Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-09-02T15:40:47Z

Richman: /* anticompetitive */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2 | Archive 2 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive3 | Archive 3 ]]'''
----

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Very perceptive, Andy. It takes time for the gatekeepers of knowledge to acknowledge the validity of new terms; therefore, while the public production of new conservative insights and terms may be quite rapid, the assimilation of those insights and terms into formal reference works is likely to be much slower. This is, I would suggest, exacerbated by reliance on archaic forms of knowledge dissemination such as print dictionaries.

An interesting side project might be to evaluate dictionaries (both online and print) to see how rapidly they accept and incorporate new conservative words versus new liberal words. In this way, it might be possible to determine which dictionaries are reliable and which are liberally biased. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to archive the page - at least the parts which were from last year, but I totally botched it: my browser can't handle long pages, I have difficulties with the captchas & I created the wrong page for an archive [[Archive 3]] instead of [[Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/Archive 3]] ([[Archive 3]] should be moved there...)

So I give up... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:I archived 2010... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you - I had problems with the captchas! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe these two ==
Here's two possibilities I found in [[Federal debt limit]], "leveraged loss" and "debt spiral", but I'm not sure how to fit them in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== More possibilities... ==

Constructionist (1835-45)
Inalienable (1635-45)
Hubris (1880-1885)
Scientism (1875-1880)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Trickle-down? ==

As a descriptor for the trickle-down theory of economics, it dates to 1950-1955. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

: I think "trickle-down" is pejorative, and thus more a [[liberal]] term than a [[conservative]] one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::If trickle-down is the pejorative would the standard, conservative, phrase be "supply-side"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, it would - and "supply side" is already on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::ah, excellent. my work here is done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Civil body politic ==

"Civil body politic" is an interesting bit of history but does not seem to have caught on as widely used term, and hence would not seem to warrant inclusion in this list. Does anyone disagree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Medal of Honor (and other proper names) ==

I'm not sure that a proper name given to an award is inherently conservative-- the Medal itself reflects conservative values of course, but would do so even if had been called, say, the Award of Bravery or the Citation of Courage. "Coolant," "transistor" and "greasy spoon" are all truly conservative both in terms of content and syntax. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:Your point is valid. Perhaps it does not fit this particular list, but I'm reluctant to delete it. Isn't there something conservative about simply recognizing "honor", and calling the medal after the concept, rather than after, say, a liberal politician?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

==alcoholism ?==
Could you please explain how alcoholism is a conservative word ? Alcoholism is more of a liberal trait.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:24, 17 November 2011 (EST)

:"Alcoholism" is a criticism of excessive drinking, and thus is a conservative word. Words that end in "ism" are often pejoratives, as in "alarmism" and "collectivism" (which are also on the list).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:: And do you feel the same way about the word "liberalism"?--[[User:JeanB|JeanB]] 21:49, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::: Word that end in -ism are not always pejorative, capitalism is good. And when the words socialism or communism were invented, they were meant to be good.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:53, 17 November 2011 (EST)

==Handout==
1882, I wanted to add this to best new conservative words as it describes a liberal policy of government giveaways. But it also could be the conservative position of helping the poor through charity. Either way it is a conservative word but the proper way to describe alludes me. Op?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:That would a superb addition! It would also leave the list only two 20-century words shy of another perfect doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== Level Playing Field ==

I added the term "level playing field" for two main reasons: 1) It is an intuitive metaphor used in its [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html first recorded use] to describe how markets usually work best when they are fair for all participants and free of interference. 2) The term has since been used by liberals to describe policies such as affirmative action, progressive taxation, and government handouts, but it obvious to anyone who looks at these policies objectively that they actually distort the playing field.

I believe that is enough for the term to stand on its own merits, but it looks even more conservative if we compare it to other words on the list such as "motivation," "quantify," or "coolant."

Maybe I have overlooked something and the word does not belong on the list. Comments are welcome. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:03, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

:As you point out, the term is often used by liberals, so that makes it a doubtful candidate for "best" new conservative words. The term seems to imply that government is needed to level the playing field. Level playing fields rarely occur in nature, for example. The term almost sounds like the famous "life's not fair" expression ... which is not conservative either.

:"Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

== A.M. ==

This entry is an abbreviation for ''ante meridiem'', which originates from 1563 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ante%20meridiem]. I'm not clear on whether the abbreviation is being claimed as a new conservative word or the phrase for which it stands. Additionally, it is unclear where the given date of origin in the article of 1762 comes from. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:The online etymology dictionary gives a date of 1762. Perhaps it's referring to common usage.

:While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Just seen this catch my attention on the mainpage. I highly doubt that the two could be related in any conservative sense. Of course "AD" refers to "In the year of our lord". But back in the 18th century, Latin was still being routinely taught in schools (especially in [[Britain]]), bring us many other Latin abbreviations, such as eg, etc, ie, RIP (from 'requiescat in pace', and later backronymed into 'rest in peace'). I highly doubt the link between any apparent 'popularity' of AD spurred the formation of AM, and personally I'd remove it. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::But what percentage of the overall British population learned Latin in school in the 1700s? Perhaps only 10%? Most Latin appreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that "A.M." did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to "[[A.D.]]"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Nonetheless etymological creation power lies not with those who use the language the most. One must remember that our records of language from the 1700s (both Britain and America) are not vernacular English of the working classes but written English of those who were educated. This was before widespread adoption of clocks and timepieces, which came later with the [[industrial revolution]] and the railways. Again, I highly disagree that likeness to AM would be a significant contributor. Those that would have used the world in our written records would have been educated in Latin, and would therefore be aware of the etymological roots of '''both''' AM and AD. Since the A stands for '''anno''' and '''ante''' respectively, there is no etymological proximity at all between the two. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 18:35, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::But "A.D." did gain widespread currency with the masses, and then "A.M." became popular in a similar manner. Many other Latin abbreviations, like "Q.E.D.", did not follow in their footsteps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:54, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean, the masses had a choice whether to use "A.M" or something else? It wasn't determined by the use of that convention by those few who created, say, railroad timetables or other documents? Incidentally, do we know what that date of "1762" refers to? Refering to some "online etymology dictionary" seems a bit like relying on hearsay. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:44, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I still maintain that Mr Schlafly is assuming correlation from causation. While of course nowadays we might view AD in a more conservative light since the introduction (especially amongst the humanities communities) of [[CE]], then back in the case it certainly wasn't the case and due to the pervasiveness of the Christian terms I highly doubt that its religious connotations had any contributing factor over its use as a year marker. If it's another conservative word that's being looked for, I can have a think over the next few days for an alternative word that might not be as debatable. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 17:27, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== It Really Is Amazing... ==

It really is amazing that the pattern of perfect doubling by century is so strong that almost every "layer" is complete before the next layer starts, even though words are added to the list pretty much randomly whenever a user thinks of one. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 17:47, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

::I don't actually believe in this theory, but I think it's interesting nonetheless to think about the etymologies of such words and why we might consider them conservative or not. Thus this essay has potential for insights, whether or not one believes in the underlying theory. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 17:33, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== You know this list is contrived. ==

As you can see, [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] is actively trying to make it a perfect doubling by century. [[User:DavidCalman|David]][[User talk:DavidCalman|Calman]]

:It would be impossible to discover such a perfect doubling of conservative words by century unless it existed. If someone discovered oil, would anyone say, "well, that's no big deal, because you looked for it there!"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== Intelligent design ==

I'm not sure where your date of 1991 is coming from. I know that the Kitzmiller trial uncovered a 1987 draft of ''Of Pandas and People'' that used intelligent design in the origins context:
<blockquote>
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
</blockquote>
[[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:39, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

== Teamwork ==
In a liberal society, true team work is impossible because nothing bets done without an overarching authority to control and monitor and meddle in activity. The ideas of equals respecting each other and working for the good of the country is a conservative value, and I think that teamwork should be made a Conservative Word. What do you think? [[User:JeffBron|JeffBron]] 15:15, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

:In political usage, "teamwork" implies abandoning principles. It does not have a positive political connotation for [[conservatives]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:23, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

== anticompetitive ==

According to Merriam-Webster the first known use of this word is from 1854: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anticompetitive]. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 15:49, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

And Doubting Thomas is at least from as early as 1848:
[http://books.google.be/books?id=DbY3AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=doubting+thomas&source=bl&ots=cJvz-HgNDp&sig=xyM0lYOAZJG1qaMtOYj-PiZ2qmg&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=csY_ULzJJa_Z0QXzsIGQBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=doubting%20thomas&f=false]. These are just two words I checked. Which begs the question how accurate the other origin dates are. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 16:06, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

:Merriam-Webster (10th Edition, hardbound) says that "anticompetitive" dates from only 1952. It also says that "Doubting Thomas" is from 1883. But I'll change the dates based on your citations.

:It's not surprising that there are some minor disputes about ''when'' the first use of a word occurred. But the disputes are not substantial enough to alter the overall trend of doubling by century. In fact, these changes may conform the data more closely to the geometric growth rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
::Superb remark! In the meantime, I have had a closer look at the list. Most of the terms don't seem inherently conservative to me. For instance, do you really think ''illiteracy'' is a conservative word of the highest quality just because "liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the public schools are illiterate today"? With explanations like that, any word can be labeled conservative or liberal.
::As to the geometric growth rate, have you considered that the ''total'' number of words in the English language shows a similar growth rate? [[User:Richman|Richman]] 11:40, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

== Understanding the theory ==

Hi. I'm having some difficulty with this argument:

''Conservative terms, expressing conservative insights, originate at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than liberal terms. Conservative triumph over liberalism is thus inevitable.''

If we're running this study from the start of the 17th century, then that's 400+ years in which conservatism has been growing steadily stronger due to outperforming liberalism in the generation of high quality terms and insights.

With that in mind, I can't find any good explanation why conservatism hasn't yet triumphed, unless we wish to argue that the world was an exceptionally liberal place prior to 1600.

Apologies if I've overlooked some other obvious implicit premise.

--[[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 18:16, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

:Conservatism '''''has''''' triumphed on many, many issues. But just as food production has triumphed and far surpassed the demand for food consumption, some pockets of starvation still exist, and thus the triumph of conservatism does not mean that all pockets of liberalism have vanished.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

::Is it possible to quantify (roughly) where we started c.1600 and where we're at now, then, in terms of conservatism v. liberalism? Taking a 10 point scale of 1 (untrammelled liberalism) to 10 (complete triumph of conservatism), what approximate values would you ascribe to 1600 and 2012?

::I don't suggest adding them to the essay as such; more as a guide for setting the theory in its proper historical context.

::Thanks,

::--[[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 19:03, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

:::Perhaps society's conservatism was only "2" in 1600, and today it is "7". Perhaps a logarithmic scale (as with earthquakes) would be better than a linear scale. In 1600, the wealthiest person lacked a standard of living that many poor Americans enjoy today. Moreover, today there is immense opportunity for upward mobility in America, which did not exist in 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:36, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

Action at a distance

2012-08-31T15:28:07Z

Richman: more coherent

'''Action at a distance''' consists of affecting a distant body instantaneously. At the atomic level, this is known as "non-locality".

Examples of action at a distance in physics are:

* Newtonian gravity
* Electrostatics (before Maxwell's equations in the 1800s)
* Quantum entanglement within [[quantum mechanics]] (called "non-locality")

Other observed examples of action at a distance are:

* Action at a distance performed by Jesus, as described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].

Some scientists have long resisted the possibility of action at at distance (non-locality), and the [[theory of relativity]] assumes that information traveling instantaneously, or faster than the speed of light, is impossible.

Several theories have been developed as ways of denying '''action at a distance''' (non-locality). These include:

*theories positing the existence of gravitons
*string theory
*quantum field theory

[[category:philosophy]]
[[category:physics]]
[[Category:Conservative Dictionary]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-08-30T20:06:24Z

Richman: /* anticompetitive */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2 | Archive 2 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive3 | Archive 3 ]]'''
----

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Very perceptive, Andy. It takes time for the gatekeepers of knowledge to acknowledge the validity of new terms; therefore, while the public production of new conservative insights and terms may be quite rapid, the assimilation of those insights and terms into formal reference works is likely to be much slower. This is, I would suggest, exacerbated by reliance on archaic forms of knowledge dissemination such as print dictionaries.

An interesting side project might be to evaluate dictionaries (both online and print) to see how rapidly they accept and incorporate new conservative words versus new liberal words. In this way, it might be possible to determine which dictionaries are reliable and which are liberally biased. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to archive the page - at least the parts which were from last year, but I totally botched it: my browser can't handle long pages, I have difficulties with the captchas & I created the wrong page for an archive [[Archive 3]] instead of [[Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/Archive 3]] ([[Archive 3]] should be moved there...)

So I give up... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:I archived 2010... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you - I had problems with the captchas! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe these two ==
Here's two possibilities I found in [[Federal debt limit]], "leveraged loss" and "debt spiral", but I'm not sure how to fit them in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== More possibilities... ==

Constructionist (1835-45)
Inalienable (1635-45)
Hubris (1880-1885)
Scientism (1875-1880)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Trickle-down? ==

As a descriptor for the trickle-down theory of economics, it dates to 1950-1955. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

: I think "trickle-down" is pejorative, and thus more a [[liberal]] term than a [[conservative]] one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::If trickle-down is the pejorative would the standard, conservative, phrase be "supply-side"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, it would - and "supply side" is already on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::ah, excellent. my work here is done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Civil body politic ==

"Civil body politic" is an interesting bit of history but does not seem to have caught on as widely used term, and hence would not seem to warrant inclusion in this list. Does anyone disagree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Medal of Honor (and other proper names) ==

I'm not sure that a proper name given to an award is inherently conservative-- the Medal itself reflects conservative values of course, but would do so even if had been called, say, the Award of Bravery or the Citation of Courage. "Coolant," "transistor" and "greasy spoon" are all truly conservative both in terms of content and syntax. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:Your point is valid. Perhaps it does not fit this particular list, but I'm reluctant to delete it. Isn't there something conservative about simply recognizing "honor", and calling the medal after the concept, rather than after, say, a liberal politician?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

==alcoholism ?==
Could you please explain how alcoholism is a conservative word ? Alcoholism is more of a liberal trait.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:24, 17 November 2011 (EST)

:"Alcoholism" is a criticism of excessive drinking, and thus is a conservative word. Words that end in "ism" are often pejoratives, as in "alarmism" and "collectivism" (which are also on the list).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:: And do you feel the same way about the word "liberalism"?--[[User:JeanB|JeanB]] 21:49, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::: Word that end in -ism are not always pejorative, capitalism is good. And when the words socialism or communism were invented, they were meant to be good.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:53, 17 November 2011 (EST)

==Handout==
1882, I wanted to add this to best new conservative words as it describes a liberal policy of government giveaways. But it also could be the conservative position of helping the poor through charity. Either way it is a conservative word but the proper way to describe alludes me. Op?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:That would a superb addition! It would also leave the list only two 20-century words shy of another perfect doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== Level Playing Field ==

I added the term "level playing field" for two main reasons: 1) It is an intuitive metaphor used in its [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html first recorded use] to describe how markets usually work best when they are fair for all participants and free of interference. 2) The term has since been used by liberals to describe policies such as affirmative action, progressive taxation, and government handouts, but it obvious to anyone who looks at these policies objectively that they actually distort the playing field.

I believe that is enough for the term to stand on its own merits, but it looks even more conservative if we compare it to other words on the list such as "motivation," "quantify," or "coolant."

Maybe I have overlooked something and the word does not belong on the list. Comments are welcome. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:03, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

:As you point out, the term is often used by liberals, so that makes it a doubtful candidate for "best" new conservative words. The term seems to imply that government is needed to level the playing field. Level playing fields rarely occur in nature, for example. The term almost sounds like the famous "life's not fair" expression ... which is not conservative either.

:"Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

== A.M. ==

This entry is an abbreviation for ''ante meridiem'', which originates from 1563 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ante%20meridiem]. I'm not clear on whether the abbreviation is being claimed as a new conservative word or the phrase for which it stands. Additionally, it is unclear where the given date of origin in the article of 1762 comes from. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:The online etymology dictionary gives a date of 1762. Perhaps it's referring to common usage.

:While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Just seen this catch my attention on the mainpage. I highly doubt that the two could be related in any conservative sense. Of course "AD" refers to "In the year of our lord". But back in the 18th century, Latin was still being routinely taught in schools (especially in [[Britain]]), bring us many other Latin abbreviations, such as eg, etc, ie, RIP (from 'requiescat in pace', and later backronymed into 'rest in peace'). I highly doubt the link between any apparent 'popularity' of AD spurred the formation of AM, and personally I'd remove it. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::But what percentage of the overall British population learned Latin in school in the 1700s? Perhaps only 10%? Most Latin appreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that "A.M." did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to "[[A.D.]]"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Nonetheless etymological creation power lies not with those who use the language the most. One must remember that our records of language from the 1700s (both Britain and America) are not vernacular English of the working classes but written English of those who were educated. This was before widespread adoption of clocks and timepieces, which came later with the [[industrial revolution]] and the railways. Again, I highly disagree that likeness to AM would be a significant contributor. Those that would have used the world in our written records would have been educated in Latin, and would therefore be aware of the etymological roots of '''both''' AM and AD. Since the A stands for '''anno''' and '''ante''' respectively, there is no etymological proximity at all between the two. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 18:35, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::But "A.D." did gain widespread currency with the masses, and then "A.M." became popular in a similar manner. Many other Latin abbreviations, like "Q.E.D.", did not follow in their footsteps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:54, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean, the masses had a choice whether to use "A.M" or something else? It wasn't determined by the use of that convention by those few who created, say, railroad timetables or other documents? Incidentally, do we know what that date of "1762" refers to? Refering to some "online etymology dictionary" seems a bit like relying on hearsay. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:44, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I still maintain that Mr Schlafly is assuming correlation from causation. While of course nowadays we might view AD in a more conservative light since the introduction (especially amongst the humanities communities) of [[CE]], then back in the case it certainly wasn't the case and due to the pervasiveness of the Christian terms I highly doubt that its religious connotations had any contributing factor over its use as a year marker. If it's another conservative word that's being looked for, I can have a think over the next few days for an alternative word that might not be as debatable. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 17:27, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== It Really Is Amazing... ==

It really is amazing that the pattern of perfect doubling by century is so strong that almost every "layer" is complete before the next layer starts, even though words are added to the list pretty much randomly whenever a user thinks of one. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 17:47, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

::I don't actually believe in this theory, but I think it's interesting nonetheless to think about the etymologies of such words and why we might consider them conservative or not. Thus this essay has potential for insights, whether or not one believes in the underlying theory. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 17:33, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== You know this list is contrived. ==

As you can see, [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] is actively trying to make it a perfect doubling by century. [[User:DavidCalman|David]][[User talk:DavidCalman|Calman]]

:It would be impossible to discover such a perfect doubling of conservative words by century unless it existed. If someone discovered oil, would anyone say, "well, that's no big deal, because you looked for it there!"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== Intelligent design ==

I'm not sure where your date of 1991 is coming from. I know that the Kitzmiller trial uncovered a 1987 draft of ''Of Pandas and People'' that used intelligent design in the origins context:
<blockquote>
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
</blockquote>
[[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:39, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

== Teamwork ==
In a liberal society, true team work is impossible because nothing bets done without an overarching authority to control and monitor and meddle in activity. The ideas of equals respecting each other and working for the good of the country is a conservative value, and I think that teamwork should be made a Conservative Word. What do you think? [[User:JeffBron|JeffBron]] 15:15, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

== anticompetitive ==

According to Merriam-Webster the first known use of this word is from 1854: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anticompetitive]. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 15:49, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

And Doubting Thomas is at least from as early as 1848:
[http://books.google.be/books?id=DbY3AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=doubting+thomas&source=bl&ots=cJvz-HgNDp&sig=xyM0lYOAZJG1qaMtOYj-PiZ2qmg&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=csY_ULzJJa_Z0QXzsIGQBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=doubting%20thomas&f=false]. These are just two words I checked. Which begs the question how accurate the other origin dates are. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 16:06, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-08-30T19:49:00Z

Richman: /* anticompetitive */ new section

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2 | Archive 2 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive3 | Archive 3 ]]'''
----

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Very perceptive, Andy. It takes time for the gatekeepers of knowledge to acknowledge the validity of new terms; therefore, while the public production of new conservative insights and terms may be quite rapid, the assimilation of those insights and terms into formal reference works is likely to be much slower. This is, I would suggest, exacerbated by reliance on archaic forms of knowledge dissemination such as print dictionaries.

