests of his witnesses, how to humiliate vulnerable, scared people. In the end, he produced little beyond fear and headlines."

Even those who have belatedly recognized that some of what McCarthy said and did had genuine merit cannot resist joining in. In a 1996 piece that appeared in the Washington Post, provocatively titled "Was McCarthy Right About the Left," Nicholas von Hoffman acknowledged that McCarthy's charges did rest against a background of genuine Communist subversion and of liberal excuses for it, but still felt it necessary to add that he was "a loutish, duplicitous bully, who carried, not the names of Reds but bottles of hootch in his briefcase." And in their careful, painstaking summary of new evidence about the Communist Party of the United States taken from Soviet archives, which definitively shows that it was secretly financed by the Soviet Union and helped to support the KGB's espionage activities, historians John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr were quick to add, "None of this, however, offers any vindication for Senator McCarthy, or McCarthyism" -- a judgment I will leave to readers to assess by the time they finish this book.

In short, McCarthy remains what the Germans would call vogelfrei -- the "free bird" everyone and anyone is free to take a shot at, even forty years after his death. Today he exists in most people's imagination almost solely as an established icon of evil. In fact, when people learned that I was doing a biography of McCarthy, a standard response was, "Who are you going to write about next? Adolf Hitler?"

In retrospect, McCarthy's disgrace and obloquy has come at a certain price to historical truth. He has become so taboo a figure, someone presented only in Rovere-style caricature rather than flesh and blood, that confusion and ignorance about what he did and the times in which he operated are widespread. Books like David Caute's The Great Fear, which implicitly compared the anti-Communist crusade of the fifties to Stalin's Great Terror, or Ellen Schrecker's Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, can portray the entire period in the most terrifyingly nightmarish colors, and be believed. So part of dispelling the myths about Joe McCarthy has to include dispelling the myths about the 1950s and the so-called red scare.

We need to remember that during the entire period, from 1947 to 1958, no American citizens were interrogated without benefit of legal counsel, none was arrested or detained without due judicial process, and no one went to jail without trial. As George Kennan, no admirer of the investigations, stated, "Whoever could get his case before a court was generally assured of meeting there with a level of justice no smaller than at any time in recent American history." All through the "worst" of the McCarthy period, the Communist Party itself was never outlawed, membership in the party was never declared a crime, and it continued to maintain public offices, publish books and the Daily Worker, and recruit new members (admittedly a tough sell by then).

In fact, most of what people ordinarily mean when they talk about the "red scare" -- the House Un-American Activities Committee; anti-Communist probes into Hollywood, labor unions, and America's schools and universities; the Rosenberg trial; blacklisting in the media and schoolteachers fired for disloyalty -- had nothing to do with McCarthy and he had nothing to do with them (although when asked, he generally approved of them, as most other Americans did). McCarthy's own committee in the Senate, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which he chaired for less than two years, had a specific duty to investigate communism in the federal government and among government employees. It had done so before he became chairman, and it did so after he left, under Senator John McClellan and Bobby Kennedy. The men and women McCarthy targeted, rightly or wrongly, as Communists or Communist sympathizers all shared that single characteristic: they were federal employees and public servants, and therefore, McCarthy and his supporters argued, they ought be held accountable to a higher standard than other American citizens.

That fact tends to get lost when historians dwell exclusively on the stories of harassment, professional disgrace, and other indignities suffered as a result of McCarthy's and other anti-Communist investigations. Dalton Trumbo, Dashiell Hammett, Howard Fast, Paul Robeson, Steve Nelson, Frances Farmer, and Lillian Hellman appear in standard treatments of the period in the same way in which the names of martyrs grace the pages of histories of the early church. Their personal ordeals are constantly presented as proof that America in those days must have been in the grip of an anti-Communist hysteria and a "witch-hunt." (In order not to be left out, Hellman told her own tale of woe in a short book of breathtaking dishonesty, entitled Scoundrel Time.) The best and most generous estimate is that during the entire decade of the red scare, ten thousand Americans lost their jobs because of their past or present affiliation with the Communist Party or one of its auxiliary organizations. Of those who lost their jobs, two thousand worked in the government, and in perhaps forty cases McCarthy himself was directly or indirectly responsible for their being fired. In only one case -- that of Owen Lattimore -- can anyone make the argument that McCarthy's allegations led to any actual legal proceedings, and there a judge eventually threw out most of the indictment. Paradoxically, the fact that McCarthy never sent anyone to prison is also turned against him; opponents claimed that during his entire career, he never actually exposed a single spy or Communist -- a claim that is manifestly untrue, as we will see.

