Dave Weigel sticks up for Joe McCarthy who was "was (in his mind, at least) protecting American tradition, religion, and capitalism against the threat of Communism, which if implemented would abolish all of that. Hannity, like far too many Fox News pundits and radio hosts, are protecting George W. Bush against criticism from, well, everyone, from Pat Buchanan and Justin Raimondo to Cindy Sheehan and Dennis Kucinich." I think there's something to that. Fox News, in particular, seems much more invested in the greater glory of George W. Bush than in anything even resembling a set of ideas.
« Striking Somalia | Main | The Pundit Mobius Strip »
Cult of Personality
09 Jan 2007 02:14 pm
Comments (16)
Please. McCarthy was a cynical demagogue.
I always thought that McCarthy grabbed onto the communism issue in order to get re-elected.
I think Fox News, like a great many other businesses covering for Bush, is interested primarily in tax breaks, tax reductions and favorable laws regarding ownership, expansion and liability/insurance. Give them or save them money and they will come.
Speaking of personality cults, Agent Zero is late for his ESPN chat right now. I'd love to see you get in a question Matt.
I can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of the story, but my late father once told me that one of his legal associates had told him a story of meeting McCarthy as they were being demobilized from the military and having McCarthy brag about how he was going to make his career on the sort of demagoguery he ended up employing.
My father was a far better representative of the kind of guy who was committed to protecting the American tradition, his religion, etc., than Joe McCarthy ever thought of being, and, although one of his functions during the Truman administration was to prosecute genuine subversives, I never heard him express anything but contempt for McCarthy. Same goes for other anti-Communist Irish Catholics I grew up among.
Well first of all, and contra Dave Weigel, we have no idea whether Joe McCarthy was, "in his mind, at least", sincerely attempting to protect certain vague ideals. As Matt F suggests, he may have been a cynical demagogue. But actually, we have know way of really knowing, as we have no access to his "mind".
Secondly, and similarly, we really have no idea whether or not Sean Hannity concieves of himself sincerely as a protector of certain vague ideals. It's quite possible that he does. And perhaps he considers George Bush to be the same. If so, it's no wonder that he defends the president so vociferously. Of course, Hannity may be a cynical hack looking to sell books, and this scenario might be more probable than the other, but who but Sean Hannity can really say?
So Weigel's comparison is totally empty. Nevertheless, if you want to say something meaningful about Hannity, or McCarthy, assume that he is (or was) utterly sincere. Then, ask yourself whether moral responsibility is absolved in those who are sincerely convinced of their own rectitude. It's an interesting question, and surely more profitable to consider than this exercise in mind-reading.
I don't think Weigel is actually defending Joe McCarthy. He's saying that McCarthy compares favorably to Hannity because Hannity's even worse, which is completely true. Does anyone here really think Hannity is as good or better?
Does anyone here really think Hannity is as good or better?
Well, he has no power to, you know, actually do anything. Joe had subpoena's and/or Roy Cohn, both of which could leave a mark...
I used the "in his mind" qualifier to make it clear I didn't agree 100% with Joe McCarthy. I do not actually have access to his brianwaves - unfortunately! My actual point is about the merits of "defend the castle" conservatism (McCarthy even attacked Eisenhower when he thought he was hurting the anti-Communist cause) versus "defend the leader" conservatism.
In case I obscured the point with my Oedipal nostalgia, what I meant to say in my previous post was that three guys contemporary with McCarthy with pretty similar backgrounds, one of whom actually seems to have talked to Tailgunner Joe, would have found him a very poor example of "defend the castle conservatism" and a very good example of "defend the leader -- that's me -- conservatism."
But David, in Sean Hannity's mind, "defending the leader" is perfectly consistent with "defending the castle", as it's the leader who defends the castle too. And who are we to say he's incorrect in thinking this, given what he believes.
So still, absent of mind-reading powers, this distinction you're making is empty. If you want to make meaninful, profitable normative comparisons, compare the fanatic who is convinced of his own rectitude to the person who doubts himself a little. Then you will see that McCarthy and Hannity are equally malign, and in a meaningful sense.
Also, in response to JP, practically speaking, as to who has caused more ill, Hannity or McCarthy, there can be no question. McCarthy prosecuted people, got them fired, triggered a whole era of paranoia, ruined lives and perhaps laid the groundwork for the Vietnamese War (read the Best and the Brightest). What has Hannity done? He hosts a tasteless television and radio show. True, he was a promoter of the war, but so were hundreds of others, many of them far more respectable and hence more influential.
So no, the two aren't even comparable, practically speaking.
Mark, without disagreeing with your larger point, I think you're underestimating the effect that Hannity has had over the last decade. It's not luck of the draw that he's the guy chosen for Faux's new Sunday night piece of trash. He is a major, major player in the right-wing media machine and the degree that he basically tells what to think. They in turn think of themselves as politically aware and, I'm sure blather from that base of 'knowledge' to others.
Hannity affects the views of millions of Americans and should not be underestimated.
"Well, he has no power to, you know, actually do anything. Joe had subpoena's and/or Roy Cohn, both of which could leave a mark..."
Well, sure. I mean, I know that. But if we're talking about personal character evaluation, I don't think Hannity should get any credit for the fact that he isn't as powerful. It might make him less bad for society, but it doesn't make him as good or better as a human being.
Also, Sigh makes a fair point. I'd still agree that subpoenas are worse than TV ratings, but the difference isn't that big. We live in a mass media age.
Comments closed January 23, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
You're point about Fox and George Bush is well-taken (ie, I think it's true), but I don't think Joe McCarthy was (even in his mind) trying to protect the American tradition in any sense of the word.
Posted by Goldberg | January 9, 2007 2:23 PM