An interesting side project might be to evaluate dictionaries (both online and print) to see how rapidly they accept and incorporate new conservative words versus new liberal words. In this way, it might be possible to determine which dictionaries are reliable and which are liberally biased. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to archive the page - at least the parts which were from last year, but I totally botched it: my browser can't handle long pages, I have difficulties with the captchas & I created the wrong page for an archive [[Archive 3]] instead of [[Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/Archive 3]] ([[Archive 3]] should be moved there...)

So I give up... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:I archived 2010... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you - I had problems with the captchas! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe these two ==
Here's two possibilities I found in [[Federal debt limit]], "leveraged loss" and "debt spiral", but I'm not sure how to fit them in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== More possibilities... ==

Constructionist (1835-45)
Inalienable (1635-45)
Hubris (1880-1885)
Scientism (1875-1880)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Trickle-down? ==

As a descriptor for the trickle-down theory of economics, it dates to 1950-1955. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

: I think "trickle-down" is pejorative, and thus more a [[liberal]] term than a [[conservative]] one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::If trickle-down is the pejorative would the standard, conservative, phrase be "supply-side"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, it would - and "supply side" is already on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::ah, excellent. my work here is done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Civil body politic ==

"Civil body politic" is an interesting bit of history but does not seem to have caught on as widely used term, and hence would not seem to warrant inclusion in this list. Does anyone disagree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Medal of Honor (and other proper names) ==

I'm not sure that a proper name given to an award is inherently conservative-- the Medal itself reflects conservative values of course, but would do so even if had been called, say, the Award of Bravery or the Citation of Courage. "Coolant," "transistor" and "greasy spoon" are all truly conservative both in terms of content and syntax. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:Your point is valid. Perhaps it does not fit this particular list, but I'm reluctant to delete it. Isn't there something conservative about simply recognizing "honor", and calling the medal after the concept, rather than after, say, a liberal politician?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

==alcoholism ?==
Could you please explain how alcoholism is a conservative word ? Alcoholism is more of a liberal trait.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:24, 17 November 2011 (EST)

:"Alcoholism" is a criticism of excessive drinking, and thus is a conservative word. Words that end in "ism" are often pejoratives, as in "alarmism" and "collectivism" (which are also on the list).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:: And do you feel the same way about the word "liberalism"?--[[User:JeanB|JeanB]] 21:49, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::: Word that end in -ism are not always pejorative, capitalism is good. And when the words socialism or communism were invented, they were meant to be good.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:53, 17 November 2011 (EST)

==Handout==
1882, I wanted to add this to best new conservative words as it describes a liberal policy of government giveaways. But it also could be the conservative position of helping the poor through charity. Either way it is a conservative word but the proper way to describe alludes me. Op?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:That would a superb addition! It would also leave the list only two 20-century words shy of another perfect doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== Level Playing Field ==

I added the term "level playing field" for two main reasons: 1) It is an intuitive metaphor used in its [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html first recorded use] to describe how markets usually work best when they are fair for all participants and free of interference. 2) The term has since been used by liberals to describe policies such as affirmative action, progressive taxation, and government handouts, but it obvious to anyone who looks at these policies objectively that they actually distort the playing field.

I believe that is enough for the term to stand on its own merits, but it looks even more conservative if we compare it to other words on the list such as "motivation," "quantify," or "coolant."

Maybe I have overlooked something and the word does not belong on the list. Comments are welcome. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:03, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

:As you point out, the term is often used by liberals, so that makes it a doubtful candidate for "best" new conservative words. The term seems to imply that government is needed to level the playing field. Level playing fields rarely occur in nature, for example. The term almost sounds like the famous "life's not fair" expression ... which is not conservative either.

:"Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

== A.M. ==

This entry is an abbreviation for ''ante meridiem'', which originates from 1563 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ante%20meridiem]. I'm not clear on whether the abbreviation is being claimed as a new conservative word or the phrase for which it stands. Additionally, it is unclear where the given date of origin in the article of 1762 comes from. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:The online etymology dictionary gives a date of 1762. Perhaps it's referring to common usage.

:While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Just seen this catch my attention on the mainpage. I highly doubt that the two could be related in any conservative sense. Of course "AD" refers to "In the year of our lord". But back in the 18th century, Latin was still being routinely taught in schools (especially in [[Britain]]), bring us many other Latin abbreviations, such as eg, etc, ie, RIP (from 'requiescat in pace', and later backronymed into 'rest in peace'). I highly doubt the link between any apparent 'popularity' of AD spurred the formation of AM, and personally I'd remove it. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::But what percentage of the overall British population learned Latin in school in the 1700s? Perhaps only 10%? Most Latin appreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that "A.M." did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to "[[A.D.]]"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Nonetheless etymological creation power lies not with those who use the language the most. One must remember that our records of language from the 1700s (both Britain and America) are not vernacular English of the working classes but written English of those who were educated. This was before widespread adoption of clocks and timepieces, which came later with the [[industrial revolution]] and the railways. Again, I highly disagree that likeness to AM would be a significant contributor. Those that would have used the world in our written records would have been educated in Latin, and would therefore be aware of the etymological roots of '''both''' AM and AD. Since the A stands for '''anno''' and '''ante''' respectively, there is no etymological proximity at all between the two. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 18:35, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::But "A.D." did gain widespread currency with the masses, and then "A.M." became popular in a similar manner. Many other Latin abbreviations, like "Q.E.D.", did not follow in their footsteps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:54, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean, the masses had a choice whether to use "A.M" or something else? It wasn't determined by the use of that convention by those few who created, say, railroad timetables or other documents? Incidentally, do we know what that date of "1762" refers to? Refering to some "online etymology dictionary" seems a bit like relying on hearsay. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:44, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I still maintain that Mr Schlafly is assuming correlation from causation. While of course nowadays we might view AD in a more conservative light since the introduction (especially amongst the humanities communities) of [[CE]], then back in the case it certainly wasn't the case and due to the pervasiveness of the Christian terms I highly doubt that its religious connotations had any contributing factor over its use as a year marker. If it's another conservative word that's being looked for, I can have a think over the next few days for an alternative word that might not be as debatable. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 17:27, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== It Really Is Amazing... ==

It really is amazing that the pattern of perfect doubling by century is so strong that almost every "layer" is complete before the next layer starts, even though words are added to the list pretty much randomly whenever a user thinks of one. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 17:47, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

::I don't actually believe in this theory, but I think it's interesting nonetheless to think about the etymologies of such words and why we might consider them conservative or not. Thus this essay has potential for insights, whether or not one believes in the underlying theory. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 17:33, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== You know this list is contrived. ==

As you can see, [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] is actively trying to make it a perfect doubling by century. [[User:DavidCalman|David]][[User talk:DavidCalman|Calman]]

:It would be impossible to discover such a perfect doubling of conservative words by century unless it existed. If someone discovered oil, would anyone say, "well, that's no big deal, because you looked for it there!"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== Intelligent design ==

I'm not sure where your date of 1991 is coming from. I know that the Kitzmiller trial uncovered a 1987 draft of ''Of Pandas and People'' that used intelligent design in the origins context:
<blockquote>
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
</blockquote>
[[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:39, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

== Teamwork ==
In a liberal society, true team work is impossible because nothing bets done without an overarching authority to control and monitor and meddle in activity. The ideas of equals respecting each other and working for the good of the country is a conservative value, and I think that teamwork should be made a Conservative Word. What do you think? [[User:JeffBron|JeffBron]] 15:15, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

== anticompetitive ==

According to Merriam-Webster the first known use of this word is from 1854: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anticompetitive]. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 15:49, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

Article (grammar)

2012-08-30T14:48:20Z

Richman: an adjective is not necessarily a morpheme

An '''article''' in [[grammar]] is a [[morpheme]], such as an [[affix]], which determines the scope of the described noun. Use of a '''definite''' or '''indefinite''' article indicates that the noun to which the article refers identifies a specific, already explicitly or inherently identified, referent (in which case the article is a definite article) or that it does not (an indefinite article). Some languages, such as [[Russian language|Russian]], lack articles.

The English definite article is "the", and the two indefinite articles are "a" and "an". "A" is used before words beginning with a [[consonant]], "an" before words beginning with a [[vowel]]. This distinction is [[phonology|phonological]] — based on the following word as pronounced, not as written; compare, e.g., "an honor" with "a union".

Also considered articles are English words like 'some' (a [[partitive]] article) or 'no' (a [[negative]] article), although this usage is less common in everyday language, where 'article' usually means a definite or indefinite article.

[[Category:Grammar]]

Pluralism

2012-08-30T14:27:21Z

Richman: typo

'''Pluralism''' refers to tolerance for different types of ideas, persons, or groups. For example, religious pluralism, as guaranteed by the [[US Constitution]], is a policy allowing different [[religious]] groups to coexist inthe [[United States]].

*"The successful writer actually wants everyone to have his say, even if he disagrees with your take on matters. That’s the American way ..." [http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dgagliasso/2010/11/10/andrew-klavan-interview-were-at-war-but-hollywood-is-still-stuck-in-vietnam/]

Pluralism is the opposite of [[xenophobia]] (hatred of strangers), [[majoritarianism]] and [[nativism]] (giving preference to the native born and attacking immigrants who bring different values of ways of life).

[[category:political Terms]]

Excessive precision

2012-08-29T21:54:52Z

Richman: it's not a wagon but a Wagen (German for car)

'''Excessive precision''' is a way of concealing how good the numbers are. [http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/09/excess-precision.html] For example, a 2011 ad for the Volkswagen Passat says it can go 795 miles on a tank of gas. This implies that 800 would be impossible, and that 790 is guaranteed, i.e., an accuracy of 5 miles. Actually, because of driving conditions or one's chosen speed there would be more variation.

*"A general rule is to give precisions approximately one tenth the size of the object, unless there is a clear reason for additional precision. Overly precise coordinates can be misleading by implying that the geographic area is smaller than it truly is." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Precision]

See:
*[[precision]]
*[[accuracy]]
*''[[How to Lie With Statistics]]''
[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

Joseph McCarthy

2012-08-29T20:12:25Z

Richman: /* The term "McCarthyism" */ typo

{{Officeholder
|name=Joseph McCarthy
|image=Joseph McCarthy.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Jean Kerr McCarthy
|religion=Roman Catholicism
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Wisconsin
|terms=January 3, 1947 – May 2, 1957
|preceded=Robert M. La Follette, Jr.
|former=n
|succeeded=William Proxmire
}}
}}

'''Joe McCarthy''' (Joseph Raymond McCarthy, November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957) was a two-term [[Republican]] [[United States Senate|U.S. Senator]] from [[Wisconsin]]. He dominated the anti-[[communist]] movement in the U.S., 1950-54, until his career was ruined by censure by the Senate. '''"McCarthyism"''' is the aggressive exposure of Communists influences in America and the people who protect them.

Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public figure to object to [[Communist]] infiltration of the [[United States]] government. A 1954 Gallup poll found that Joe McCarthy was the fourth on its list of most admired men. <ref>http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/mccarth5.htm</ref>He is now considered an American hero by many, though liberals still seek to tarnish his name.

He was noted for claiming that there were large numbers of [[Communist Party|Communists]] and [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] spies and sympathizers, engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the United States, inside the federal government. He was proven correct by government documents and inquiry, including decrypted [[Venona]] files.

McCarthy lost support in 1953 when he started attacking the U.S. Army, and suggesting that Republican President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] was protecting subversives. Eisenhower signaled Republicans to stop his attacks on the Army. McCarthy had strong support among Catholics, such as [[Joe Kennedy]]; In 1954 the Senate censured him for attacking fellow Senators, this caused his influence to collapse abruptly.

The term "[[McCarthyism]]" was coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's aggressive attempts to ferret out suspects, occasionally in the absence of evidence.

==Early life==
Joseph McCarthy was born to a poor Irish Catholic farm family in Appleton, Wisconsin. A hyperactive, extroverted youth, he dropped out of school after eighth grade to start his own poultry business. After the chickens all died, he enrolled in the local public high school. Thanks to enormous energy and a retentive mind, he finished his coursework in less than a year at age 20. After two undergraduate years at Marquette University, a leading Jesuit school in Milwaukee, McCarthy entered Marquette Law School, acquiring the rudiments of the profession that he soon used to knit together a statewide network among Irish and German Catholics. McCarthy was a practicing Catholic his entire life, but rarely referred to religion or ethnicity in his speeches. He actively supported President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] in the Young Democrats, but did not join Irish organizations.

Although defeated in his 1936 race for district attorney, McCarthy displayed remarkable campaign abilities and an astonishing memory for faces. He had the energy and determination to meet every voter in person, exuding charm and a concern for the voter as an individual. The same tactics paid off in 1939, when he was successful in a nonpartisan contest for a regional judgeship.

The youngest judge in state history, he worked long hours to clear up a large backlog. He administered justice promptly and with a combination of legal knowledge and good sense. He was still a Democrat, but that party was very weak statewide at the time.

===Military service===
[[Image:JosephMcCarthyMilitaryUniform.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Joseph McCarthy in the U.S. Marine Corps]]

In 1942 McCarthy, volunteered for the Marines (as a judge he was draft exempt), becoming an intelligence officer in an aviation unit heavily engaged in combat in the South Pacific. Although assigned a desk job McCarthy flew numerous combat missions as a tail gunner—he exaggerated the number to qualify for a Distinguished Flying Cross.

During his 30 months of military service, McCarthy's record was unanimously praised by his commanding officers and Admiral [[Chester Nimitz]], commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet. Admiral Nimitz issued the following citation regarding the service of Captain McCarthy:

{{Cquote|For meritorious and efficient performance of duty as an observer and rear gunner of a dive bomber attached to a Marine scout bombing squadron operating in the Solomon Islands area from September 1 to December 31, 1943. He participated in a large number of combat missions, and in addition to his regular duties, acted as aerial photographer. He obtained excellent photographs of enemy gun positions, despite intense anti-aircraft fire, thereby gaining valuable information which contributed materially to the success of subsequent strikes in the area. Although suffering from a severe leg injury, he refused to be hospitalized and continued to carry out his duties as Intelligence Officer in a highly efficient manner. His courageous devotion to duty was in keeping with the highest traditions of the naval service.<ref>Cohn, Roy (1968). ''McCarthy''. The New American Library, Inc., pgs. 273-274. ASIN B000KIR8FC</ref>}}

==Elected to Senate, 1946==
McCarthy had his name entered in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 1944, opposing a well-entrenched incumbent Republican, Alexander Wiley. The absentee war hero ran a strong second, making a name for himself statewide and making himself available for the 1946 Senate contest.

Why McCarthy suddenly changed parties was never explained, but prospects for ambitious Wisconsin politicians were dim inside the poorly organized Democratic party, for most New Dealers supported the state’s Progressive party. During the war, however, that party collapsed, torn apart between its New Deal domestic liberalism, and its intensely isolationist opposition to Roosevelt’s foreign policy. Increasingly out of touch with Wisconsin, its leader [[Robert LaFollette Jr.]] looked to his family’s past glories and made the blunder of trying for reelection to the Senate in 1946 as a Republican.

"Tail Gunner Joe," as his posters called him, endlessly crisscrossed Wisconsin while LaFollette remained in Washington, offered an alternative in the Republican primary to old guard Republicans who had opposed the Lafollettes for a half century. McCarthy brilliantly captured the frustrations citizens felt about massive strikes, unstable economy, price controls, severe shortages of housing and meat, and the growing threat of from the far left in the CIO. He nipped LaFollette in the primary. The slogan “Had Enough?—Vote Republican” gave the Republicans a landslide all across the North, electing a new junior senator from Wisconsin.

==Communist Issue==
In Washington, McCarthy was a mainstream conservative in domestic policy, and, like many veterans, was an internationalist in foreign affairs, supporting the [[Marshall Plan]] and [[NATO]]. His speeches rarely mentioned domestic Communism or flaming issues like the [[Alger Hiss]] espionage case, but that suddenly changed in early 1950 when his vivid [[anti-Communist]] rhetoric drew national attention. "The issue between the Republicans and Democrats is clearly drawn. It has been deliberately drawn by those who have been in charge of twenty years of treason.” Alleging there were many card-carrying Communists in [[Harry S. Truman]]’s State Department, McCarthy forced a Senate investigation led by Millard Tydings, Democrat of Maryland. McCarthy named numerous suspect diplomats but failed to convince the three Democrats on the panel; they concluded his allegations were “a fraud and a hoax,” while the two Republicans dissented. McCarthy retaliated by campaigning against Tydings, who was defeated for reelection in November, 1950. What the senator himself called McCarthyism was a factor in key races across the country; all his candidates won and his stock soared. A few weeks later American forces were crushed by the Chinese in Korea, and in spring 1951 Truman tried to shift the blame by firing General [[Douglas MacArthur]].