In fact, the number of people who did spend time in prison remained small. A grand total of 108 Communist Party members were convicted under the antisubversion provisions of the Smith Act, which Congress passed in 1941 (long before McCarthy was a member) and applied as equally to Nazi and fascist organizations as it did to Communists. Another twenty Communist Party members were imprisoned under state and local laws. Fewer than a dozen Americans went to jail for espionage activities (one of them being Alger Hiss, who was convicted of perjury). Exactly two were sentenced to death for conspiracy to commit espionage: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

We need to contrast all this with the three and a half million people who, according to the KGB's own official numbers, were arrested and sent to the gulag during the six years of Stalin's Great Terror, from 1935 to 1941. None had the benefit of any genuine legal protection; Stalin's secret police seized, interrogated, and sentenced the lot. The KGB states that of that number, 681,692 were executed in 1937-1938 alone. Taken with the four or five million people who died in Stalin's Great Famine of 1932-1933, the total number of human beings executed, exiled, imprisoned, or starved to death in those years comes to ten to eleven million. These are official KGB numbers released at the end of the cold war. They are almost certainly low. And during all the years when this was taking place, men and women like Trumbo, Robeson, and Hellman insisted that Stalin was the just and compassionate father of his people, asserted that Soviet citizens enjoyed a freedom and happiness unknown in American society, and celebrated the Soviet Union as the model society for the future. Others, such as Julius Rosenberg, Alger Hiss, Judith Coplon, Martin Sobell, and Steve Nelson, willingly served the Stalinist regime, as other espionage agents or as part of the Communist underground apparatus.

In the 1970s, it became fashionable to deny or at least avoid mentioning this part of the historical context in which McCarthy lived and breathed. If McCarthy was guilty, the reasoning goes, then those he tormented must be innocent. David Oshinsky could publish a 597-page biography of McCarthy that contained exactly one and a half pages on the Communist Party. As late as 1994, in The Era of McCarthyism, Ellen Schrecker could dismiss the charge that Julius Rosenberg gave atomic secrets to the Soviets as "uncertain," and present the Rosenbergs' conviction and execution in 1951 as just another example of anti-Communist hysteria.

Today we know better. Archival materials from the former Soviet Union have revealed that Stalin's intentions were aggressively malign and expansionist, just as America's coldest cold warriors had believed. We now know that Mao Tse-tung was not a progressive nationalist forced into the Soviet camp by American hostility and incomprehension, as revisionist scholars in the seventies like to pretend, but was a brutal and dedicated Communist who enthusiastically embraced Stalin from the beginning. Historians J. E. Haynes, Harvey Klehr, Ronald Radosh, Allan Weinstein, and Alexander Vassiliev have used new declassified American materials as well as Soviet sources to lay to rest any doubts about the Soviet Union's espionage activities, as well as the Communist Party's active support of it.

The declassified Venona decrypts have revealed to the public the full extent and depth of Soviet spying in America and proved that fears of Russian espionage networks at work in the highest reaches of the government were not fantasy but sober fact. Meanwhile, independent sources from iron curtain Hungary have confirmed Alger Hiss's role as a Soviet spy, just as Russian sources (including his former KGB case officer) have finally definitively established that Julius Rosenberg was a central figure in the Soviet spy network (although the importance of the material he provided on the atomic bomb, and the degree of his wife Ethel's involvement, is still under debate). Even the truth about Owen Lattimore, the most famous of McCarthy's "victims," has finally come out, thanks to a former Chinese espionage agent's memoirs and declassified FBI files, which go a long way to vindicate McCarthy's original charges. In retrospect, the cause McCarthy made his own -- anticommunism -- has proved to be more valid and durable than the basic assumptions of his anti-anti-Communist critics.

So in the midst of all this revision and reevaluation of the period and the issues at stake, what has happened to McCarthy himself? Virtually nothing. Even the professional historians who know better have shied away from attempting any major reassessment of McCarthy's place in the history of the cold war. The result is that his real role in the story of cold war anticommunism, and his place in the making of modern American political culture, remains unexplored and unexplained. In spite of everything, the old taboos and the old myths still hold.

I first encountered them growing up as a teenager in Wisconsin. Joe McCarthy was the Dairy State's dirty little secret. How could one of the most progressive states in the union, the original home of "Fighting Bob" La Follette, have sent that man to the U.S. Senate not once but twice, and by substantial margins? There were vague dark hints about his support among Wisconsin's German-American farmers, who had rallied around him when he defended Nazi war criminals early in his senate career -- which helped to feed the notion that McCarthy and his supporters were cryptofascists with neo-Nazi leanings. But presumably that same Wisconsin voter base which sent McCarthy to the Senate also voted for his predecessor, Robert La Follette, Jr., and then for his successor, William Proxmire. Hardly radical right-wingers. What had happened? Again, no one seemed inclined to supply me with any answers.

Now, two decades later, visiting Appleton, and McCarthy's grave, seemed a good place to start.


I went over to a phone booth near the mall entrance and glanced at the telephone directory. It listed two Catholic cemeteries. Which one: St. Joseph's or St. Mary's? I decided to try St. Joseph's and asked the elderly concierge sitting forlornly at the information desk (the mall shops were not open yet). He was heavyset, with a slow, shy manner typical of midwestern males.

"How do I get to St. Joseph's cemetery?" It turned out he knew but didn't really know. It was the sort of encounter you often have when traveling: natives who try to be helpful without being forthcoming. So after a minute or two, I decided on a different tack.

"I'm looking for the cemetery where Joe McCarthy is buried."

At first, there was no expression. Then a slow, sly smile started from the corner of his mouth and spread across his face. He leaned forward and actually got out of his chair with excitement -- clearly this was going to make his weekend. I had instantly acquired a gleeful ally.

"Lemme call my wife," he said with the same complicitous smile. "She'll know." He was dialing the number as my wife came back after looking in the mall window shops. I turned to her, barely containing my pleasure. "He's calling his wife. She knows where the grave is." Beth's eyes opened wide. I don't know what she expected from this impromptu pilgrimage -- certainly not this kind of instant service.

He hung up. His wife wasn't home. But now he was involved in the hunt too, so he asked: "You gonna be around for a while? Lemme find out for you."

When we came back ten minutes later, he had two numbers for me but nothing else. He had called St. Joseph's cemetery and the parish house. No answer. He was as crestfallen as I was. Then he glanced behind me and said, "Hey!"

He had stopped a slight man in his sixties wearing a straw hat who was on his way to McDonald's for an early lunch (it was now 11:30). "Where's Joe McCarthy buried?" he called out. The other man said without hesitation, "In St. Mary's cemetery," and then looked at me.

"You sure? Not St. Joseph's?" the concierge asked.

"Yeah, I'm sure -- I been out there a couple times. Right down near the river. Real pretty spot."

Getting directions turned out to be long, and involved, with each man describing the route to St. Mary's from a slightly different starting point, while I was trying to introduce a third starting point, namely, where our car was parked. Finally the concierge asked me, not unkindly, to be quiet for a minute and he turned to get his bearings straight with the man in the straw hat. I had no idea who this other man was, except that he was an old Appleton resident, obviously a McCarthy fan ("I go down there every year or so," he confided to me), and like the concierge, a Roman Catholic. Because Joe McCarthy, for better or worse, was one of their own.

I had grown up in a different midwestern tradition. Mine was Minnesota Scandinavian, either Lutheran or freethinking and sometimes both, and politically progressive. When my Lutheran grandmother had learned that I was studying Latin at college, she began to worry that I had fallen in with the wrong crowd -- meaning Catholics, possibly even Jesuits, who might try to woo me into the arms of the Scarlet Woman. I had been taught to think of the Roman Catholic church as a reactionary and authoritarian institution -- as witness the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, Cardinal Francis Spellman (deeply detested in our house), William F. Buckley, Jr. -- and Joe McCarthy.

But central Wisconsin, where I grew up, had a large Polish population, and although I didn't realize it at the time, it gave me my first clues for understanding the McCarthy phenomenon. At school I met the sort of working-class Catholics whose fathers and mothers had been McCarthy's bedrock of support. It became a familiar yet always foreign world: the world of Knights of Columbus and the Holy Name Society for Catholic men, and rosary groups for the women. It was a world of strange foods (kielbasa, golabki, and punchkas), of huge and elaborate weddings at churches illuminated by stained glass windows and topped by onion-shaped domes, with polka bands that played songs with titles like "Oj nasza Kasia" (O My Katy) and "Hupi Shupi Polka." There were classmates who had eight or nine brothers and sisters, some of whom attended church schools they called "St. Joe's" or "St. Pete's," and whose father worked for the paper mill and whose grandfather was named Roman or Casimir. Later those classmates went to the Catholic high school, with the very unmidwestern name of Pacelli, while still later one of their sisters might very occasionally take vows at the convent at the north end of town on Maria Drive.

In 1950, the year McCarthy gave his Wheeling, West Virginia, speech and launched himself into national prominence, nearly half of all churchgoers in Wisconsin were Catholics. His neighbors in the township of Grand Chute where he was born were Dutch Catholics, rather than Polish or Irish. Irishmen were rare in eastern Wisconsin -- neighbors called the McCarthy family "the Irish settlement" -- but there was a strong bond that drew them together, as fellow Catholics in a Protestant country that viewed them with fear and suspicion. Since the Irish were the first large-scale Catholic immigrants, they served as principal targets of American antipopery.