==Support from Catholics and Kennedys==
The great majority of Catholics were anti-Communist, but they were also loyal Democrats, so to enlarge his base McCarthy, a Republican, needed an alliance with anti-Communist Catholics.<ref> Martin E. Marty, ''Modern American Religion: 1941-1960'' (1996) 3:358</ref> The Catholic bishops and the Catholic press was "among McCarthy's most fervid supporters." <ref> Charles R. Morris, ''American Catholic'' (1997) p. 248-50, quote on p. 248; James Waldron Arnold, ''Objectivity in Selected Catholic Diocesan Newspapers'' (1954) p. 49.</ref> A major connection was with the powerful Kennedy family, which had very high visibility among all Catholics in the Northeast.<ref>Kevin Kenny, ''The American Irish'' (2000), 242-43.</ref> Well before he became famous McCarthy became closely associated with [[Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.]]. He was a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, and at one point dated Joe's daughter Patricia. After McCarthy became nationally prominent Kennedy was a vocal supporter, and helped build McCarthy's popularity among Catholics. Kennedy contributed cash and encouraged his friends to give money. Some historians have argued that in the Senate race of 1952, Joe Kennedy and McCarthy made a deal that McCarthy would not make campaign speeches for the Republican ticket in Massachusetts, and in return, Congressman [[John F. Kennedy]] would not give anti-McCarthy speeches. In 1953 McCarthy hired [[Robert Kennedy]] as a senior staff member. When the Senate voted to censure McCarthy in 1954, Senator Kennedy was in the hospital and never indicated then or later how he would vote; he told associates he could not vote against McCarthy because of the family ties.<ref> Michael O'Brien, ''John F. Kennedy: A Biography'' (2005); Crosby, ''God, Church, and Flag'' </ref>

==Political dominance==
In 1950, McCarthy discussed his upcoming 1952 campaign with three fellow Catholics (Father Edmund A. Walsh and Charles H. Kraus of Georgetown University and Washington attorney Wiliam A. Roberts). Kraus had recommended Father Walsh's recent books dealing with Communism to McCarthy, and was hoping to interest McCarthy in the problems of Communism in the world. McCarthy's reputation among the voters was not good at that time, due to various ethical and tax violation problems, and he needed an issue that would help improve his chances of re-election. He latched enthusiastically onto the idea of attacking Communists in the government.<ref>Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy, (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich), 1959.</ref>

Subsequently, McCarthy called Willard Edwards of the Chicago Tribune asking for assistance with a speech on Communism. Edwards sent some materials, including a copy of a letter written on July 26, 1946, by James F. Byrnes, Secretary of State under Truman. This letter was the central support for McCarthy's subsequent claims to have a list of Communists in the government.

"Pursuant to Executive Order, approximately 4,000 employees have been transferred... Of those 4,000 employees, the case histories of approximately 3,000 have been subjected to a preliminary examination, as a result of which a recommendation against permanent employment has been made in 284 cases by the screening committee... Of the 79 actually separated from the service, 26 were aliens and therefore under "political disability" with respect to employment in the peacetime operations of the Department. I assume that factor alone could be considered the principal basis for their separation."

This document was repeatedly cited by McCarthy as the basis for his accusations; unfortunately, there was no list at that time.

McCarthy now became one of the dominant leaders in American politics, with strong support among both Republicans and Catholic Democrats, as he alleged that Truman’s top people had betrayed America. He singled out Secretary of State [[Dean Acheson]] and Secretary of Defense [[George Marshall]]. Liberals were aghast; Truman had picked General Marshall to head the State and Defense departments precisely because he thought the elderly statesman would always be above criticism, no matter that China turned from a staunch ally to a bitter enemy on his watch. McCarthy’s blistering attacks on Marshall as “part of a conspiracy so immense, an infamy so black, as to dwarf any in the history of man” fueled the belief he was a wild-man, a pathological liar who overstepped the bounds of political discourse.

With [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] crusading against “Korea, Communism and Corruption” in 1952, Republican victory was assured. As a senior member of the majority party McCarthy for the first time became a committee chairman, with control of staffing and agenda. He used his Government Operations Committee to open highly publicized hearings in 1953-54 alleging disloyalty in the State Department, the CIA, the US Information Agency, and finally the Army. His furious attacks on the Army led to the televised “Army-McCarthy” hearings in spring, 1954, which exposed his bullying tactics to a national audience. As McCarthy’s poll rating plunged, his enemies finally pulled together to introduce a censure resolution focused on McCarthy’s contempt for the federal government, and especially for his fellow senators.

==Backlash==

McCarthy’s charges that over-educated liberals tolerated Communism at home and abroad had stung the liberals. He alleged that they had corruptly sold out the national interest to protect their upper class privileges, and were so idealistic about world affairs that they radically underestimated the threat posed by Stalin, his spies, and the worldwide Communist movement. Instead of refuting the allegations, Liberals tried one of two approaches. Some became intensely anti-Communist and claimed they were more effective than McCarthy and the Republicans in eliminating Communism in the unions and Democratic party, and in containing the Stalinist menace in Europe. The other approach was to counterattack, to charge that “McCarthyism” never found a single spy but hurt innocent people in hunting for nonexistent witches; thus it represented an evil betrayal of American values. In an appeal to upscale conservatives and liberal intellectuals, critics ignored the Communist infiltration of labor unions and liberal causes and focused on stereotyping anticommunists as ill-mannered ignorant troglodytes, oblivious to American traditions of free speech and free association. McCarthy’s exaggerations and false charges encouraged opponents to stress the second approach, but it escalated the controversy to a pitch of hatreds and fears unprecedented since the days of reconstruction.

==Loss of influence==
McCarthy’s superb sense of timing and his media instincts kept his partisan attacks on the front page every day; his willingness to do battle in the hustings with Democratic opponents across the country strengthened his base in the Republican party. His religion and ethnicity, refreshed with highly visible friendships with leading Irish Catholics, especially the Kennedy family, bolstered his standing among Democrats. According to Gallup, McCarthy’s popularity crested in January 1954, when he was endorsed by all voters 50-29 (with 21 having no opinion). His core support came from Republicans and Catholics who had not attended college.

McCarthy, however, failed to create any sort of grass roots organization. He had no organizational skills; he did not effectively use his talented staffers (such as [[Robert Kennedy]]). He was a loner who lurched from issue to issue, misled by the enormous media publicity into believing that a one-man crusade was possible in a an increasingly well-educated complex society honeycombed with local, regional and national organizations. By operating within the Republican party apparatus he lost the opportunity to create an independent grass roots political crusade in the style of Teddy Roosevelt, Huey Long, or Ross Perot. He never launched his own magazine or radio show or formed alliances with publishers who agreed with him.

McCarthy’s strained relations with Senate colleagues created a trapdoor. It was sprung after many Republicans realized that he had shifted the attack away from the Democrats. What use was his slogan “20 Years of Treason” once Eisenhower was in office? McCarthy’s answer was “21 Years of Treason!” Eisenhower’s supporters could no longer tolerate such a loose cannon, and as McCarthy unwisely shifted his attacks to Eisenhower’s beloved Army, his cause was doomed. While many Americans distrusted Ivy League, striped pants diplomats, soldiers were held in high regard; McCarthy’s charges of subversion were flimsy (one Communist dentist had been automatically promoted); he sabotaged his own reputation by finagling favors for an aide who had been drafted. The televised hearings proved fatal to an ill-prepared bully. After the Democrats regained control of Congress in the 1954 the censure motion carried, 67-22. McCarthy’s appeal, so widespread yet superficial, evaporated overnight and the Senator faded into the shadows.

==The term "McCarthyism"==
McCarthy is permanently associated with "McCarthyism" -- he did not coin the term but he did use it, to mean an aggressive attack on Communists who had infiltrated America, and on the liberals who protected them, without regard for due process. Although the left was unable to make heroes of the people who supported and sometimes were controlled by Stalin, they did make heroes of opponents of McCarthy, painting him as the internal menace to American values that was far worse than Communist subversion. Schrecker (1998) sees McCarthyism as anti-Communist political repression of the early Cold War, and explores its mechanisms through, and what she considers the exaggerated public fears on which it depended. During the 1940s-1950s, McCarthyism took on a variety of forms with an array of agendas, interested parties, and modes of operating. Despite its widespread and popular character, it started with the federal government and was driven by a network of dedicated anti-Communist crusaders such as J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism's repression both responded to and helped create widespread fears of a significant threat to national security.

[[Margaret Chase Smith]], Republican senator from Maine, gained a national reputation as one of the earliest critics McCarthyism with a Senate speech on June 1, 1950, called "the Declaration of Conscience." It was an attempt by Smith to address the excesses of McCarthyism, and was widely hailed as a call to reason by McCarthy's opponents. Smith gave a critique of the American political process and political institutions in the responses to dissent on the left and the right. Smith, like other McCarthy critics, sought to bring a level of civility to political protest and dissent. She and many others who objected to the tactics of McCarthy actually believed in the underlying tenets of his anti-Communist crusade. Their responses to his excesses reflected a desire to narrow the scope of acceptable political dissent.<ref> Gregory Peter Gallant, "Margaret Chase Smith, McCarthyism and the Drive for Political Purification." PhD dissertation U. of Maine 1992. 302 pp. DAI 1992 53(5): 1642-A. DA9227981</ref>

==Impact on government==
Rausch (2000) argues McCarthy's campaign had a lasting impact on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations, particularly among professional diplomatic institutions like the State Department and its Foreign Service personnel, and McCarthyism did not disappear with the senator's censure in 1954. The "ism" in a broad sense was a set of ideas not only about internal subversion but also about the outside world, including a simplistic, isolationist anti-communism and a deep suspicion about social reform movements abroad. It stood in open opposition to a more complex, even accommodating, view of communism. Instead of ending the hunt for subversives begun under Truman, Eisenhower made the search systematic, universal, and more broadly defined. McCarthyist Scott McLeod took over security and personnel functions of the State Department and became one of the most famous and despised men in the executive branch. McLeod brought McCarthyist methods and assumptions to bear in ridding the department of what he defined as security risks. Oral history sources provide key evidence for the destructive atmosphere within the department in these years, and they shed valuable light on McLeod's impact on the foreign affairs bureaucracy. In the short term, the Foreign Service declined in morale, prestige, and influence. By 1954, professionally trained diplomacy, with nuanced, internationalist views lost ground to more simplistic, strictly anticommunist views. During Eisenhower's second term, the Foreign Service and the more moderate approach experienced a resurgence but still faced opposition from hard- liners who survived the McCarthy years. The Latin American branch of the department embodied the changes in professional diplomacy towards one region of the world. Within the division were the institutionalized tensions of the Eisenhower administration, between career diplomats and political appointees, conservative and moderate anti-communists, and trained diplomats and other specialists. The U.S. embassy in Cuba showed this internal conflict in a microcosm, as the administration's response to Latin American revolution evolved after 1954. McCarthyism accompanied Eisenhower into office, and its effects continued into his last foreign policy crisis and beyond.

In California McCarthyism began before the Senator was famous. In 1946 in the Los Angeles schools two teachers from Canoga Park High School were called before the Tenney Senate Investigating Committee on charges of communistic teaching. The two teachers were exonerated of all charges, but a campaign to rid the LA district of dissident teachers was effectively launched. The target of the campaign was a group of teachers who belonged to the Los Angeles Federation of Teachers (LAFT), formerly known as Union Local 430 and chartered under the American Federation of Teachers, until 1948, when the AFT revoked the charter. By 1954, Los Angeles teachers were required to take five loyalty oaths, although not one teacher was ever charged with or convicted of subversion. In 1953, the Los Angeles City School Board announced that 304 teachers were to be investigated because of alleged Communist affiliations. The Dilworth Oath, made law in 1953, required teachers to answer questions posed to them by the Investigating Committees. Teachers who refused to answer the Committee questions by claiming their Fifth Amendment rights could then be fired by the Board for insubordination.<ref> Ellen Chase Verdries, "Teaching with the Enemy: An Archival and Narrative Analysis of McCarthyism in the Public Schools." PhD dissertation Claremont Grad. School 1996. 286 pp. DAI 1997 57(9): 3853-A. DA9703815</ref>

==Media and popular culture==
Historians have debated the degree to which McCarthyism permeated the American mood and popular culture. Anti-Communist liberals at the time said it played to isolationism (especially strong in McCarthy's Wisconsin) by diverting attention away from the real threat, Stalin's Soviet Union as an external power. The Left said that they had a First Amendment right to their beliefs and that McCarthyism had a chilling effect. Dussere (2003) shows that comic strip artist Walt Kelly in "Pogo" parodied McCarthyism and promoted leftist politics as old-fashioned American common sense, representing a time when concerns about art and politics with respect to popular culture were in the forefront.

Hoover's FBI targeted retired film comedian [[Charlie Chaplin]] because of his status as a cultural icon and as part of its broader investigation of Hollywood. Some of Chaplin's films were considered "Communist propaganda," but because Chaplin was a British citizen and was not a member of the Communist Party, he was not among those investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. Nevertheless, he was vulnerable to protests by the American Legion and other patriotic groups because of both his sexual and political unorthodoxy. Although countersubversives succeeded in driving Chaplin out of the U.S., they failed to build a consensus that Chaplin was a threat to the nation. Chaplin's story testifies to both the power of the countersubversive campaign at mid-century and to some of its limitations.<ref> Sbardellati and Shaw (2003)</ref>

Strout (1999) looks at ''The Christian Science Monitor'' during the McCarthy era (1950-1954); it was a highly influential newspaper at home and abroad. Strout asks: (1) Was the ''Monitor'' a consistent critic of McCarthy? (2) How did the coverage compare to other elite and popular press newspapers? (3) How did the pressures associated with McCarthyism effect individuals at the ''Monitor'' and its news product? An extensive review of editorials and news articles suggests that it was thorough and fair in reporting, yet outspoken and responsible in editorial criticism. [[Mary Baker Eddy]]'s original 1907 statement that, "The purpose of the Monitor is to injure no man, but to bless all mankind," was referred to repeatedly in interoffice correspondence during the McCarthy era. The ''Monitor'' did not attack McCarthy personally as other paper's did, rather, its criticism centered on the actions of the senator and the negative effects they were having at home and abroad. The ''Monitor''served as a voice of moderation, yet at the same time, remained a persistent critic of McCarthy's tactics. Individuals were affected by the pressures of McCarthyism. For instance, veteran Washington correspondent Richard L. Strout was suspended from covering McCarthy for eight to 12 months after being mentioned in McCarthy's book, ''McCarthyism: The Fight for America.''

==''I have in my hand...''==
[[Image:FBI-Chart-Web.png|right|450px|thumb|FBI Master Chart of distribution in 1945-46 of investigative reports to the White House, Attorney General, and employing agencies of Communist agents in the Federal government.]]
It was McCarthy's charges of Communist, security, and loyalty risk infiltration of the State Department that shot him into prominence in 1950. At a Lincoln Day speech, on February 9, 1950, before the Republican Women's Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, at the Colonnade Room of Wheeling's McClure Hotel, he stated:
{{Cquote|I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.'' <ref>Senator Joseph McCarthy, [http://faculty.tnstate.edu/tcorse/h2020/senator_joseph_mccarthy.htm Speech at Wheeling, West Virginia], 1950, Congressional Record of the Senate, 81st Congress 2nd Session, February 20, 1950 (Tennessee State University). Cf. ''Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951, reprinted from the Congressional Record'' (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1951); "Senator Joe McCarthy's Visit to Valley Area," ''Wheeling Intelligencer'', February 11, 1950; "57 Reds Help Shaping U.S. Policy: McCarthy," ''Denver Post'', February 11, 1950; ''Salt Lake Tribune'', February 11, 1950; ''Salt Lake Telegram'', February 11, 1950; [http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/mccarthy-telegram/images/telegram-page-1.gif McCarthy to President Truman] (telegram), February 11, 1950; "McCarthy Blasts State Department," ''Nevada State Journal'', February 12, 1950.</ref><ref>McCarthy, Joseph (February 9, 1950) "[http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/mccarthy_wheeling.pdf Speech at Wheeling], West Virginia, 9 February 1950," in Michael P. Johnson, ed., Reading the American Past, Vol. II (Boston: Bedford Books, 1998), pgs. 191-195.</ref><ref>Vernon, Wes (January 13, 2006). [http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A4297_0_4_0_C/|''AIM Report: Looney Clooney Smears Senator McCarthy'']. Accuracy In Media</ref><ref>Irvine, Reed and Kincaid, Cliff (September 13, 2000). [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2958_0_2_0_C/|''Joe McCarthy, a Victimizer or Victim'']. Accuracy In Media</ref><ref>Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent (1954, 1995 Printing). ''McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning''. Regnery Publishing Inc., pgs. 41-61. ISBN 0-89526-472-2.</ref>}}

McCarthy compiled a list of 57 security risks and publicly named John S. Service, Gustavo Duran, [[Mary Jane Keeney]], Harlow Shapley, and [[H. Julian Wadleigh]] <ref>Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949.</ref> as being on the list. <ref>Reeves, Thomas C. (1997). ''The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography''. Madison Books. pgs. 222-238. ISBN 1-56833-101-0.</ref> These names came from the "Lee List" of unresolved State Department security cases compiled by the earlier investigators for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. Robert E. Lee was the committee’s lead investigator and supervised preparation of the list. <ref>U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, State Department Employee Loyalty Investigations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1950). </ref>

In a six hour speech on the Senate floor on February 20, 1950 in which McCarthy was constantly interrupted by hostile senators; four of whom -- Scott Lucas (61 times), Brien McMahon (27 times), Garrett Withers (22 times), and Herbert Lehman (13 times) -- interrupted him a total of 123 times, McCarthy raised the issue of some eighty individuals who had worked in the [[State Department]], or wartime agencies such as the [[Office of War Information]] (OWI) and the [[Board of Economic Warfare]] (BEW).

McCarthy sought to avoid naming names publicly when possible, using numbered cases instead of names in public session. He preferred to name his suspects only in executive session, in order to protect those who might have been erroneously identified by the FBI, State Department Security, Army counterintelligence, etc. "[I]t would be improper to make the names public until the appropriate Senate committee can meet in executive session and get them," explained McCarthy. "If we should label one man a Communist when he is not a Communist I think it would be too bad."