Unlike America's Jewish immigrants, of whom more than three-quarters were skilled workers, the Irish came from an overwhelmingly rural background. In the nineteenth century they had had to take jobs at the very bottom of the economic ladder and became caught up in urban political machines such as New York's Tammany Hall. To high-minded Anglo-Saxon Protestant observers, Irish politics was synonymous with corruption. "A more improvident, heedless, and dishonest class of people never defiled the fair face of the earth." Antebellum New Orleans even made up a rhyme about the Irish:


Ten thousand micks
Swung their picks
To dig the New Canal.
But the choleray
Was stronger'n they.
An' twice it killed them all.


"What ought to be surprising about the American Irish," writes Andrew Greeley, "is not that they have not been quite as socially and financially successful as the Jews, but that they have been successful at all." They did it by embracing what John Courtney Murray called "the American proposition," the principles of religious and economic liberty, of science and technological progress, and of democracy and the separation of church and state. For Irish Catholics of McCarthy's generation, anticommunism became one more way of erasing an ancient stigma. Having been unjustly accused of serving one secret conspiracy against America, they would dedicate themselves to rooting out another.

That determination to succeed in a hostile environment was one of the bonds that drew together Joe McCarthy and another prominent Irish Catholic family in the fifties, the Kennedys. Robert Kennedy had joined McCarthy's staff in 1953 at the behest of his father, the senator's keen admirer. Like McCarthy, Joseph Kennedy was a former Roosevelt Democrat and a fervent anti-Communist. He often invited McCarthy to stop by for drinks at the Kennedy house at Palm Beach and to stay at the family compound at Hyannis Port. The senior Kennedy's view of politics, and of life, was much like McCarthy's: "It's not what you are that counts, but what people think you are." McCarthy became a minor figure in the Kennedy circle. To the ex-ambassador's delight, he dated two of the Kennedy daughters, Patricia and Eunice, who discovered "he had a certain raw wit and charm when he had not had too much to drink," as Eunice later put it. Joe also played shortstop in family softball games (he did so badly that the Kennedys eventually had to bench him).

Robert Kennedy served McCarthy loyally as assistant counsel for his Subcommittee on Investigations, until a personal quarrel with the chief counsel, Roy Cohn, forced him to quit. But he and Joe remained close, and Joe McCarthy stood as godfather for Bobby and Ethel's first child. One day after McCarthy's censure by the Senate in 1954, Bobby was sailing on the Potomac with a group of reporters. He started defending McCarthy against their criticisms. "Why do you reporters...feel the way you do?" he wanted to know. "OK, Joe's methods may be a little rough, but after all, his goal was to expose Communists in government -- a worthy goal. So why are you reporters so critical of his methods?" Even after his own conversion to left-to-center liberalism, he refused to disown or even criticize his old boss. "A very complicated character," he would muse to himself years later. Robert Kennedy had seen in America's Grand Inquisitor a man who, for all his glaring faults, had "wanted so desperately to be liked."

John Kennedy's views, on communism and the Soviet threat, were not so different from McCarthy's either. Although a loyal Democrat, Kennedy had also bashed the Truman administration for its dismal China record. One night in February 1952 he heard a speaker at Harvard's Spree Club denounce McCarthy in the same breath as Alger Hiss. Kennedy shot back, "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!" Later he would back the Communist Control Act, a measure that went far beyond anything McCarthy had ever proposed, by virtually outlawing the Communist Party in the United States. During the debate on McCarthy's censure in 1954, while most Democrats lined up against him Kennedy warned that censure might have serious repercussions for "the social fabric of this country." And when the actual censure vote came, John Kennedy carefully contrived to be in the hospital for a back operation, so that he would not have to cast a vote against a man who was wildly popular with not only his father but his Irish and Italian constituents.

In many ways, McCarthy and John Kennedy represented the two divergent paths available to Irish Catholic politicians for success in what was still a predominantly Anglo-Saxon and Protestant nation. McCarthy never lost track of his roots. He attended mass every Sunday, built strong friendships with priests and clerics, and remained a strict Catholic. John Kennedy, by contrast, was embarrassed by the presence of priests and the outward trappings of Catholicism. He had attended Choate and Harvard rather than Catholic schools, while McCarthy was a graduate of the Jesuit university at Marquette. Kennedy avoided doing or saying anything in public that would make him identifiably or stereotypically "Irish" (although in private he enjoyed sitting at the piano and singing traditional Irish ballads with his sisters). Early on he had decided his destiny lay with the dominant eastern political establishment. He forged links to its key institutions: Harvard, the mainstream press, and groups like the Council on Foreign Relations and Americans for Democratic Action. Six years after McCarthy's censure, Kennedy ran for president as the standard-bearer for that establishment liberalism. He surrounded himself with its "best and brightest" -- some of the same men, as it happened, Joe McCarthy had spent his career attacking.

By contrast, Joe McCarthy was what a knowing observer would call "shanty Irish," as opposed to "lace curtain Irish," which John Kennedy's mother Rose Fitzgerald epitomized. McCarthy was authentic working class. His eldest brother, Steve, was a factory worker; another a local auctioneer; the third a truck driver. It was only in law school that he finally shed his broad Irish brogue. The grandiloquent gesture, the blarney, the do-or-die bravado, the inability to forget slights and humiliations, as well as the drinking and affinity for lost causes: it is not possible to understand McCarthy's career without this ethnic component.

The other side of that Catholic and Irish-American experience, however, was the desperate need for assimilation. The Irish wanted above all to be part of the mainstream of American life and to enjoy its most dazzling promise, that of personal success. Success was the best revenge on one's supposed social betters. That too was part of the McCarthy reality.

If Joe McCarthy had ever paused to consider his life as a whole, he would have looked at it as a typical American success story: son of a poor Wisconsin dirt farmer -- "I'm just a farm boy," he disarmingly told the audience at a debate in his first successful statewide campaign -- to U.S. senator. It engendered in him a deep emotional commitment to the nation that had enabled him to rise up from obscurity and a sense of pride, even hubris, that blinded him to the downside of his success. When talking about him, Robert Kennedy used to compare McCarthy's career to a toboggan ride: "It was so exciting and exhilarating as he went downhill that it didn't matter to him if he hit a tree at the bottom."

Here the better comparison is not with John Kennedy (or even Richard Nixon, whom he resembled in certain other ways), but with another Senate colleague, Lyndon Baines Johnson. It was Johnson who arranged for the Senate to censure McCarthy in December 1954, the move that effectively ended McCarthy's career. But in the end they shared more than they differed.

They were both big men, homely, even ugly, in appearance, with an intense physicality that some people found reassuring, but others intimidating and even repulsive. Both had a capacity for generosity, and for an explosive temper and incredible bullying. Both drank to excess. Both did not hesitate to lie for political effect. Both, in fact, did lie about their war record because it had been good politics to do so, and for both success in politics was their final measure of themselves as human beings.

Johnson and McCarthy reflected the degree to which politics in post-New Deal America had become a form of self-fashioning. By devoting himself to electoral politics, a man from a poor or provincial background could transform himself into someone new, and even become a substantial player on the national stage. McCarthy had risen from county circuit judge to the Senate at age thirty-eight; LBJ became minority leader at age forty-six. In terms of their origins, they stood at the opposite pole from what was then called ESA -- Eastern Socially Attractive types who normally ran Washington. Yet through simple command of majorities at the ballot box, McCarthy and Johnson made themselves their equals and earned their respect -- and in McCarthy's case, their fear. Like Johnson, McCarthy had had to rely on powerful local patrons in order to get launched in the political arena. In McCarthy's case, it was Wisconsin political boss Tom Coleman and various wealthy Milwaukee businessmen; in Johnson's case, it was the millionaire Brown Brothers of Texas. Like Johnson, McCarthy had lost his first run at the Senate, and in the same year: 1944. Like Johnson, he then won office by upsetting a major figure in their state's political establishment. For Johnson, this was former governor Coke Stevenson; for McCarthy, Robert La Follette, Jr.

Both men would also be haunted by their ruthless, single-minded pursuit of their ambitions. Johnson's razor-thin victory over Stevenson (by only eighty-three votes) was almost certainly fraudulent and earned him the derisive nickname "Landslide Lyndon." McCarthy became the "Pepsi-Cola Kid" because of his cozy relationship with the soft drink company, and his use of the anti-Communist issue for personal publicity earned him as many dedicated enemies as it did fanatical supporters.

Both men judged the world according to a harsh masculine standard. The world was divided into boys and men, and they knew to which category they wanted to belong. There were men who fought for what they believed and didn't back down, and those who did back down. There were those who were soft on issues like communism, and those who were not. That standard was reflected in McCarthy's fight against the "silk handkerchief liberals" who frustrated his efforts to ferret out Communists in government, and his push to get the "queers" as well as the "reds" out of the State Department and other government agencies. It turned up in Johnson's later campaign against Communist aggression abroad, in Southeast Asia. In the face of opposition, you stood tough and hit back, whether you were fighting the State Department or Ho Chi Minh. You accepted the rules of engagement (as did McCarthy, the former boxer) and fought with all your heart.