But when McCarthy began reading his numbered cases to the Senate, the Majority Leader, Senator Scott Lucas (D-IL), interrupted, "I want him to name those Communists." In response to McCarthy's desire not to name names publicly in order to protect the innocent, Lucas bizarrely referred to the fact that statements in Congress are privileged against defamation suits, saying, "if those people are not Communists the senator will be protected."<ref>M. Stanton Evans, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=xCaDcYsr0sgC Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies]'' (Crown Forum 2007) ISBN 1400081068, p. 202.</ref> (This was hardly germane: McCarthy's expressed concern was not about protecting ''himself'', but protecting ''suspects who might be innocent''.) McCarthy responded:
{{Cquote|The Senator from Illinois demanded, loudly, that I furnish all the names. I told him at that time that so far as I was concerned, I thought that would be improper; that I did not have all the information about these individuals ... I have enough to convince me that either they are members of the Communist Party or they have given great aid to the Communists: I may be wrong. That is why I said that unless the Senate demanded that I do so, I would not submit this publicly, but I would submit it to any committee -- and would let the committee go over these in executive session. It is possible that some of these persons will get a clean bill of health...}}

Sen. William Benton (D-CT) introduced a bill to eject McCarthy from the Senate. His first charge was that at Wheeling, McCarthy had said that he had a list of 205 names, rather than 57 names. The Senate (then under Democrat control) sent staff investigators to Wheeling to try to substantiate Benton's charges. The investigation found no evidence to support Benton's charge. According to one investigator:
{{cquote|The newly unearthed evidence demolished Senator Benton’s charges in all their material respects and thoroughly proved Senator McCarthy’s account of the facts to be truthful.<ref>Statement by Daniel Buckley, December 13, 1951, McCarthy papers, cited in M. Stanton Evans, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=xCaDcYsr0sgC Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies]'' (Crown Forum 2007) ISBN 1400081068, pp. 438-439.</ref>}}
Senate Democrats quietly buried the 44-page staff memo summarizing these findings, but the charge that McCarthy had said “205” was likewise dropped. Thus the Congressional Record to this day records that McCarthy said "57," not "205." Nevertheless, many on the left continue to promote Benton's discredited claim as gospel.<ref>Washington Post (February 12, 1950).''Washington Post, February 12, 1950; McCarthy's speech in Wheeling & letter to President Truman are cited in the article titled "Security Risks" to the lower left of the photo''. Washington Post[http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/4/49/Washpost1950.jpg/250px-Washpost1950.jpg]</ref>
Benton made this allegation only about McCarthy's speech in Wheeling, WV and not in the other cities where he made the speech. The 205 number actually came in another part of his speech; on February 20, 1950, in a speech made on the floor of the Senate, McCarthy officially clarified the issue:

{{Cquote|I have before me a letter which was reproduced in the Congressional Record on August 1, 1946, at page A4892. It is a letter from James F. Byrnes, former Secretary of State. It deals with the screening of the first group, of about 3,000. There were a great number of subsequent screenings. This was the beginning.

The letter deals with the first group of 3,000 which was screened. The President--and I think wisely so--set up a board to screen the employees who were coming to the State Department from the various war agencies of the War Department. There were thousands of unusual characters in some of those war agencies. Former Secretary Byrnes in his letter, which is reproduced in the Congressional Record, says this:

''Pursuant to Executive order, approximately 4,000 employees have been transferred to the Department of state from various war agencies such as the OSS, FEA, OWI, OIAA, and so forth. Of these 4,000 employees, the case histories of approximately 3,000 have been subjected to a preliminary examination, as a result of which a recommendation against permanent employment has been made in 285 cases by the screening committee to which you refer in your letter.''

In other words, former Secretary Byrnes said that 285 of those men are unsafe risks. He goes on to say that of this number only 79 have been removed. Of the 57 I mentioned some are from this group of 205, and some are from subsequent groups which have been screened but not discharged.
I might say in that connection that the investigative agency of the State Department has done an excellent job. The files show that they went into great detail in labeling Communists as such. The only trouble is that after the investigative agency had properly labeled these men as Communists the State Department refused to discharge them. I shall give detailed cases.<ref>{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}</ref>}}

McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic Party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists.

McCarthy's support and popularity peaked in early 1954 when a January 1954 Gallup Poll showed that 50 percent of the respondents had a generally "favorable opinion" of him.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Kazin, Michael
| year = 1998
| title = ''The Populist Persuasion: An American History''
| publisher = Cornell University Press
| page = 342
| id = ISBN 0-801-48558-4}}</ref>
On March 9, 1954, CBS broadcasted [[Edward R. Murrow]]'s ''See It Now'' TV documentary attacking McCarthy.

===VENONA files===

In 1995, when the VENONA transcripts were declassified, further detailed information was revealed about Soviet espionage in the United States. FBI Director [[J. Edgar Hoover]] was among only a handful of people in the U.S. Government who was aware of the Venona project, and there is no indication whatsoever Hoover shared Venona information with McCarthy. In fact, Hoover may have actually fed McCarthy [[disinformation]], or dead end files, in an effort to put pressure on relatives, friends, or close associates of real Venona suspects by threatening to reveal embarrassing information about them in a public forum if they failed to cooperate and reveal what they might have known about someone's else’s activities and associations. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Vol. 150, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster150.pdf pgs. 50-64] pdf. Excerpts from memorandum by FBI agent Edward Morgan asserting that there was no possible legal case against the Bentley suspects and that investigation should be discontinued, with possible exception of trying to get one of the weaker suspects to break. </ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Vol. 93, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster093.pdf pgs. 166 - 170] pdf. Original Edward Morgan memo 1/14/47, "The only reasonable hope of salvaging a successful prosecution is (a) to endeavor to make an informant of one of the subjects and/or (b) interview the subjects in the hope that at least one will break...Failing to successfully develop one of the subjects as an informant, I doubt if any more can be accomplished of probative value through further investigation...This case will stand or fall dependent upon the extent to which the subjects may break and in breaking corroborate [Elizabeth Bentley]. I personally am of the opinion that the Bureau would be derelict in its responsibility in this instance if the various subjects were not thoroughly and exhaustively interviewed. The odds are not too good that such interviews would terminate successfully; however, it is quite possible that some lesser lights among the subjects would crack during the course of a careful and pointed interview....one of the subjects, probably the weakest sister, be contacted with a view to making him an informant. This is an outside chance but offers the only reasonable prospect of making a case with respect to contemporaneous and future events. Failing in this respect, that immediately the other subjects be exhaustively interviewed. Since an interview with one would virtually amount to putting all of them on notice, it would seem logical to conduct such interviews as nearly simultaneously as possible....That failing to break any of the subjects, serious consideration be given to exposing this lousy outfit and at least hounding them from Federal service. Several possibilities exist in this regard but this would seem to be a bridge to cross when we get to it."</ref> And there is no indication McCarthy might have known he was being used by Hoover in this way.

On February 7, 1950, three days before McCarthy's acclaimed Wheeling West Virginia speech, Hoover testified before House Appropriations Committee that [[Glossary_of_espionage_terms#Counterintelligence|counterespionage]] requires "an objective different from the handling of criminal cases. It is more important to ascertain his contacts, his objectives, his sources of information and his methods of communication" as "arrest and public disclosure are steps to be taken only as a matter of last resort." He concluded that "we can be secure only when we have a full knowledge of the operations of an espionage network, because then we are in a position to render their efforts ineffective." <ref>[http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/foxpaper.htm In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence], John F. Fox, Jr., FBI Historian, Presented at the 2005 Symposium on Cryptologic History, 10/27/2005. </ref>

McCarthy is said to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party." The famous "List", as it has come to be known, has always engendered much controversy. The figure of 205 appears to have come from an oral briefing McCarthy had with Hoover regarding espionage suspects the FBI was then investigating. The FBI had discovered on its own five Soviet agents operating in the United States during World War II; defector Elizabeth Bentley further added another 81 known identities of espionage agents; Venona materials had provided the balance, and by the time a full accounting of true name identities was compiled in an FBI memo in 1957, one more subject had been added to the number, now totaling 206. <ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/FBI_Synopsis_on_%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York,_1944-45%22 FBI Memo Referencing 206 Communists in Government]</ref>

Much confusion has always surrounded the subject. While the closely guarded FBI/Venona information of identified espionage agents uses the number of 206, McCarthy in his Wheeling speech only referred to Communist Party membership and other security risks, and not espionage activity. Being a security risk as a CPUSA member does not necessarily entail or imply that a person was or is actively involved in espionage activity. Venona materials indicated a very large number of espionage agents remained unidentified by the FBI. When McCarthy was questioned on the number, he referred to the Lee List of security risks, by which it appears Hoover was attempting to match unidentified code names to known security risks. Hoover kept the identities of persons known to be involved in espionage activity from Venona evidence secret. Hoover in the very early days of the FBI's joint investigation with the [[Army Signals Intelligence Service]] in May of 1946 did precisely the same deception with a confidant of [[President Truman]] using Venona decryptions. Hoover reported that a reliable source revealed “an enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington.” Of some fourteen names, [[KGB|Soviet agents]] [[Alger Hiss]] and [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]] were listed well down the list. The name at the top was “Undersecretary of State [[Dean Acheson]]” and included others beyond reproach, thus discrediting the Hiss and Silvermaster accusations, which actually were on target. Hence the Truman White House always suspected Hoover and the FBI of playing partisan political games with accusations of various administration members’ complicity in Soviet espionage. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster050.pdf Vol. 50, pgs. 13-16] pdf, May 29, 1946.</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, Chairmans Forward], 1997.</ref>

The Venona project specifically references at least 349 pseudonyms in the United States—including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents—who cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies, however not all were ever identified. In public hearings before the [[Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations]] (PSI) conducted by McCarthy, 83 persons plead the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. An additional 9 persons refused to testify on constitutional grounds in private hearings, and their names were not made public. <ref>Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). [http://www.jbs.org/node/632|''The Real McCarthy Record'']. The New American, Section III. Committee Chairman (1953-54).</ref> Of the 83 persons pleading the fifth amendment, several have been identified by [[NSA]] and [[FBI]] as agents of the Soviet Union in the [[Venona project]] involved in espionage. Several prominent examples are:

* [[Mary Jane Keeney]], a United Nations employee, and her husband [[Philip Keeney]], who worked in the [[Office of Strategic Services]];<ref>
Senator McCarthy stated, "Then there was a Mrs. Mary Jane Keeney from the Board of Economic Warfare in the State Department, who was named in a F.B.I. report and a House Committee report as a courier for the Communist Party while working for the Government. And where do you think Mrs. Keeney is -- she is now an editor in the U.N. Documents Bureau."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = February 20, 1950
| title = Page 1956
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Lauchlin Currie]], a special assistant to President Roosevelt;<ref>
On September 9, 1950, at the Columbia County Republican Club in Portage, Wisconsin, Senator McCarthy stated, "Just turn back a page of history to 1945. This Lauchlin Currie was administrative assistant to the President. This is the same Lauchlin Currie who has been named under oath by [[Elizabeth Bentley]] as the man who tipped off her Russian espionage agents that we were about to break the Japanese code...This is the same Lauchlin Currie whose picture I hold in my hand, with a picture of [[Harry Dexter White]], John Abt, and Alger Hiss -- all named under oath repeatedly as Communists...At that time Lauchlin Currie was Administrative Assistant to the President. The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved sending vast amounts of German captured arms to those fighting Communism in China. After the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Eisenhower had approved the shipment -- after vast quantities had left German ports destined for our allies in China -- Lauchlin Currie, Truman's Administrative Assistant, the man named by Bentley and Chambers, signed an order on White House stationery ordering that all this military equipment be destroyed."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}) 
On June 14, 1951, Senator McCarthy gave the Senate information about Currie and his connection to the other individuals involved in supporting the Chinese Communists. He stated, "The Stilwell-Davies group took over in China in 1942. Soon thereafter, Lauchlin, at the White House, and [[John Carter Vincent]], and subsequently [[Alger Hiss]] at the State Department were exercising their influence at the Washington end of the transmission belt conveying poisonous misinformation from ChungKing. The full outlines of Currie's betrayal have yet to be traced....In this connection it should be recalled that Currie issued an order on White House stationery depriving the Republic of China of 20,000 German rifles."
({{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = June 14, 1951
| title = Page 6574
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Virginius Frank Coe]] <ref>McCarthy Hearings, Testimony of V. Frank Coe, Executive Session, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol1.pdf Vol. 1]: 147-50, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvo43.pdf Vol. 4]: 3403, 3413, 3417-18, 3421, 3428-29
testimony of, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol2.pdf Vol. 2]: 1349-72.
</ref>, Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund;
* [[William Ludwig Ullman]] <ref>McCarthy Hearings, Testimony of William Ludwig Ullman, Executive Session, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol3.pdf Vol. 3]: 2146, 2147, 2152, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol4.pdf Vol. 4]: 3403, 3411-14, 3418, 3421, 3426-29, testimony of, Vol. 3: 2345-49.</ref>, delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;
* [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]] <ref>McCarthy Hearings, Testimony of Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Executive Session, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol2.pdf Vol. 2]: 1349, 1361, 1362, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol4.pdf Vol. 4]: 3403, 3412-14, 3425-29.</ref>, Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;
* [[Harold Glasser]], U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;
* Four staff members of the [[LaFollette Committee|LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee]], a Senate subcommittee on labor rights;
* [[Allan Rosenberg]], Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, [[Foreign Economic Administration]]; Counsel to the [[National Labor Relations Board]];
* [[Solomon Adler]], U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of [[Mao Zedong]];
* [[Robert T. Miller]], Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern Division United States Department of State; also identified in the ''Gorsky Memo'' from Soviet Archives; McCarthy's Case #16 and Lee list #12;<ref>Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949.</ref>
* [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]]; also identified in the ''Gorsky Memo'' from Soviet Archives;
*[[Laurence Duggan]], head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics; <ref>Joseph R. McCarthy Papers, Series 14, Senate Subject Files, Marquettte University Library Special Collections.</ref>
* [[Leonard Mins]], <ref>[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Volume3.pdf Army Signal Corps—Subversion and Espionage, October 22] (PDF). Executive Sessions Of The Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Of The Committee On Government Operations; Vol. 3. pgs. 2717-2726, U.S. Government Printing Office (1953).</ref> Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of the [[Office of Strategic Services]];
* [[Cedric Belfrage]] <ref>[http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06amay20030700/www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83870.html Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations], Vol. 2, Eighty-third Congress, 14 May 1953, pgs. 1135-1164.</ref>, [[British Security Coordination]]; founder the ''[[National Guardian]]''.
* [[Gerald Graze]], U.S. State Department; Lee List #29, confirmed in the ''Gorsky Memo'' from Soviet Archives, brother of Stanley Graze;
* [[Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov]], ''[[Daily Worker]]''; <ref>Joseph R. McCarthy Papers, Series 14, Senate Subject Files, Marquettte University Library Special Collections.</ref>
* [[David Karr]], Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew Pearson.

Venona transcripts confirm the Senate Civil Liberties Subcommittee, chaired by former Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr., whom McCarthy defeated for election in 1946, had at least four staff members working on behalf of the [[KGB]]. Chief Counsel of the Committee [[John Abt]]; [[Charles Kramer]], who served on three other Congressional Committees; Allen Rosenberg, who also served on the [[National Labor Relations Board]], [[Board of Economic Warfare]] (BEW), the [[Foreign Economic Administration]] (FEA) and later argued cases before the United States Supreme Court; and [[Charles Flato]], who served on the BEW and FEA, all were [[CPUSA]] members and associated with the [[Comintern]].

While the underlying premise of Communists in the government was true, many of McCarthy's targets were not complicit in espionage. Recent scholarship has established of 159 persons investigated between 1950 and 1952, there is substantial evidence nine had assisted Soviet espionage using evidence from Venona or other sources. Of the remainder, while not being directly complicit in espionage, many were considered security risks. <ref>[http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona], by John Earl Haynes, April 2007.</ref>

===Known security/loyalty risks===

In June 1947, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee addressed a secret memorandum to Secretary of State George Marshall, calling to his attention a condition that developed and was continuing in the State Department. The memo stated that
{{Cquote|it was evident there was a deliberate, calculated program being carried out not only to protect communist personnel in high places, but to reduce security and intelligence protection to a nullity. On file in the department is a copy of a preliminary report of the FBI on Soviet espionage activities in the United States which involved a large number of State Department employees, some in high official positions.}}
Robert E. Lee was the committee’s lead investigator and supervised preparation of the list. The Lee list, also using numbers rather than names, was published in the proceeding of the subcommittee. <ref>U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, State Department Employee Loyalty Investigations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1950).</ref>

The memorandum listed the names of nine State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." Ten persons were removed from the list by June 24th. But from 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. <ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm John Emil Peurifoy, Foreign Service Office & United States Ambassador], Arlington National Cemetery Website, retrieved 21 March 2007.</ref> In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.