In the end, the cold war proved to be a point of no return for both. How strange, yet appropriate, how ironic that the man who had destroyed Joe McCarthy over domestic communism would himself be destroyed in less than fifteen years, over Vietnam. However, the wreckers in this case came not from the right but the left, and from within the ranks of his beloved Senate. The very people who had urged him on in the McCarthy censure, like William Fulbright and Wayne Morse and Mike Mansfield, would then turn against him and condemn him for his war against communism in Southeast Asia. Ironic, too, that another Irish Catholic senator, Eugene J. McCarthy of Minnesota, would be instrumental in his destruction, while Joe McCarthy's own successor, William Proxmire, became one of President Johnson's most bitter and effective critics.

Less than a decade after Joe McCarthy had been interred in St. Mary's cemetery, Lyndon Johnson would learn what it was like to be the target of hostile liberals and an unsympathetic national press. People would regularly attack him as a murderer, a tyrant, and a psychopath, and compare him to Hitler, much as they had McCarthy. A popular Broadway play, MacBird, by Barbara Garson, even implied that Johnson had murdered John Kennedy in order to seize power, a theme later picked up by various conspiracy theorists and exploited in Oliver Stone's film JFK.

In 1968 cartoonist Jules Feiffer published LBJ Lampooned. In the introduction to his grotesque caricatures, Feiffer revealed a great deal about not just liberal attacks on Johnson, but the earlier campaign against McCarthy as well. The "secret ingredient" to good cartooning, Feiffer said, was hate -- "not personal hate," he added, "but professional hate: the intensity of conviction that comes to a craftsman's work when he has made the decision to kill; a commitment to shun all political and behavioral complexities, so that the subject becomes...purely and simply, a demon."


Finally, the directions got settled and the man in the straw hat got back to the business of finding lunch. People were beginning to filter in as the shops began to get ready to open. My new-found friend was reluctant to see me go. I had obviously brightened up his otherwise routine day, and he took the opportunity to ask some questions of his own, and to reminisce.

"So are you studying him in school?" I explained that I was writing a book on McCarthy for The Free Press. Then I asked him if he remembered McCarthy at all.

"Sure, I remember him," he laughed. I didn't ask if he had voted for him. The concierge would have to be at least sixty-five (or born in 1931) to have done so, since the last time McCarthy last faced the voters was in 1952.

"Drank a lot, didn't he?" he asked. Yes, I said, he did, and I added that in my opinion his alcoholism was the principal cause of his downfall.

"But he married a pretty woman." That was a reference to Jean Kerr, who had buried her husband down by the river in May 1957. Smart, attractive, ambitious, and twenty years younger than her husband, she had come from a well-to-do Washington family, conservative and upright, and she had helped to steer the man who had voted for Roosevelt not twice, not thrice, but four times, into the conservative Republican camp. To the farm boy from Grand Chute township, with his five o'clock shadow and preference for working in sweat-stained shirt sleeves, she added a touch of class, even glamor. George Washington University had voted her the most beautiful girl on campus in 1945. Unlike her husband, she was remarkably photogenic, even on the day she attended her husband's memorial service at the Capitol, when his body lay in state in the Senate chamber and his colleagues paid him their belated respects.

As I discovered, the real story of Joe McCarthy is also Jean Kerr's story. When I told a friend, a member of Washington's old social establishment (she had been a bridesmaid at Margaret Truman's wedding), that I was writing a book on Joe McCarthy, she amazed me by telling me that Jean had been a sorority sister. Everyone, she said, had liked and admired her. None of her old Washington friends could understand why she had married a man they all regarded as a monster. But Jean's reasons had been as much political as personal. She was more than just a pretty face. She served as his chief staffer, wrote speeches for him, and even a book: his 1952 apologia, McCarthyism, The Fight for America, is largely her composition, with the help of friends J.B. and Ruth Matthews. She also had a hand in McCarthy's notorious attack on General George Marshall.

Jean believed in playing hardball, harder at times than Joe himself. She, not Joe, was responsible for the infamous "composite" photo showing Senator Millard Tydings cozying up to Communist Party boss Earl Browder, and while McCarthy admitted the attempt to smear his old nemesis from Maryland had gone too far, Jean was unapologetic. Joe's enemies were her enemies. They managed to pay her back with interest, since she had to endure constant rumors that her husband was a secret homosexual, and Herblock cartoons that ridiculed her husband so cruelly they left her in tears. Later she had to shield him from public scrutiny as his drinking ran out of control and his health declined. As in so many similar cases, in trying to prevent her husband from becoming an alcoholic, she became one herself. She would also act as the careful guardian of his memory, even long after his death and after she had remarried, declaring his papers off limits to snoopy and usually unsympathetic biographers and historians.