Most but not all of Senator McCarthy’s numbered cases were drawn from the “Lee List” or “108 list” of unresolved Department of State security cases compiled by Lee for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. <ref>[http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona], by John Earl Haynes, April 2007.</ref> The Tydings subcommittee also obtained this list. In addition to some of the person involved in espionage identified in the [[Venona project]] listed above, there are other security and loyalty risks identified correctly by Senator McCarthy included in the following list:


* [[Robert Warren Barnett]] & [[Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #48 and #49 respectively and both are on Lee list as #59;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Numbers 48 and 49 respectively and both are Number 59 on the Lee list. McCarthy stated, "The letters of charges against the Barnetts--both Robert Warren Barnett and his wife, Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett-charge them with close association and constant contact with known Soviet espionage activity." See also FBI Silvermaster file, Vol. 116, Robert Barnett contacts with [[Donald Wheeler]] formerly of [[OSS]]; Robert Barnett also served in OSS.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})
See also
{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file, Hottel to the Director
| year = May 12, 1947
| title = [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster116.pdf Vol. 116, pg. 100] pdf
| publisher = U. S. Government,}}
Robert Barnett contacts with [[Donald Wheeler]] formerly of [[OSS]]; Robert Barnett also served in OSS).</ref>
* [[Esther Brunauer]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #47 and Lee list #55;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 47 and Number 55 on the Lee list. She belonged to a number of [[Communist front]] organizations, including chairman of a meeting of the American Friends of the Soviet Union where the main speaker was a well known Communist and writer for the ''Daily Worker''. "Brunauer was a signer of a call to the annual meeting of the [[American Youth Congress]] which was publicly known to be completely dominated by the Communist Party. She admitted that her husband had Communist connections and had been a member of the [[Young Communist League]]." Brunauer was suspended by the State Department in 1951 pending adjudication of security proceedings against her. On June 16, 1952, she was discharged by the State Department as a security risk. See ''McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning'' for greater detail on this case.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Stephen Brunauer]], U.S. Navy, chemist in the explosive research division;<ref>
McCarthy stated, "Brunauer, an admitted former member of the Young Communist League, was suspended from his job as head of the Navy's high explosives section where he was engaged in top secret work. He resigned before the Navy's Loyalty Board could complete questioning him and dispose of his case." Brunauer also had a reputation for associating with know Communists. McCarthy stated, "For example, his very good friend, [[Noel Field]], a known Communist and espionage agent, spent night after night with Stephen Brunauer, who had access to all the top secrets in the explosive section of our Navy. Field then left the country, and has since disappeared behind the iron curtain, taking with him all the information which his friend Brunauer had given him ... What forced the Navy to take action was that it appeared during the atom-spy investigations that Stephen Brunauer was involved."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = May 8, 1951
| title = Page 5058
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}</ref>
* [[Gertrude Cameron]], Information and Editorial Specialist in the U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #55 and Lee list #65;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 55 and Number 65 on the Lee list. Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], and [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Cameron as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Cameron, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Cameron remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Cameron, like, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>
An FBI Surveillance report on [[Edward Fitzgerald (Soviet spy)|Edward Fitzgerald]] from September 1947 notes that on May 20 1947 Fitzgerald's brother-in-law had lunch with [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]] and an appointment with [[Leslie Groves]]. Sometime later Frank Cameron, a regular contact of Fitzgerald tried to contact Gertrude Cameron in the State Department from the Fitzgerald’s home.
{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file,
| year = September 1947
| title = Volume 130, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster130.pdf pgs 17 -18] pdf
| publisher = Federal Bureau of Investigation}})</ref>
* [[Nelson Chipchin]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's list #23;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 23. Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], and [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Chipchin as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Chipchin, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Chipchin remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Chipchin, like Cameron, Fishburn, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Oliver Edmund Clubb]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
McCarthy presented Clubb's name and evidence against him to the [[Tyding's Committee]]. In 1952, by unanimous vote, the U.S. State Department Loyalty and Security Board found that Clubb's employment in the State Department constituted a security risk. The Deputy Under Secretary for Administration, Carlisle Humelsine agreed with this decision. Clubb ultimately resigned. On March 5, 1952, [[Dean Acheson|Secretary Acheson]] confirmed to the Media that Senator McCarthy was correct.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[John Paton Davies]], U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Committee;<ref>
McCarthy stated that, "Both [John Stewart] Service and Davies spent considerable time in China as State Department officials. In their recommendations to Washington both followed the Communist Party line. For example, on November 7, 1944, Davies submitted a memorandum to the State Department outing that the Communist Party in China was 'a modern dynamic popular government.' At the same time he referred to the anti-Communists as 'feudal.' 'The Communists are in China to stay. And China's destiny is not Chiang's but theirs,' said Davies. On December 12, 1944 he urged that we supply the Chinese Communists with arms -- a proposal which [[Dean Acheson]] two years later requested Congress to approve." In 1944, Ambassador to China, [[Patrick J. Hurley]], accused Davies of working behind his back to support the Communists. According to Hurley, "Davies had one day flown off to Yenan to tell [[Mao Zedong|Mao TseTung]], the Communist leader, that Hurley, our Ambassador (an anti-Communist), did not represent the American viewpoint." According to ''The China Story'' by [[Freda Utley]], Davies was a great fan of Communist operative [[Agnes Smedley]] who operated in China. Utley states, "Davies was also a great admirer of [[Agnes Smedley]], whom he called one of 'the pure in heart.' He used to invite us all to excellent dinners at the American consulate, at which he expressed both his admiration and affection for Agnes. Together with [[Edgar Snow]] and other journalists I knew in Hankow, he [Davies] became one of the most potent influences in the Department [of State] furthering the cause of the Chinese Communists." The [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] had found that Davies had "testified falsely before the subcommittee in denying that he recommended the Central Intelligence Agency employ, utilize and rely upon certain individuals having Communist associations and connections. This matter was...substantial in import." Despite the enormous evidence of Davies' support of the Communists, the State Department cleared him of being a security/loyalty risk. Eventually, in 1954, under political pressure from McCarthy and Senator [[Patrick McCarran]], Secretary of State [[John Foster Dulles]] asked Davies to resign. When he refused, on 5 November, 1954, Dulles terminated his employment, stating that Davies had "demonstrated a lack of judgment, discretion and reliability."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = June 14, 1951
| title = Page 6574
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Utley
| first = Freda
| year = 1951
| title = The China Story
| publisher = Chicago, H. Regnery Co.
| id = ASIN B00005VL2B}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Gustavo Duran]], U.S. State Department, assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, and Chief of the Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs of the United Nations;<ref>
The Duran Case is considered one of Senator McCarthy's "Nine Public Cases". McCarthy attempted to present evidence of Gustavo Duran's status as a security risk during the [[Tydings Committee]]. In violation of its mandate, the Tydings Committee refused to discuss McCarthy's evidence. Intelligence reports presented by McCarthy made the case quite clear that Duran was a bad security risk. All evidence submitted indicated that Duran was a Communist agent prior and during WWII, who took orders directly from the Soviet Union. It is unclear whether Duran was either hired with the knowledge that he had a Communist Party background or whether the State Department Loyalty Board simply failed to perform its obligation to properly screen out security risks. Either way, the State Department failed to perform its duties.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}},
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}},
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = February 20, 1950
| title = Page 1956
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}},
Isaac Walton League, Fond du Lac (July 30, 1950), Wisconsin)
{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file, Tamm to the Director,
| year = April 22, 1946
| title = [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster042.pdf Vol. 42, pg. 100] pdf
| publisher = U. S. Government}}

{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file
| year = October 10, 1946
| title = http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster076.pdf [Vol. 76, pgs. 9 and 126] pdf
| publisher = U. S. Government}}; (heavily redacted). Memorandum discuss inquiry from the U.S. Statement as to the participation of [[Alger Hiss]], Gustavo Duran and others in the [[Amerasia]] case. Fitch recommends replying to the State Dept. by referring to the detailed memoranda on Hiss and Duran which was previously submitted and a summary memo transmitted to General Holmes, to Fred Lyon's attention on May 29, 1945 in connection with [[Philip Jaffe]] and the Amerasia case (pg. 9). Statement that memos on Alger Hiss and Gustavo Duran will follow. Hiss memo is included, but that on Duran is not (pg. 126).</ref>