But my concierge friend was still reminiscing. "That senator from Arkansas. Tall and gravely voice. He really went after him, didn't he?" After a moment, I realized he was talking about J. William Fulbright, Democratic senator, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and nearly secretary of state under Kennedy. He and Joe McCarthy were long-standing adversaries. Articulate, erratic, complex, Fulbright was precisely the sort of cerebral, self-doubting liberal the brash and macho McCarthy despised, just as McCarthy represented a side of America that Fulbright could not stomach. Fulbright was a disciple of Dean Acheson, McCarthy's chief bête noire, and member of the Metropolitan Club. As David Halberstam later observed, "He was a public official, publicly elected, and yet he seemed to be an ally of the elitists, sharing their view of the private nature of national security." McCarthy used to ridicule him by calling him "Senator Half-bright." Once a senate employee caught Fulbright in a rage about McCarthy: "that SOB's referred to me so often as Halfbright, that the country is partially beginning to believe it!" Yet one day Fulbright astonished one of his own staffers, by remarking, "You know, considering McCarthy is such an SOB, he's a very interesting personality. You know, I enjoy him in the locker room."

And liberal though he was on most matters, on the matter of race Fulbright was a stalwart segregationist and an ardent opponent of civil rights for black Americans. McCarthy took the opposite view. His position on race and ethnicity was recognizably "liberal" in a fifties sense and even in a later sense (associates recalled him campaigning as vigorously in black neighborhoods in Milwaukee and other Wisconsin cities as in white ones), although he was dead before the issue really became part of the nation's agenda.

Fulbright the liberal segregationist versus McCarthy the color-blind Republican -- a strange juxtaposition, but perhaps not so strange. Most Republicans in the fifties, including Taftites, were aware that theirs was the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction, while Fulbright had learned to support his fellow Southern Democrats on Jim Crow in order to consolidate his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Afterward, with America mired in Vietnam and Fulbright now leading the charge to get the country out, he challenged Joseph Rauh of the Americans for Democratic Action (who had opposed Fulbright's hopes of heading the Department of State) to admit that he had done the right thing by his devil's bargain on Jim Crow, in order to secure the Foreign Relations Committee. Rauh felt it was an unanswerable proposition -- "to do wrong in order to do right." Yet that was precisely what McCarthy had done in overstepping the bounds of truth in his fight against communism -- and what Rauh himself had done, as we will see, in the Paul Hughes case.

The battle between McCarthy and his adversaries was not a simplistic confrontation between right and wrong, or good and evil, or even between the righteous and the damned. It was a complex struggle, with strange twists and ambiguities, and at its heart lay two very different visions of what the cold war meant and how it should be fought.

For Joe McCarthy, the struggle with Soviet communism was a matter of victory or defeat. There could be no middle ground. Fulbright, like so many fellow liberals, could not and would not see it in such forthright terms. Fulbright himself nourished secret doubts about whether the United States could really resist what seemed to him an inevitable tide of historical decline, of which the rise of communism was only one part. Those doubts about America's ability to fulfill its self-imposed global mission would eventually spill over into his opposition to the Vietnam War, and filled the pages of his book on American foreign policy, The Arrogance of Power. Both McCarthy and Fulbright agreed that the fate of civilization hung in the balance in the cold war. McCarthy believed that in the end, it and America would survive; Fulbright, in his own sardonic, cynical way, did not.

In this sense, politics was not a game to Joe McCarthy. In the glare of the cold war, the stakes seemed vast. He was convinced that the "liberals" of his day -- the heirs to progressivism and New Deal Democracy -- had failed in that fight. He believed in many of the things they did. Unlike some of his right-wing Republican colleagues, he saw no problem with an activist government and never challenged the New Deal's social welfare programs; he took a broad view on civil rights and race. In fact, when he came to the Senate in 1947, newspapers had originally described him as a moderate, until he took up the domestic communism issue. But it was on precisely that issue that Democrats and liberals had failed the American people, McCarthy believed, and had revealed their true colors, and he was going to prove it. In trying to do so, he sealed his own doom, as both a man and a historical figure. In the end, the principal and most pathetic victim of McCarthyism would be -- McCarthy himself.

I thanked my friend the concierge and got ready to set off. He wished me well, and gave a last smile: "That Joe McCarthy -- he sure shook things up, didn't he?"

Yes, I had to admit, he certainly did.