* [[Arpad Erdos]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
Just like [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], and [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Erdos as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Erdos, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Erdos remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Erdos, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Herbert Fierst]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's case #1 and Lee list #51;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 1 and Number 51 on the Lee list. Fierst was employed by the State Department beginning in September, 1946. In 1951, he was placed into the loyalty-security channels of the State Department. The Civil Service Loyalty Review Board expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of his case, and sent it back to the State Department Board for readjudication. Afterwards, a judgment was issued by the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board that, "a State Department officer's loyalty status had not been explored with sufficient thoroughness even after seven years." According to Robert L. Bannerman, Special Assistant and security officer in the State Department, in a memo issued by him on August 2, 1946, indicates that, "physical surveillance showed that this man Fierst was in constant contact with members of an espionage group and that he recommended Communists for State Department employment, and was engaged in a number of other Communist activities."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster064.pdf Vol. 64, pg. 240] pdf. Brief background on Herbert Fierst.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster077.pdf Vol. 77, pg. 202] pdf, September 1946.</ref>
* [[John Tipton Fishburn]], U.S. State Department; Lee list #106;<ref>Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Fishburn as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Fishburn, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Fishburn remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Fishburn, like Cameron, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Theodore Geiger]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
During the [[Tydings Committee]] hearings, Robert Morris, the Chief Counsel for the Minority, stated that Geiger was engaged in espionage activities as part of a Communist Party cell operating in the U.S. Morris offered to provide several witnesses who were also in Geiger's Communist Party cell however the Chairman of the [[Tydings Committee]], [[Millard Tydings]] declined to hear the testimony. On July 25, 1950, Senator McCarthy told the Senate about this case and that the witnesses to Geiger's Communist Party cell where willing to testify but that [[Millard Tydings]] refused the opportunity to expose a known Communist working for the State Department.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = July 25, 1950
| title = Page 1091
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Stella Gordon]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #40 and Lee list #45<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Gordon as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Gordon, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Gordon remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Gordon, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Stanley Graze]], U.S. State Department intelligence; McCarthy's Case #8 and Lee list #8, brother of Gerald Graze, confirmed in KGB Archives;<ref>
Graze was McCarthy's Case Number 8. Graze and his brother, [[Gerald Graze|Gerald]], were both employed by the State Department during [[World War II]] and in 1944, Gerald was identified as a secret member of the [[Communist Party of the United States]]. Even so, Stanley continued to work for the State Department until 1948. Oddly enough, on April 20, 1948, the Loyalty Security Board cleared him. Ten days later he resigned and became employed with the United Nations. Both Gerald and Stanley Graze are identified in the 1948 ''Gorsky Memo'' of Compromised American sources and networks having a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence. On October 14, 1952, while testifying before the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] he refused to answer questions regarding participation in the [[Communist Party of the United States]] and questions regarding espionage activity against the U.S. How Graze passed the State Department's Review Board remains unexplained.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Ruth Marcia Harrison]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #7 and Lee list #4;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Harrison as being a U.S. State Department employee who was clearly a security and loyalty risk. McCarthy mentioned that Harrison belonged to a long list of [[Communist front]] organizations and the Library of Congress branch of the Communist Party. Harrison was investigated by various branches of the Federal government numerous times before her termination in 1951, mainly because of her involvement in the 1930’s in organizations that had been identified as subversive. These organizations include the American Student Union, the [[Young Communist League]], and the Washington Bookshop Association. Subversive elements in the Federal government were able to clear Harrison in all prior investigations, but in 1951, her luck ran out. An informant revealed that Harrison had been active in the Library of Congress branch of the Communist Party when she was employed there as a cataloger, and this information ultimately led to the Loyalty and Security Board’s determination that Harrison posed a security risk as a Federal employee. Government documents related to her case that were declassified after amendments to the Freedom of Information Act in 1975, including investigation files from the [[FBI]], the State Department, the [[CIA]], and the Civil Service Commission indicated that the government's case against Harrison was absolutely correct and her termination justified.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Myron Victor Hunt]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #65 and Lee list #79;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Hunt as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Hunt, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Hunt remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Hunt, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Philip Jessup]], U.S. State Department, Assistant Director for the Naval School of Military Government and Administration at Columbia University in New York, Delegate to the U.N. in a number of different capacities, Ambassador-at-large, and Chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations Research Advisory Committee; McCarthy's Case #15;<ref>
McCarthy's first comments regarding Jessup were made during the [[Tydings Committee]] hearings where McCarthy stated that Jessup had an unusual affinity for Communist causes. McCarthy was never allowed by the Tydings Committee to outline his case regarding Jessup but the committee did allow Jessup to fly in from Pakistan and give his defense against charges that McCarthy had not yet even made. Needless to say, the Tydings Committee cleared Jessup as they did with everyone that appeared before them. However, in two speeches on the floor of the Senate, McCarthy gave his evidence regarding Jessup's "unusual affinity for Communist causes". They are as follows: 
(1) That Jessup had been affiliated with five [[Communist front]] groups;
(2) That Jessup had been a leading light in the [[Institute of Pacific Relations]] (IPR) at a time that organization was reflecting the Communist Party line;
(3) And that he had "pioneered the smear campaign against Nationalist China and Chiang Kai-shek" and propagated the "myth of the 'democratic Chinese Communist'" through the IPR magazine, ''Far Eastern Survey'', over which he had "absolute control";
(4) That Jessup had associated with known Communists in the IPR;
(5) That the IPR's American Council under Jessup's guidance had received more than $7,000 of Communist funds from [[Frederick Vanderbilt Field]];
(6) That Jessup had "expressed vigorous opposition" to attempts to investigate Communist penetration of the IPR;
(7) That Jessup had urged that United States atom bomb production be brought to a halt in 1946, and that essential atomic ingredients be "dumped into the ocean";
(8) That Jessup had appeared as a character witness for Alger Hiss, and that later, after Hiss's conviction, Jessup had found "no reason whatever to change his opinion about Hiss's veracity, loyalty and integrity."
While it may be questionable that Jessup pioneered the smear campaign against Chiang Kai-Shek, it's clear that he aided in it. There's no doubt that every single one of these allegations was essentially correct. Solid evidence shows that Jessup was associated with four Communist front organizations. They are as follows:
the [[American Russian Institute]], the [[National Emergency Conference]] (and its successor, the [[National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights]]), the [[American Law Students Association]], and the [[American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations]]. According to the House Committee on Un-American Activities each of these organizations was cited as Communist front groups at the time of Jessup's association with them. Although the Tydings Committee did not allow McCarthy to present his evidence against Jessup, the Tydings Committee did refer to some of McCarthy's evidence that were made on the floor of the Senate. Of course, as usual, the Tydings Committee either ignored the significance of the evidence or downplayed it. It was up to the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] a year later to do the real investigating and in discussing the IPR, it stated, "The IPR was a vehicle used by Communists to orientate American Far Eastern policy toward Communist objectives." The McCarran Committee Hearings clearly indicate that the IPR was more than just a Communist front organization in that there was an active Communist "cell" that put the services of the IPR at the disposal of "Communist imperialism". And that this was achieved by "manipulating" the IPR's policy-making officials. 
The McCarran Committee reported that ten of the thirty-three individuals whom Jessup recommended as delegates to the IPR Hot Springs Convention in January of 1945 have been named as members of the Communist Party. Jessup was well aware that Frederick Vanderbilt Field was a member of the Communist Party, and especially so when Field resigned from the IPR to devote full time to the [[Communist front]] organization, [[American Peace Mobilization]]. 
Jessup also presided over the State Department Policy Conference of October 1949 that was not only stocked with Jessup's pro-Communist associates but also, in the words of the McCarran Committee, which stated, "...the prevailing [majority] view at the conference advocated (a) the recognition of Communist China; (b) normal trade relations between the United States and Communist China; (c) encouragement of trade between Japan and Communist China; (d) economic assistance to Communist China; (e) recognition that Communist conquest in Asia was a natural and inevitable consequence of revolutionary ferment in Asia with its Communist nature being incidental." [[Harold Stassen]] and [[General Joseph Fortier]] have respectively testified that Jessup not only ignored advice to disregard the pro-Communist direction of the conference and that Jessup was in favor of recognizing Communist China. The above evidence clearly demonstrates that Jessup was at least a security risk and that the State Department Loyalty program failed to identify him as such.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Tydings Committee Hearings
| year = 1950
| title = Pages 28, 41, 42, 100, 229, 247, 256, 257, 273, 497-498, etc.
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = March 30, 1950
| title = Pages 4402-4405
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = June 2, 1950
| title = Pages 8000-8003
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarran Report,
| year = July 1952
| title = Pages 100-103, 122-123, 147-148, 212, 225, 494-495, etc.
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Dorothy Kenyon]], New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;<ref>
Dorothy Kenyon is considered one of McCarthy's "Nine Public Cases" that was presented to the [[Tydings Committee]]. Kenyon was McCarthy's first case and it took two days in order for McCarthy to present the evidence due to the constant interruptions by members of the Tyding's Committee. This prompted Senator Lodge to state that, "I think to interrupt the witness [McCarthy] every time and break up his continuity and destroy the flow of his argument, the way we are doing, is not the right procedure....For some reason that has not been made clear to me, whether it is to rattle or whether it is to confuse, I don't know, we have an entirely different procedure today...I am objecting to the constant interruption of the witness so that he never gets a fair shake." 
Despite the constant harassment, McCarthy's evidence included showing that Kenyon belonged to at least 24 Communist front organizations labeled as such in part by the [[United States Attorney General]], the [[House Un-American Activities Committee]], and other governmental committees. The documents presented by McCarthy included, official organization letterheads that listed Kenyon as a sponsor or as a member, official programs of organization sponsored dinners, and newspaper reports of open letters that Kenyon had signed that connected her with the organizations. Certainly, these were all documents that were easily accessible to the State Department should they have cared to look into Kenyon's political background. 
When Kenyon was asked by the Tydings Committee whether she had ever been interviewed by the State Department as to her affiliation to any Communist front organizations, she responded that she had never been asked. According to the security evaluation procedure of the State Department, Kenyon should have been asked about these affiliations but failed to do so. McCarthy had easily demonstrated from this first case that the screening process of the State Department was certainly lax and quite possibly purposefully ignoring easily identifiable security risks. However, the Tydings Committee instead ignored this evidence and set the precedent for the hearings that anyone that came before the committee was going to be given a positive evaluation no matter how strongly the evidence indicated the witness was a security risk.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Tydings Committee Hearings
| year = 1950
| title = Page 68
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = March 30, 1950
| title = Pages 4380-81
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Leon Hirsch Keyserling]], President [[Harry Truman]]'s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;<ref>
Keyserling had an extensive background of service in the U.S. government. He had helped to shift the emphasis of U.S. economic policy toward a more [[Socialist]]ic structure. Evidence in the form of sworn testimony submitted to the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] indicated that he agreed with the principles of the Communist Party except for the idea that Communization of the U.S. could only be achieved through "bloody revolution" and he was against the idea of a separate political entity for Black people in the U.S. South. Other than those two details, Keyserling, a major official in the U.S. government, agreed with the Communization of the U.S. Less than a year after Senator McCarthy made this information public, Keyserling left U.S. government work for the private sector yet continued to act as a paid consultant to the U.S. Congress.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 21, 1952
| title = Page 4153
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Mary Dublin Keyserling]], U.S. Department of Commerce;<ref>
Keyserling is the wife of [[Leon Hirsch Keyserling]] and also had an extensive background working for the U.S. government. On April 21, 1952, McCarthy gave her specifics to the Senate. He stated that the evidence presented to the Commerce Department's Loyalty Board showed that Keyserling had been a member of the Communist Party and that she also belonged to a great many Communist front organizations.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 21, 1952
| title = Page 4153
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #24;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Kopelewich as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Kopelewich, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Kopelewich remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Kopelewich, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Owen Lattimore]], Board member of the communist-dominated [[Institute of Pacific Relations]] (I.P.R) and editor the I.P.R.’s journal ''Pacific Affairs'';<ref>
Identified by McCarthy as a Communist and under Party discipline. Former Communist Party member and head of the Buben group of spies, [[Louis Budenz]] corroborated McCarthy's claims and detailed how Lattimore had been of service to the Communist Party in the ''Amerasia'' case. Lattimore was also identified by former Soviet Army General [[Alexander Barmine]] as a member of Russian Military Intelligence ([[GRU]]). In a unanimous report, the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] classified Lattimore as a "conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy". Lattimore wrote a letter of introduction for [[Haakon Chevalier]] to [[KGB]] operative, [[Lauchlin Currie]]. Chevalier was attempting to obtain a Government job during this period of time. Chevalier is a known Soviet Secret Intelligence Service ([[NKVD]]) contact and was associated with numerous members of the Communist Party on the West Coast. Currie also recommended Lattimore to President Roosevelt to serve as a special advisor to [[Chiang Kai-shek]]. Indicted for committing perjury. In December 1952, Currie gave evidence in New York to a grand jury investigating Lattimore's role in the publication by [[Amerasia]] magazine of secret State Department documents. All evidence indicates that Lattimore was a security and a loyalty risk and served to guide U.S. foreign policy to the detriment of U.S national interests.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Paul A. Lifantieff-Lee]], U.S. Naval Department; McCarthy's Case #56 and Lee list #66;<ref>
Born in the Soviet Union. On August 9, 1951, McCarthy presented to the Senate information about Lifantieff-Lee. He stated that, "His file in the Navy Department, which was transmitted to the State Department, shows that he took secret State Department documents, which were found in his room and picked up by naval intelligence. That is shown by the naval intelligence report."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Val R. Lorwin]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #54 and Lee list #64;<ref>
In December, 1945, Lorwin became employed with the State Department. He quickly became Chief of the State Department's European Division of International Labor, Social, and Health Affairs. After that, he became a labor economist for the State Department. On February 5, 1952, approximately one year after the [[Tyding's Committee]] cleared Lorwin, the State Department suspended him. On March 28, 1952, he was restored to full duty, and in June 1952, was formally cleared of all charges regarding security or loyalty issues. Shortly thereafter, Lorwin resigned, and went to work for the University of Chicago as an assistant professor of social sciences and industrial relations. According to Buckley, "on December 4, 1953, a Federal Grand Jury handed down an indictment of Lorwin, charging that he had lied under oath in claiming (1) that he had never been a member of the Communist Party, (2) that he had never carried a Communist Party card, and (3) that he had never held a Communist Party meeting in his home.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Daniel F. Margolies]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #41 and Lee list #46;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy gave the Senate information on an employee of the State Department named Daniel F. Margolies. McCarthy described Margolies as, "one of the top security men in the State Department" and was hired by the State Department despite the fact that he was disapproved on the grounds that he was a "bad loyalty and security risk." The State Department never explained the rationale in hiring someone who was clearly a security and loyalty risk.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref> <ref>FBI Silvmaster file 5c pg. 11 pdf. [http://foia.fbi.gov/silversm/silversm5c.pdf]</ref>
* [[Peveril Meigs]], U.S. State Department; Department of the Army; McCarthy's Case #3 and Lee list #2;<ref>
Meigs became employed with the State Department in September, 1945, and was allowed to resign from the State department in 1948 even though there were concerns regarding his security/loyalty. McCarthy related to the Senate the fact that Meigs was under investigation by the State Department's security/loyalty board yet was allowed to resign without noting his file as having been under investigation. Subsequently, Meigs went to work for the Department of the Army and after McCarthy communicated to the Army that Meigs should be investigated, the Army then looked into Meigs' background and found him to be a clear loyalty/security risk. In January 12, 1952 and again on May 26, 1952, McCarthy stated to the Senate that, "On February 20, I believe, I laid before the Senate the case of Perveril Meigs. The State Department held a hearing. They knew that they could not conceivably clear Perveril Meigs, even with the type of board which they have. What did they do? They notified him that he would not be cleared, so he then resigned, went over to the Army and got a job in the Army, with no notification to the Army that this man was an extremely bad security risk because of close association with espionage agents. It was only after we called the Army's attention to the case that the Army Loyalty Board took the case up, and of course, they promptly ordered him discharged." Meigs' case is a perfect example of the State Department covering up either its' incompetence in hiring individuals that are security/loyalty risks and/or in being able to properly filter out such individuals once they are employees of the State Department. The tactic of informing a suspected security/loyalty risk and allowing him or her to resign was a strategy implemented in order for the State Department to avoid appearing incompetent or as though they did not make any effort to avoid hiring loyalty/security risks.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = January 15, 1952
| title = Page 192
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = May 26, 1952
| title = Page 5963
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Ella M. Montague]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #34 and Lee list #32;<ref>
She was born in the [[Soviet Union]] in 1896. On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy stated, "She [Montague] worked for the [[Amtorg Trading Corporation]]. The testimony before three different committees is that only top members of the Communist Party could work for Amtorg." McCarthy also stated that, "...5 or 6 of the officers of Amtorg were picked up about a year ago and charged with espionage. Under pressure from the State Department they were allowed to return to Russia." As usual, McCarthy was correct about both Montague being a security/loyalty risk and about Amtorg being a front organization to further the expansionistic goals of the Soviet Union. [[Amtorg Trading Corporation]] is an American company based in New York that was founded in 1924 by the Soviet Union to serve as its buying and selling organization in trade between the USSR and the USA. It handled the bulk of Soviet-American trade until 1935, and continues to exist today. Working as an Amtorg employee served as a convenient cover for Soviet spies, such the Soviet spy, [[Morris Cohen]].
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = The American Legion
| year = 1937
| title = ISMS: A Review of Alien Isms, Revolutionary Communism, and Their Active Sympathizers in the United States, Pages 85-87
| publisher = The American Legion, Indianapolis
| id = ASIN B000KIJS6Y}})</ref>
* [[Philleo Nash]], Presidential Advisor, [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and [[Harry S. Truman]] administrations;<ref>
On January 29, 1952, Senator McCarthy outlined the charges against Nash, who had been a Presidential advisor in the Franklin D. Roosevelt and Truman administrations. McCarthy stated that this matter was "developed by the F.B.I." and that Nash "had been in close contact with the Communist underground in Washington D.C."; that he had been a close friend and associate of a convicted Canadian Communist; that Nash had "contributed to the support of the Canadian ''Tribune'', the official organ of the Communist Party in Canada"; that during the early 1940's some of the Canadian spy ring were using his home in Toronto as a meeting point and that some of them were living there; and that in the early 1940's Nash "was attending Communist meetings and had officially joined the Communist Party." In an interview with Jerry N. Hess on May 15, 1969, Nash essentially confirmed the essence of these charges, yet Nash was never adversely affected by these issues. Nash had worked in the [[Office of War Information]] beginning in 1942.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = January 29, 1952
| title = Page 581
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Hess
| first = Jerry
| title = Oral History Interview with Philleo Nash
| publisher = Truman Presidential Museum and Library
| date = May 15, 1969
| url = http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/nash15.htm}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster058.pdf Vol. 58, pgs. 107 - 110] pdf.</ref><ref> [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster065.pdf Vol. 65, pgs. 155 - 156] pdf. August 1946. Notes contact between Nash and [[Louise Bransten]] in January 1944. Bransten was the mistress of San Francisco [[KGB]] [[Rezident]] [[Grigory Kheifets]] who made initial contact with [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]] in the home of Bransten on December 6, 1941.</ref>
* [[Olga V. Osnatch]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #81 and Lee list #78;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Osnatch as his Case #81. At the time of McCarthy's original investigation, Osnatch was not yet a citizen of the United States. At the time of this speech, it was not clear if she had gotten her citizenship papers or not. McCarthy stated that, "She worked for the Russian Embassy in Turkey for 3 years. Then with the Russian Welfare Society, and so forth. One of the significant things here, of course, is that the Russians do not hire people in their embassies unless they are Communists." So, what McCarthy was making clear in this speech was that only committed Communists are employed with Soviet agencies. Why an assumed Communist was allowed to work for the U.S. government was yet another mystery that the Truman administration would not explain.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Edward Posniak]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case Number 77;<ref>
Posniak was submitted to the Tyding's Committee by McCarthy as Case Number 77. An F.B.I. agent and an F.B.I. informant reported that Posniak was a member of the Communist Party. On November 15, 1950, the State Department contacted the Loyalty Review Board that Posniak "elected to resign rather than accept suspension pending investigation and adjudication of certain charges bearing loyalty."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Philip Raine]], U.S. State Department, Regional Specialist; McCarthy's Case #52 and Lee list #62;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, McCarthy stated, "He [Raine] is tied up, in the letter of the charges, very closely with Robert T. Miller, who has been identified under oath several times as a Russian espionage agent." McCarthy was making a close association to Miller who he himself had been identified by former Soviet operative, [[Elizabeth Bentley]] in her 1945 FBI statement. Again, it was incumbent upon the State Department to investigate these serious allegations yet did nothing about them.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster023.pdf "Underground Espionage Organization (NKVD) in Agencies of the United States Government"], Vol. 23, pgs. 55 - 272 pdf, February 21, 1946. Includes alphabetical index at end. In the later part of February 1946, the [[FBI]] transmitted to Secretary of State [[George Marshall]]l a 194 page Report based upon Soviet defector [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition three months earlier entitled, "Underground Espionage Organization (NKVD) in Agencies of the United States Government." Preliminary investigations and other information in Bureau files gave support and credence to the providential value of Bentley's serious allegations. Bentley had been assigned a covername by the FBI, "Gregory," and the highly secret investigation was referred to by investigators as "the Gregory Case." State Department internal investigators provided a list of questions to the FBI for the confidential informant to answer. The Statement requested information about Philip and Alice Raine. Bentley, who worked out of New York, responded the names were entirely unfamiliar (pg. Vol. 96, pg. 87). Philip and Alicia Raine subsequently were developed as leads by FBI investigators in the Washington field office while surveilling the many contacts of [[Mary Jane Keeney]]. </ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Hoover letter to Secretary of State George Marshall, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster096.pdf Vol. 96, pgs. 85 -90] pdf, March 10, 1946.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster077.pdf Vol. 77, pgs. 133, 135, 201] pdf, September 1946.</ref>
* [[Robert Ross]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #32 and Lee list #30;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Ross as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Ross, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Ross remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Ross, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Neumann, Schimmel, and Tuchser, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Sylvia Schimmel]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #50 and Lee list #60;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Schimmel as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Schimmel, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Schimmel remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Ross, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Neumann, and Tuchser, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster061.pdf Vol. 61, pgs. 74 -79] pdf; Hottel to the Director, "Just Lunning," July 18, 1947. Discussion between [[Mary Jane Keeney]] and Sylvia Schimmel about Just Lunning, who would become Schimmel’s supervisor at the State Department. Sylvia Schimmel complained to Just Lunning she was not being given meaningful work at the State Dept. due to Schimmel's work for the Political Action Committee. Just Lunning had links to William T. Stone, [[V. Frank Coe]], Philip Dunaway, David Wahl, [[Donald Wheeler]], [[Allan Rosenberg]], Bowen Smith, and [[Edward Fitzgerald]]. Mary Jane Keeney had innumerable contacts in the [[CPUSA]] underground espionage apparatus which included [[Greg Silvermaster]], [[Helen Silvermaster]], [[Sergey Kurnakov]], [[Joseph Bernstein]], [[Frederick Field]], [[Maurice Halperin]], [[Haakon Chevalier]], [[Richard Bransten]], [[Laurence Todd]], [[William Ullman]], and [[Robert Miller]]. Much of the Silvermaster file is devoted to surveillance reports on them. Mary Jane Keeney had served in the occupation of Berlin while at this time her husband, [[Philip Keeney]] was serving in Japan. Mary Jane Keeney was seeking to join him there. The FBI and State Department officials were moving to prevent this, and to have Philip recalled from his position with the occupation forces. Mary Jane Keeney had turned to Sylvia Schimmel for assistance with her passport problems.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster065.pdf Vol. 65, pg. 51] pdf.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster096.pdf Vol. 96, pg. 78] pdf.</ref>
* [[Frederick Schumann]], contracted by U.S. State Department as lecturer; Professor at Williams College; not on Lee list;<ref>
Schumann was a consultant for the State Department but not as an employee. His job was to lecture and train State Department employees who were subsequently to be placed in sensitive posts. In this capacity, out of 57 instructors, only three, Schumann, Edward Acheson (Dean's brother), and Communist [[Owen Lattimore]] were not government officials. According to the [[House Committee on Un-American Activities]], Schumann was a member of over 50 Communist front organizations. In 1932, Schuman supported the Communist Party ticket for President. Schumann wrote a pro-Soviet book titled, ''Soviet Politics at Home and Abroad'' that appeared just before the State Department enlisted him for his help in helping out orient the Foreign Service officers. While Schumann declined an invitation to the [[Tydings Committee]] in order to address charges against him, the Committee, as with other cases, showed no interest in determining why pro-Soviet lecturers were being utilized by the State Department and who was doing the hiring.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
({{cite book
| last = Herman, Arthur
| year = 1999
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = December 19, 1950
| title = Page 16747
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[John S. Service]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
Accused by McCarthy of being a security and loyalty risk. Between the years of 1942 and 1945, Service submitted memos to the U.S. State Department supporting the Chinese Communists and Mao and advocated that the U.S. destroy [[Chiang Kai-shek]]. According to Senator McCarthy, "Service was named by the U.S. Ambassador to China as one of the men who was serving the cause of Communism in China. He asked the President to remove Service. He said that this man's actions are not good for the United States, they are good for Russia. While in China, Service, in secret recommendations to the State Department, urged that the Communists were the only hope for China. On June 6, 1945, Service was arrested by the F.B.I. for, "having transmitted, without authority, classified documents to the editors of ''Amerasia'', a Communist magazine". Service had in effect turned over to a known Communist, not only State Department documents, but also secret military information. In December of 1951, Service was fired from the U.S. State Department, "as a result of an adverse finding as to his security qualifications by the Loyalty Review Board of the Civil Service Commission."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2 }}
{{cite book
| last = Klehr, Harvey and Radosh, Ronald
| year = 1996
| title = The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism
| publisher = The University of North Carolina Press
| id = ISBN 0-80782-245-0}})</ref>
* [[Harlow Shapley]], U.S. State Department appointee to UNESCO, Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions;<ref>
Shapley joined at least six [[Communist front]] groups during the period of 1939-1941. By the time McCarthy had presented Shapley's case to the [[Tydings Committee]], Shapley was a member of at least 21 Communist front organizations, eight of them listed on the Attorney General's list. McCarthy's documentation clearly showed that Shapley remained associated with at least ten of these groups even after they were exposed and officially cited as subversive by multiple legislative investigating committees. In March 1949, at the "Waldorf Peace Conference", Shapley was Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions, of which even President Truman denounced as a "tool for Russia and a sounding board for Communist propaganda". Even so, Secretary of State Dean Achesson appointed Shapley as a representative of the U.S. and the U.S. State Department at UNESCO. 
So, despite even Truman's concerns, the State Department appointed yet another clear security risk. As Buckley states in his book, "...a Rider to the Appropriations Act forbade the paying of funds to a person actively affiliated with any organization on the Attorney General's list. And Shapley, according to the evidence before the Tydings Committee, clearly was such a person." As usual, the Tydings Committee ignored the facts and only made mention of Shapley's limited association with the State Department. Once again, McCarthy proved his case but was brushed aside by the Tydings Committee.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
({{cite book
| last = Herman, Arthur
| year = 1999
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = February 20, 1950
| title = Page 1973
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[William T. Stone]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #46 and Lee list #54;<ref>
Accused by McCarthy as a security/loyalty risk, Stone is McCarthy's Case Number 46. As early as 1946, the Bannerman Security Screening Board of the State Department concluded that Stone should be "terminated", that Stone's "continued presence in the Department is embarrassing...that he be given an opportunity to resign" and failing to do so should result in his forced termination "under Civil Service Rule 3." The State Department failed to act on this recommendation and Stone continued working in the State Department. Stone was on the Communist controlled editorial board of ''Amerasia'' magazine, recommended fellow ''Amerasia'' members to jobs with the U.S. State Department, informed Venona identified Communist and espionage operative, [[Greg Silvermaster|Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]] of an adverse security report concerning Silvermaster, was constantly under investigation as a security/loyalty risk, and was eventually given the opportunity to resign, which he did in 1952.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Frances M. Tuchser]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #6 and Lee list #6;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], and [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Tuchser as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Tuchser, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Tuchser remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Tuchser, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[John Carter Vincent]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #2 and Lee list #52;<ref>
One of McCarthy's numbered cases given to the [[Tydings Committee]]. During his tenure as chief of the Division of Chinese Affairs, Vincent played an important role in hastening Mao's conquest of China. The [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] concluded that "over a period of years, John Carter Vincent was the principal fulcrum of [[Institute of Pacific Relations|IPR]] pressures and influence in the State Department." [[Louis F. Budenz]] testified in the summer of 1951 that Vincent was a member of the Communist Party. In December 1952, the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board found reasonable doubt regarding Vincent's loyalty. In 1953, [[John Foster Dulles|Secretary Dulles]] requested Vincent's resignation.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[David Zablodowsky]], U.S. State Department & Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. McCarthy's Case #103;<ref>
Zablodowsky was McCarthy's Case Number 103. Zablodowsky worked in the State Department and later as Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. He admitted to being a member of an espionage ring in 1936 after [[Whittaker Chambers]], on October 23, 1952, gave testimony before the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] regarding Zablodowsky's activities.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>


==Attacks on McCarthy==
One of the most prominent attacks on Senator McCarthy was an episode of the TV documentary series ''See It Now'', hosted by [[Edward R. Murrow]], which was broadcast on March 9, 1954.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref> By the time Murrow produced his "See It Now" assault on Senator McCarthy in 1954, the senator had been under almost constant vicious attack for four years. According to McCarthy biographer Arthur Herman, Murrow and his staff had spent two months carefully editing film clips to portray McCarthy in the worst possible light. There were no clips showing McCarthy in a professional manner. Despite Murrow's claims, this "was not a report at all but instead a full-scale assault, employing exactly the same techniques of 'partial truth and innuendo' that critics accused McCarthy of using." The episode consisted largely of clips of McCarthy in the most unflattering context, including "belching and picking his nose".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4 }}
</ref>

In these clips, McCarthy accuses the [[Democratic Party]] of "twenty years of treason" because of the Democratic Party's concessions to the [[Soviet Union]] at the [[Yalta conference]] and [[Potsdam conference]], describes the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] as "listed as 'a front for, and doing the work of,' the Communist Party," and berates General Zwicker for Zwicker's claim that he would protect any other general who promotes Communist's within the military. Murrow also portrays a Pentagon coding room employee, [[Annie Lee Moss]] as an innocent victim of McCarthy even though it was later established that the F.B.I. had warned the Army and the Civil Service Commission about her [[Communist Party]] connection.<ref>Herman, pages 333-337</ref>

However, even some McCarthy critics were outraged by this one-sided presentation. Consistent McCarthy critic, John Cogley of ''[[Commonweal]]'', "sharply attacked Murrow and his producers for their distorted summary and selected use of video clips."<ref>Herman, p. 253</ref> Cogley commented that a different selection of footage could have easily portrayed McCarthy in an extremely positive light and, then further warned against the misuse of television in this fashion. He and another McCarthy critic from the ''Saturday Review'' agreed that it "was not a proud moment for television journalism".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Lately
| first = Thomas
| title = When Even Angels Wept
| publisher = Morrow
| date = 1973
| pages = page 466
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

To counter the negative publicity, McCarthy appeared on ''See It Now'' on April 6, 1954, and presented his case in order to clarify the misconceptions that Murrow had televised. McCarthy countered that his committee, "has forced out of government, and out of important defense plants, Communists engaged in the Soviet conspiracy." McCarthy went on to say, "For example, 238 witnesses were examined [in] public session; 367 witnesses examined [in] executive session; 84 witnesses refused to testify as to Communist activities on the ground that, if they told the truth, they might go to jail; twenty-four witnesses with Communist backgrounds have been discharged from jobs [in] which they were handling secret, top-secret, confidential material, individuals who were exposed before our committee." McCarthy also exposed Murrow's left-wing background and previous associations with Communist organizations.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/murrowmccarthy2.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref>

The Murrow report, together with the televised Army-McCarthy hearings of the same year, and four years of consistent anti-McCarthy media reporting were the major causes of a nationwide popular opinion backlash against McCarthy. However, well-known broadcaster Eric Sevareid said the Murrow assault "came very late in the day. The youngsters read back and they think only one person in broadcasting and the press stood up to McCarthy and this has made a lot of people feel very upset, including me, because that program came awfully late."<ref>Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the media'']. Renew America.</ref>

Even Murrow discounted his role in the decline of Senator McCarthy's popularity. Murrow stated, "My God, I didn't do anything. (Times columnist) Scotty Reston and lot of guys have been writing like this, saying the same things, for months, for years. We're bringing up the rear."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Bayley
| first = Edwin R.
| title = Joe McCarthy and the Press
| publisher = University of Wisconsin Press
| date = 1981
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

Nevertheless, despite the deceptive nature of the ''See It Now'' program and the late date in which it appears, anti-McCarthy historians have credited and celebrated Murrow as playing a major role in damaging Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove security risks from the U.S. government.

==Senate opposition to McCarthy==
While over the previous few years, Senator McCarthy had withstood countless biased and unsubstantiated attacks by [[Liberals]], [[Communists]], etc., who sought to prevent him from damaging their causes any further; the organized and co-ordinated effort between the two groups to remove McCarthy from his Chairmanship and officially condemn him began in March of 1954.
===Senate opposition===
On March 9, 1954 a fellow conservative and anti-communist [[Republican]] Senator, [[Ralph E. Flanders]] of [[Vermont]], gave a speech criticizing what he felt was Senator McCarthy’s "misdirection of our efforts at fighting communism” and his role in “the loss of respect for us in the world at large.” Flanders felt the nation should pay more attention looking outwards at the “alarming world-wide advance of Communist power” that would leave the United States and Canada as “the last remnants of the free world.” <ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| date = March 9, 1954
| title = Activities of Senator McCarthy—The World Crisis
| publication-place = Washington, D.C.
| publisher = Proceedings and debates of the 83rd Congress, second session—Congressional Record
}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| year =1961
| title = Senator from Vermont
| publication-place = Boston
| publisher = Little, Brown
| pages = 255-257
}}
</ref> [[Eisenhower Administration]] cabinet officials told Flanders to “lay off,” while President Eisenhower sent Flanders a brief note of appreciation for his speech, but did not otherwise confer with him or explicitly support him.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| year =1961
| title = Senator from Vermont
| publication-place = Boston
| publisher = Little, Brown
| pages = 258
}}
</ref> In a June 1, 1954 speech, Flanders emphasized how the Soviet Union was winning military successes in Asia without risking its own resources or men, and said this nation was witnessing "another example of economy of effort...in the conquest of this country for communism." He added, "One of the characteristic elements of communist and fascist tyranny is at hand as citizens are set to spy upon each other."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Crozier
| first = Barney
| title = Vermont Senator's Speech Heralded McCarthy's End
| publisher = Times-Argus Newspaper
| publication-place = Randolph, Vermont
| pages =
| year =1979
| date =September 29, 1979
| url =
}}</ref> Flanders told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of [[Adolf Hitler]] as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority"; he accused McCarthy of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Woods
| first = Randall Bennett
| title = Fulbright: A Biography
| publisher = Cambridge University Press
| date = 1995
| pages = 187
| id = ISBN 0-521-48262-3}}</ref>

On June 11, 1954 Flanders introduced a resolution charging McCarthy “with unbecoming conduct" and calling for his removal from his committee chairmanship. Upon the advice of Senators John Sherman Cooper and J. William Fulbright and legal assistance from the [[National Committee for an Effective Congress]], a liberal organization, he modified his resolution to “bring it in line with previous actions of censure.”<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| year =1961
| title = Senator from Vermont
| publication-place = Boston
| publisher = Little, Brown
| pages = 260-261, 267
}}
</ref> After introducing his censure motion, Flanders had no active role in the ensuing Watkins Committee hearings. Flanders bore McCarthy no personal animosity and reported that McCarthy accepted his invitation to join him at lunch after the hearings had taken place.<ref>Flanders, pages = 267-268
</ref>

===Watkins Committee===
Ultimately, McCarthy was accused of 46 different counts of allegedly improper conduct and another special committee was set up, under the chairmanship of Senator [[Arthur Watkins]], to study and evaluate the charges. This was to be the fifth investigation of Senator McCarthy in five years. This committee opened hearings on August 31, 1954. After two months of hearings and deliberations, the Watkins Committee recommended that McCarthy be censured on only two of the original 46 counts. The committee exonerated McCarthy on all substantive charges.<ref>44 of the 46 charges were dropped.[http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/newsletter/nov05nl.html]</ref>

On November 8, 1954, a special session of the Senate convened to debate the two charges. The charges to be debated and voted on were: 1) That Senator McCarthy had "failed to cooperate" in 1952 with the Senate Subcommitee on Privileges and Elections that was looking into certain aspects of his private and political life in connection with a resolution for his expulsion from the Senate; and 2) That in conducting a senatorial inquiry, Senator McCarthy had "intemperately abused" General Ralph Zwicker.

The Zwicker count was dropped by the full Senate on the grounds that McCarthy's conduct was arguably "induced" by Zwicker's own behavior. Many senators felt that the Army had shown contempt for committee chairman McCarthy by disregarding his letter of February 1, 1954 and honorably discharging Irving Peress the next day. So, for this reason, the Senate concluded that McCarthy's conduct toward Zwicker on February 18th was justified.

Therefore, the Zwicker count was dropped at the last minute and was replaced with this substitute charge: 2) That Senator McCarthy, by characterizing the Watkins Committee as the "unwitting handmaiden" of the Communist Party and by describing the special Senate session as a "lynch party" and a "lynch bee," had "acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity."<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/60.htm Censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy] (1954) The United States Department of State.</ref>

On December 2, 1954, even though more than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him but had to do so because of the enormous pressure being put on them by the [[Eisenhower Administration]] and by leaders of both political parties, the Senate voted to "condemn" Senator Joseph McCarthy on both counts by a vote of 67 to 22. The Democrats voted unanimously in favor of condemnation and the Republicans split evenly.

===Resolution condemns McCarthy===
The resolution condemning Senator McCarthy has been criticized as a ridiculous attempt to silence the strongest voice in the Senate investigating security and loyalty risks in the U.S. government. When examined closely, the two counts used in condemning McCarthy were hopelessly flawed.

In analyzing the first count, "failure to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections", the fact is that the subcommittee never subpoenaed McCarthy, but only "invited" him to testify. One senator and two staff members resigned from the subcommittee because of its dishonesty towards McCarthy. In its final report dated January 2, 1953, the subcommittee, stated that the matters under consideration "have become moot by reason of the 1952 election." Up until this moment in U.S. history, no senator had ever been punished for something that had happened in a previous Congress or for declining an "invitation" to testify. Therefore, the first count was a complete fraud and nothing more than a trumped up charge in order to damage Senator McCarthy.

The second count was even more flawed than the first. McCarthy was condemned for opinions he had expressed outside the Senate when he criticized the Watkins Committee and the special Senate session. In an editorial by David Lawrence in the June 7, 1957 issue of ''U.S. News & World Report'', other senators had accused McCarthy of lying under oath, accepting influence money, engaging in election fraud, making libelous and false statements, practicing blackmail, doing the work of the communists for them, and engaging in a questionable "personal relationship" with Roy Cohn and David Schine. However, these other Senators were not censured for acting "contrary to senatorial ethics" or for impairing the "dignity" of the Senate. Only Senator McCarthy would be held responsible for his words. <ref>Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). [http://www.jbs.org/node/632|''The Real McCarthy Record'']. The New American.</ref>

==Final years==
[[Image:CapitolStepsSenatorMcCarthy.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The flag-draped coffin containing the body of Senator McCarthy is carried up the steps of the U.S. Capitol for funeral services in the Senate chamber after an earlier service at St. Matthew's Cathedral, May 6, 1957. Photograph courtesy of [http://www.apl.org/history/mccarthy/capitol_steps.html ''The Post-Crescent'']]]
Senator McCarthy's power and clout to continue the search for Communists in positions of power in America was severely curtailed. After the Republicans lost control of the Senate in 1954, McCarthy, now a member of the minority Party, had to depend on public speeches to continue his campaign of warning the American people to the danger of Communism. He did this in a number of important addresses during those two and a half years.

In January 1957, McCarthy and his wife, Jean, adopted a baby girl and named her, Tierney. Unfortunately, several months later, McCarthy died of acute [[hepatitis]], likely brought on by his lifelong struggle with alcoholism, in Bethesda Naval Hospital on May 2, 1957, at the age of 48.

McCarthy was given a state funeral attended by 70 senators. McCarthy was the first senator in 17 years to have funeral services in the Senate chamber. Thousands of people viewed the body in Washington D.C. and it is estimated more than 30,000 people from Wisconsin filed through St. Mary's Church in the senator's hometown of Appleton, Wisconsin, where the clergy performed a Solemn Pontifical Requiem before more than 100 priests and 2,000 others. Three senators, George Malone, William E. Jenner, and Herman Welker, had flown from Washington D.C. to Appleton on the plane carrying McCarthy's casket. [[Robert Kennedy]] attended the funeral in Wisconsin. McCarthy was buried in St. Mary's Parish Cemetery in Appleton and was survived by his wife, Jean, and their adopted daughter, Tierney.

== Retrospective views on McCarthy==

* In her popular book, ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism'', [[Ann Coulter]] said of McCarthy:

::"A half century later, when the only people who call themselves Communists are harmless cranks, it is difficult to grasp the importance of McCarthy's crusade. But there's a reason 'Communist' now sounds about as threatening as 'monarchist' -- and it's not because of intrepid ''New York Times'' editorials denouncing McCarthy and praising Harvard educated Soviet spies. McCarthy made it a disgrace to be a Communist. Domestic Communism could never recover."<ref>Coulter, Ann (2004). ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism''. Three Rivers Press. pg. 33. ISBN 1-400-05032-4.</ref>

When Ann Coulter asked [[Fox News]]’ [[Bill O'Reilly]] to identify a McCarthy-tormented innocent, O'Reilly responded with [[Dalton Trumbo]], one of [[House Un-American Activities Committee]]'s (HUAC) “Hollywood Ten”, not realizing [[HUAC]] investigated CPUSA infiltration in Hollywood and called “the Hollywood Ten” of writers, directors and producers to testify in 1947. McCarthy did not start his crusade against Communism until 1950.

* In 1953-54, McCarthy had been investigating lax security in the top secret facility at [[Ft. Monmouth]], N.J. He was attacked by [[liberals]] and [[Communists]] on the grounds that there were no security problems at Ft. Monmouth. Years later, in addressing the reason why the U.S. Army's top-secret operations at Fort Monmouth were quietly moved to Arizona, Senator [[Barry Goldwater]], in his 1979 book ''With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater'', Goldwater stated:

::"Carl Hayden, who in January 1955 became chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate, told me privately Monmouth had been moved because he and other members of the majority Democratic Party were convinced security at Monmouth had been penetrated. They didn't want to admit that McCarthy was right in his accusations. Their only alternative was to move the installation from New Jersey to a new location in Arizona."<ref>Goldwater, Barry M. (1979). ''With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater''. Morrow. ISBN 0-688-03547-7.</ref>

Even though McCarthy's investigations proved that his suspicions were right, for many years afterwards and continue to this day, liberals have spread the falsehood that McCarthy had found nothing at Fort Monmouth.

* Before the 1989 release of [[Carl Bernstein]]'s book, ''Loyalties: A Son's Memoir'', Albert Bernstein, Carl's father, expressed dismay at the revelations that the book would make regarding Communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other sectors of American society. Albert Bernstein stated:

::"You're going to prove [Sen. Joseph] McCarthy was right, because all he was saying is that the system was loaded with Communists. And he was right. ... I'm worried about the kind of book you're going to write and about cleaning up McCarthy. The problem is that everybody said he was a liar; you're saying he was right. ... I agree that the Party was a force in the country."<ref>Brennan, Phil (April 23, 2003). [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/22/225916.shtml ''The Left’s Lies That Never Die'']. NewsMax.com. Retrieved on 2007-06-20.</ref>

Both Albert Bernstein and Sylvia Bernstein, Carl's mother, had both been Communists since the 1940's. Albert Bernstein was a Union activist, while Sylvia Bernstein was a secretary for the War Department in the 1930's and, during the [[Clinton Administration]], volunteered in the White House, answering letters that were addressed to [[Hillary Clinton]]. During the 1950's, Sylvia Bernstein invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid revealing her party ties to Congress but worked openly in assisting convicted spies [[Julius Rosenberg]] and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed in 1953 for espionage.

It should be pointed out how many people followed McCarthy on his crusade, and that many pro-Americans still do. The majority of the sources that discredited Senator McCarthy originated from a large assault by the liberal media that managed to sway the majority of Americans against him at that time.

== Quotes ==
* "if liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America's interests." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=0hlSo3QC27oC&pg=PA72&dq=if+liberals+were+merely+stupid,+the+laws+of+probability+would+dictate+that+at+least+some+of+their+decisions+would+serve+America's+interests.&hl=en&ei=pyVjTdetBYH68AbDnbWKDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA A If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans - Page 72, Ann Coulter, 2008]</ref>

==Bibliography==
* Buckley, William F. ''McCarthy and His Enemies'' (1954), a major statement by a young conservative
* Crosby, S.J., Donald F. ''God, Church and Flag: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and the Catholic Church, 1950-1957'' (1978). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104464047 online edition]
* Fried, Richard M. ''Nightmare in Red: The McCarthy Era in Perspective'' 1990 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=79027083 online edition][[File:Joe-McC.jpg|thumb|250px]]
* Griffith, Robert. ''The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate'' 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=81177256 online edition]
* Herman, Arthur ''Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator'' (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-McCarthy-Reexamining-Americas-Senator/dp/0684836254/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964395&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search], very favorable to McCarthy
* Latham, Earl ''Communist Controversy in Washington: From the New Deal to McCarthy.'' (1969).
* O'Brien, Michael. ''McCarthy and McCarthyism in Wisconsin.'' (1981)
* Oshinsky, David M. ''A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy'' (1983), standard biography [http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-So-Immense-World-McCarthy/dp/019515424X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964395&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Reeves, Thomas C. ''The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography'' (1982), standard biography by a leading conservative scholar
===McCarthyism===
* Klehr, Harvey, John Earl Hayes and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov. ''The Secret World of American Communism'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Secret-World-American-Communism-Annals/dp/0300068557/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964654&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Klehr, Harvey, and Ronald Radosh. ''The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism'' (1996), suggests that Soviet spying in the postwar United States was extensive and that in the case of the arrest of the editors of the ''Amerasia'' magazine, and others, in 1945, naive liberals in the Justice and State departments blocked efforts to bring the spy ring to justice. [http://www.amazon.com/Amerasia-Spy-Case-Prelude-McCarthyism/dp/0807822450/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964692&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Earl Raab. ''The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790-1970'' (1970) (Chap. 6 "The 1950's: McCarthyism") [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65264140&oplinknum=16 online edition]
* Morgan, Ted. ''Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America.'' 2003. 685 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Reds-McCarthyism-Twentieth-Century-Ted-Morgan/dp/B000I0RTS8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964728&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* O'Reilly, Kenneth. ''Hoover and the Un-Americans: The FBI, HUAC, and the Red Menace'' 1983
* Ottanelli, Fraser M. '' The Communist Party of the United States: From the Depression to World War II'' 1991 [http://www.amazon.com/Communist-Party-United-States-Depression/dp/0813516137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964802&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Rausch, Scott Alan. "McCarthyism and Eisenhower's State Department, 1953-1961." PhD dissertation U. of Washington 2000. 231 pp. DAI 2000 61(6A): 2438-A. DA9976046
* Schrecker, Ellen. "McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism." ''Social Research'' 2004 71(4): 1041-1086. Issn: 0037-783x Fulltext: in Ebsco; summarizes her books on the subject
* Schrecker, Ellen. ''Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Many-Are-Crimes-McCarthyism-America/dp/0316774707/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964838&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schrecker, Ellen. ''The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents.'' (2d ed. 2002). 308 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Mccarthyism-History-Documents-Bedford/dp/0312294255/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964838&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Tanenhaus, Sam. ''Whittaker Chambers: A Biography'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Whittaker-Chambers-Biography-Library-Paperbacks/dp/0375751459/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964901&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Theoharis, Athan. ''Chasing Spies: How the FBI Failed in Counterintelligence but Promoted the Politics of McCarthyism in the Cold War Years.'' (2002). 307 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Spies-Counter-Intelligence-Promoted-McCarthyism/dp/1566634202/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964932&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Weinstein, Allen, and Vassiliev, Alexander. ''The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America: The Stalin Era'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Haunted-Wood-Espionage-America-Paperbacks/dp/0375755365/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964983&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

===Media issues===
* Doherty, Thomas. ''Cold War, Cool Media: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Cool-Medium-McCarthyism/dp/0231129521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205965016&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dussere, Erik. "Subversion in the Swamp: Pogo and the Folk in the McCarthy Era." ''Journal of American Culture''2003 26(1): 134-141. Issn: 1542-7331 Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Murphy, Brenda. ''Congressional Theatre: Dramatizing McCarthyism on Stage, Film, and Television.'' (1999). 310 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Congressional-Theatre-Dramatizing-McCarthyism-Television/dp/0521891663/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205965050&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sbardellati, John and Shaw, Tony. "Booting a Tramp: Charlie Chaplin, the FBI, and the Construction of the Subversive Image in Red Scare America." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 2003 72(4): 495-530. Issn: 0030-8684 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684(200311)72%3A4%3C495%3ABATCCT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I in JSTOR]
* Strout, Lawrence N. ''Covering McCarthyism: How the Christian Science Monitor Handled Joseph R. McCarthy, 1950-1954.'' 1999. 171 pp. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/covering-mccarthyism-how-the-christian-science-monitor-handled-joseph-r-mccarthy-1950-1954-by-lawrence-n-strout.jsp online edition]