After lunch, my wife and I were ready to make our way to St. Mary's cemetery. On the way we drove through East Appleton, which had been the affluent part of town in McCarthy's day and is still studded with large Victorian houses and beautifully manicured lawns and shrubs. The elegant turreted and porticoed homes stand in striking contrast to the shabby clapboard farmhouses and dirt roads of Grand Chute township, where McCarthy was born and raised. East Appleton is also the town's intellectual center. Lawrence University, founded in 1847, sits quietly and confidently in its midst, a picture-perfect image of a liberal arts college. Its disdain, like that of East Appleton, for Senator Joe McCarthy, home town boy, was legendary. Lawrence's president, Nathan Pusey, sponsored one of the very first anti-McCarthy books, entitled The McCarthy Record, and helped to spread the rumor (which had no foundation) that McCarthy liked to carry around a copy of Mein Kampf.

Needless to say, McCarthy did not attend Lawrence College. He left school at fourteen to start his own business, raising chickens and buying a truck to drive the eggs to market. Years later, Edwin Bayley remembered how he and his East Appleton friends spent their leisurely Saturday mornings at the downtown YMCA. As they went home for lunch, they regularly passed Joe McCarthy (who had been up before dawn) with his bib overalls and his Irish brogue -- "a hick," as Bayley would recall -- and would yell good-natured insults at him as they rode by on their bikes. Joe would yell back in the same spirit, and chase them as they circled him. Big, burly, with a hearty, energetic manner, Joe McCarthy was someone people noticed: "I can't remember how we knew his name, but we did." Later, as editor of the Milwaukee Journal, Bayley would become one of McCarthy's bitterest opponents.

St. Mary's turned out to be a surprisingly small cemetery, a strip of level land running along the bluffs overlooking the Fox River. My wife and I got out of the car, Beth carrying the camera, and we began reading the headstones. Many, I noticed, had Dutch names -- the names of McCarthy's father's and mother's neighbors in Grand Chute, descendants of the Dutch Catholic settlers who had arrived in eastern Wisconsin in the 1840s and carved out their farms from the surrounding wilderness just as Joe's grandfather had done. Many of the other names were Polish, German, or Irish. In fact, it took some time to sort through all the headstones bearing the name McCarthy, and there were several false starts. We even found a "Joseph T. McCarthy," whose birth and death dates were near to Joe's own...until I realized he must be a cousin, the child of one of grandfather Stephen McCarthy's other sons. The McCarthys' "Irish settlement" had reproduced itself here in St. Mary's. Next came Joe's father's grave, and his mother's -- with Bridget Tierney McCarthy in large letters.

Then I saw it. Sitting by itself in the warm sunshine, flanked by marble urns and a pair of evergreen bushes -- these are vandalized from time to time but today they looked plain and unremarkable. We walked up to the dark gray cenotaph. It stood almost waist high, reading in large block letters, Joseph R. McCarthy, and underneath United States Senator, with the dates below, Nov. 14, 1908 and May 2, 1957. There was nothing else, no flowers or any other special votive offering. Not the martyr's shrine today. The view from the 50-foot bluff was now largely overgrown with trees and shrubs, but the man in the straw hat had been right, it was a pretty spot. McCarthy occupied it alone. No other grave, not even Jean's, interfered with its silent, almost eerie, isolation.

We paused for a moment, my wife took pictures, and she said something about the visit being a good omen. I turned for one last look and then headed for the car. Afterwards I thought about the words from the prayer said at the unveiling of McCarthy's memorial in 1959: "death is only a horizon, and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight." I realized that was true in an historical as well as a religious sense. It is now possible, forty years on, to set McCarthy's life and career against a broader and somewhat different horizon from the one he and his contemporaries had been limited to. The dark and uncertain future over which he and opponents like Rovere and Fulbright fought is now our present. Maybe it is time to try to understand what happened.

Copyright © 2000 by Arthur Herman

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 5
( 2 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(2)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 2 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 28, 2000

    Great book

    This book is the one of the most intriging books of the communist scare in america. Arthur Herman gives in depth analysis of the anti-communist movement and the effects.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 19, 2000

    For a Good Time Read...

    This is not a synopsis of the book, as others may choose to write, nor is it a towel chewing argument against the author¿s point of view, nor will it pretend to read the author¿s motives. And this review certainly does not state that some other volume is more reliable - this to be taken as a matter fact, with no stated cause. This a superb biography. Although it does make characterizations of all involved, those characterizations are drawn from the actions and words of the participants. A biography can hardly do the job of setting its subject into his historical setting and filling out the picture of his impact on events better than this one. This story is exciting, and Mr. Hermann has the style for it. More than for any other reason, this book is worth reading for the exposition of the myths and false portrayals of that era then - and more so ever since. Buy two, and give one to a friend.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing all of 2 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)