===Primary sources===
* Joe McCarthy. ''Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951'' U. S. Government Printing Office, 1953 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9034820 online edition]
* Joe McCarthy. ''McCarthyism: The Fight for America'' 1952 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97298720 online edition]
* Fried, ed. Albert. ''McCarthyism: The Great American Red Scare: a Documentary History'' 1997 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54810194 online edition]
* Schrecker, Ellen W. "Archival Sources for the Study of McCarthyism," ''The Journal of American History,'' Vol. 75, No. 1 (Jun., 1988), pp. 197-208 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723(198806)75%3A1%3C197%3AASFTSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T at JSTOR]

==See also==


*[[David Greenglass]]
*[[Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations]]
*[[Institute of Pacific Relations]]
*[[Amerasia]]
*[[William Henry Taylor]]
*[[Anatoli Gorsky]]
*[[Annie Lee Moss]]
*[[Morton Sobell]]
*[[Soviet spies in America (1921-1948)]]
*[[Larry McDonald]] Congressional anti-communist successor


==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==

#Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 Murrow, McCarthy, and the media]. Renew America.
#Bayley, Edwin R. (1981). ''Joe McCarthy and the Press''. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.
#Brennan, Phil (April 23, 2003). [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/22/225916.shtml ''The Left’s Lies That Never Die'']. NewsMax.com.
#Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent (1954, 1995 Printing). ''McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning''. Regnery Publishing Inc. ISBN 0-89526-472-2.
#Cohn, Roy (1968). ''McCarthy''. The New American Library, Inc. ASIN B000KIR8FC.
#[http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/Communist_54.html Communist Control Act of 1954] U.S. Statutes at Large, Public Law 637, Chp. 886, p. 775-780.
#Coulter, Ann (2004). ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism''. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 1-400-05032-4.
#Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). [http://www.jbs.org/node/632 ''The Real McCarthy Record'']. The New American.
#Evans, Medford (1970). ''The Assassination of Joe McCarthy''. Western Islands. ISBN 0-88279-217-2.
#[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/McCarthy_Transcripts.htm Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations, Transcripts] (2003). U.S. Government Printing Office.
#Fox, Jr., John F., FBI Historian, (Presented at the 2005 Symposium on Cryptologic History, Washington, D.C., 10/27/2005). [http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/foxpaper.htm ''In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence'']. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
#Goldwater, Barry M. (1979). ''With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater''. Morrow. ISBN 0-688-03547-7.
#Haynes, John Earl and Klehr, Harvey (2003). ''In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage''. Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-088-X.
#Herman, Arthur (1999). ''Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator''. Free Press. ISBN 0-684-83625-4.
#Kazin, Michael (1998). ''The Populist Persuasion: An American History''. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-801-48558-4.
#Lately, Thomas (1973). ''When Even Angels Wept''. Morrow. page 466. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.
#McCarthy, Joseph (1961). ''America's Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall''. American Opinion (Reprint Series). ASIN B0007EKWVQ.
#McCarthy, Joseph (1953). ''Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951''. U. S. Government Printing Office. ISBN 0-87968-308-2.
#McCarthy, Joseph (1952). ''McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe''. The Devin-Adair Company. ASIN B0007DRBZ2.
#[http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950], telegram.
#Morgan, T. (Nov./Dec. 2003). ''Judge Joe: How the youngest judge in Wisconsin's history became the country's most notorious senator''. Legal Affairs.
#[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22 Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45]
#Reeves, Thomas C. (1997). ''The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography''. Madison Books. ISBN 1-56833-101-0.
#Rusher, William A. (1968). ''Special Counsel''. Arlington House. ASIN B0006BUY2M.
#Utley, Freda (1951). ''The China Story''. Chicago, H. Regnery Co. ASIN B00005VL2B.
#Wicker, Tom (2006). ''Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy''. Harcourt, Inc. ISBN 0-15101-082-X
#Woods, Randall Bennett (1995). ''Fulbright: A Biography''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-48262-3.

==External Links==

*[http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/victory.html America's Retreat From Victory], by Senator Joe McCarthy.
*[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the media'']. Renew America.
*[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/McCarthy_Transcripts.htm Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations, Transcripts]. (2003). U.S. Government Printing Office.
*[http://foia.fbi.gov/venona/venona.pdf FBI Venona file]
*[http://education-research.org/CSR/Holdings/Silvermaster/summaries.htm Silvermaster File Summaries]
*[http://boomp3.com/m/91d184a59074 Joseph McCarthy: Address To The Chicago Irish Fellowship Club] (listen online)
*[http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/mccarthy.htm Joseph McCarthy FBI FOIA File], 4,296 pages.
*[http://www.marquette.edu/library/collections/archives/Mss/JRM/mss-JRM.html Joseph McCarthy Papers, Marquette University Library]
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=455 McCarthyism: Waging the Cold War in America], by M. Stanton Evans, ''Human Events'', 05/30/1997. Updated 05/08/2003.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''See It Now, Edward R. Murrow report on Senator McCarthy'']. (March 9, 1954). CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540406.html ''See It Now, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's Reply to Edward R. Murrow'']. (April 6, 1954}. CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.
*[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_3.pdf Oral Interview with Ruth Young Watt], Chief Clerk, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 1948-1979. United States Senate Historical Office. Retrieved from www.senate.gov 24 June 2007.

[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Communism]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:McCarthy, Joseph}}
[[Category:Espionage]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Kennedy Family]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Wisconsin]]
[[Category:1950s]]

Joseph McCarthy

2012-08-29T20:11:50Z

Richman: /* The term "McCarthyism" */ typo

{{Officeholder
|name=Joseph McCarthy
|image=Joseph McCarthy.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Jean Kerr McCarthy
|religion=Roman Catholicism
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Wisconsin
|terms=January 3, 1947 – May 2, 1957
|preceded=Robert M. La Follette, Jr.
|former=n
|succeeded=William Proxmire
}}
}}

'''Joe McCarthy''' (Joseph Raymond McCarthy, November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957) was a two-term [[Republican]] [[United States Senate|U.S. Senator]] from [[Wisconsin]]. He dominated the anti-[[communist]] movement in the U.S., 1950-54, until his career was ruined by censure by the Senate. '''"McCarthyism"''' is the aggressive exposure of Communists influences in America and the people who protect them.

Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public figure to object to [[Communist]] infiltration of the [[United States]] government. A 1954 Gallup poll found that Joe McCarthy was the fourth on its list of most admired men. <ref>http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/mccarth5.htm</ref>He is now considered an American hero by many, though liberals still seek to tarnish his name.

He was noted for claiming that there were large numbers of [[Communist Party|Communists]] and [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] spies and sympathizers, engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the United States, inside the federal government. He was proven correct by government documents and inquiry, including decrypted [[Venona]] files.

McCarthy lost support in 1953 when he started attacking the U.S. Army, and suggesting that Republican President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] was protecting subversives. Eisenhower signaled Republicans to stop his attacks on the Army. McCarthy had strong support among Catholics, such as [[Joe Kennedy]]; In 1954 the Senate censured him for attacking fellow Senators, this caused his influence to collapse abruptly.

The term "[[McCarthyism]]" was coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's aggressive attempts to ferret out suspects, occasionally in the absence of evidence.

==Early life==
Joseph McCarthy was born to a poor Irish Catholic farm family in Appleton, Wisconsin. A hyperactive, extroverted youth, he dropped out of school after eighth grade to start his own poultry business. After the chickens all died, he enrolled in the local public high school. Thanks to enormous energy and a retentive mind, he finished his coursework in less than a year at age 20. After two undergraduate years at Marquette University, a leading Jesuit school in Milwaukee, McCarthy entered Marquette Law School, acquiring the rudiments of the profession that he soon used to knit together a statewide network among Irish and German Catholics. McCarthy was a practicing Catholic his entire life, but rarely referred to religion or ethnicity in his speeches. He actively supported President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] in the Young Democrats, but did not join Irish organizations.

Although defeated in his 1936 race for district attorney, McCarthy displayed remarkable campaign abilities and an astonishing memory for faces. He had the energy and determination to meet every voter in person, exuding charm and a concern for the voter as an individual. The same tactics paid off in 1939, when he was successful in a nonpartisan contest for a regional judgeship.

The youngest judge in state history, he worked long hours to clear up a large backlog. He administered justice promptly and with a combination of legal knowledge and good sense. He was still a Democrat, but that party was very weak statewide at the time.

===Military service===
[[Image:JosephMcCarthyMilitaryUniform.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Joseph McCarthy in the U.S. Marine Corps]]

In 1942 McCarthy, volunteered for the Marines (as a judge he was draft exempt), becoming an intelligence officer in an aviation unit heavily engaged in combat in the South Pacific. Although assigned a desk job McCarthy flew numerous combat missions as a tail gunner—he exaggerated the number to qualify for a Distinguished Flying Cross.

During his 30 months of military service, McCarthy's record was unanimously praised by his commanding officers and Admiral [[Chester Nimitz]], commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet. Admiral Nimitz issued the following citation regarding the service of Captain McCarthy:

{{Cquote|For meritorious and efficient performance of duty as an observer and rear gunner of a dive bomber attached to a Marine scout bombing squadron operating in the Solomon Islands area from September 1 to December 31, 1943. He participated in a large number of combat missions, and in addition to his regular duties, acted as aerial photographer. He obtained excellent photographs of enemy gun positions, despite intense anti-aircraft fire, thereby gaining valuable information which contributed materially to the success of subsequent strikes in the area. Although suffering from a severe leg injury, he refused to be hospitalized and continued to carry out his duties as Intelligence Officer in a highly efficient manner. His courageous devotion to duty was in keeping with the highest traditions of the naval service.<ref>Cohn, Roy (1968). ''McCarthy''. The New American Library, Inc., pgs. 273-274. ASIN B000KIR8FC</ref>}}

==Elected to Senate, 1946==
McCarthy had his name entered in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 1944, opposing a well-entrenched incumbent Republican, Alexander Wiley. The absentee war hero ran a strong second, making a name for himself statewide and making himself available for the 1946 Senate contest.

Why McCarthy suddenly changed parties was never explained, but prospects for ambitious Wisconsin politicians were dim inside the poorly organized Democratic party, for most New Dealers supported the state’s Progressive party. During the war, however, that party collapsed, torn apart between its New Deal domestic liberalism, and its intensely isolationist opposition to Roosevelt’s foreign policy. Increasingly out of touch with Wisconsin, its leader [[Robert LaFollette Jr.]] looked to his family’s past glories and made the blunder of trying for reelection to the Senate in 1946 as a Republican.

"Tail Gunner Joe," as his posters called him, endlessly crisscrossed Wisconsin while LaFollette remained in Washington, offered an alternative in the Republican primary to old guard Republicans who had opposed the Lafollettes for a half century. McCarthy brilliantly captured the frustrations citizens felt about massive strikes, unstable economy, price controls, severe shortages of housing and meat, and the growing threat of from the far left in the CIO. He nipped LaFollette in the primary. The slogan “Had Enough?—Vote Republican” gave the Republicans a landslide all across the North, electing a new junior senator from Wisconsin.

==Communist Issue==
In Washington, McCarthy was a mainstream conservative in domestic policy, and, like many veterans, was an internationalist in foreign affairs, supporting the [[Marshall Plan]] and [[NATO]]. His speeches rarely mentioned domestic Communism or flaming issues like the [[Alger Hiss]] espionage case, but that suddenly changed in early 1950 when his vivid [[anti-Communist]] rhetoric drew national attention. "The issue between the Republicans and Democrats is clearly drawn. It has been deliberately drawn by those who have been in charge of twenty years of treason.” Alleging there were many card-carrying Communists in [[Harry S. Truman]]’s State Department, McCarthy forced a Senate investigation led by Millard Tydings, Democrat of Maryland. McCarthy named numerous suspect diplomats but failed to convince the three Democrats on the panel; they concluded his allegations were “a fraud and a hoax,” while the two Republicans dissented. McCarthy retaliated by campaigning against Tydings, who was defeated for reelection in November, 1950. What the senator himself called McCarthyism was a factor in key races across the country; all his candidates won and his stock soared. A few weeks later American forces were crushed by the Chinese in Korea, and in spring 1951 Truman tried to shift the blame by firing General [[Douglas MacArthur]].

==Support from Catholics and Kennedys==
The great majority of Catholics were anti-Communist, but they were also loyal Democrats, so to enlarge his base McCarthy, a Republican, needed an alliance with anti-Communist Catholics.<ref> Martin E. Marty, ''Modern American Religion: 1941-1960'' (1996) 3:358</ref> The Catholic bishops and the Catholic press was "among McCarthy's most fervid supporters." <ref> Charles R. Morris, ''American Catholic'' (1997) p. 248-50, quote on p. 248; James Waldron Arnold, ''Objectivity in Selected Catholic Diocesan Newspapers'' (1954) p. 49.</ref> A major connection was with the powerful Kennedy family, which had very high visibility among all Catholics in the Northeast.<ref>Kevin Kenny, ''The American Irish'' (2000), 242-43.</ref> Well before he became famous McCarthy became closely associated with [[Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.]]. He was a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, and at one point dated Joe's daughter Patricia. After McCarthy became nationally prominent Kennedy was a vocal supporter, and helped build McCarthy's popularity among Catholics. Kennedy contributed cash and encouraged his friends to give money. Some historians have argued that in the Senate race of 1952, Joe Kennedy and McCarthy made a deal that McCarthy would not make campaign speeches for the Republican ticket in Massachusetts, and in return, Congressman [[John F. Kennedy]] would not give anti-McCarthy speeches. In 1953 McCarthy hired [[Robert Kennedy]] as a senior staff member. When the Senate voted to censure McCarthy in 1954, Senator Kennedy was in the hospital and never indicated then or later how he would vote; he told associates he could not vote against McCarthy because of the family ties.<ref> Michael O'Brien, ''John F. Kennedy: A Biography'' (2005); Crosby, ''God, Church, and Flag'' </ref>

==Political dominance==
In 1950, McCarthy discussed his upcoming 1952 campaign with three fellow Catholics (Father Edmund A. Walsh and Charles H. Kraus of Georgetown University and Washington attorney Wiliam A. Roberts). Kraus had recommended Father Walsh's recent books dealing with Communism to McCarthy, and was hoping to interest McCarthy in the problems of Communism in the world. McCarthy's reputation among the voters was not good at that time, due to various ethical and tax violation problems, and he needed an issue that would help improve his chances of re-election. He latched enthusiastically onto the idea of attacking Communists in the government.<ref>Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy, (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich), 1959.</ref>

Subsequently, McCarthy called Willard Edwards of the Chicago Tribune asking for assistance with a speech on Communism. Edwards sent some materials, including a copy of a letter written on July 26, 1946, by James F. Byrnes, Secretary of State under Truman. This letter was the central support for McCarthy's subsequent claims to have a list of Communists in the government.

"Pursuant to Executive Order, approximately 4,000 employees have been transferred... Of those 4,000 employees, the case histories of approximately 3,000 have been subjected to a preliminary examination, as a result of which a recommendation against permanent employment has been made in 284 cases by the screening committee... Of the 79 actually separated from the service, 26 were aliens and therefore under "political disability" with respect to employment in the peacetime operations of the Department. I assume that factor alone could be considered the principal basis for their separation."

This document was repeatedly cited by McCarthy as the basis for his accusations; unfortunately, there was no list at that time.

McCarthy now became one of the dominant leaders in American politics, with strong support among both Republicans and Catholic Democrats, as he alleged that Truman’s top people had betrayed America. He singled out Secretary of State [[Dean Acheson]] and Secretary of Defense [[George Marshall]]. Liberals were aghast; Truman had picked General Marshall to head the State and Defense departments precisely because he thought the elderly statesman would always be above criticism, no matter that China turned from a staunch ally to a bitter enemy on his watch. McCarthy’s blistering attacks on Marshall as “part of a conspiracy so immense, an infamy so black, as to dwarf any in the history of man” fueled the belief he was a wild-man, a pathological liar who overstepped the bounds of political discourse.

With [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] crusading against “Korea, Communism and Corruption” in 1952, Republican victory was assured. As a senior member of the majority party McCarthy for the first time became a committee chairman, with control of staffing and agenda. He used his Government Operations Committee to open highly publicized hearings in 1953-54 alleging disloyalty in the State Department, the CIA, the US Information Agency, and finally the Army. His furious attacks on the Army led to the televised “Army-McCarthy” hearings in spring, 1954, which exposed his bullying tactics to a national audience. As McCarthy’s poll rating plunged, his enemies finally pulled together to introduce a censure resolution focused on McCarthy’s contempt for the federal government, and especially for his fellow senators.

==Backlash==

McCarthy’s charges that over-educated liberals tolerated Communism at home and abroad had stung the liberals. He alleged that they had corruptly sold out the national interest to protect their upper class privileges, and were so idealistic about world affairs that they radically underestimated the threat posed by Stalin, his spies, and the worldwide Communist movement. Instead of refuting the allegations, Liberals tried one of two approaches. Some became intensely anti-Communist and claimed they were more effective than McCarthy and the Republicans in eliminating Communism in the unions and Democratic party, and in containing the Stalinist menace in Europe. The other approach was to counterattack, to charge that “McCarthyism” never found a single spy but hurt innocent people in hunting for nonexistent witches; thus it represented an evil betrayal of American values. In an appeal to upscale conservatives and liberal intellectuals, critics ignored the Communist infiltration of labor unions and liberal causes and focused on stereotyping anticommunists as ill-mannered ignorant troglodytes, oblivious to American traditions of free speech and free association. McCarthy’s exaggerations and false charges encouraged opponents to stress the second approach, but it escalated the controversy to a pitch of hatreds and fears unprecedented since the days of reconstruction.

==Loss of influence==
McCarthy’s superb sense of timing and his media instincts kept his partisan attacks on the front page every day; his willingness to do battle in the hustings with Democratic opponents across the country strengthened his base in the Republican party. His religion and ethnicity, refreshed with highly visible friendships with leading Irish Catholics, especially the Kennedy family, bolstered his standing among Democrats. According to Gallup, McCarthy’s popularity crested in January 1954, when he was endorsed by all voters 50-29 (with 21 having no opinion). His core support came from Republicans and Catholics who had not attended college.

McCarthy, however, failed to create any sort of grass roots organization. He had no organizational skills; he did not effectively use his talented staffers (such as [[Robert Kennedy]]). He was a loner who lurched from issue to issue, misled by the enormous media publicity into believing that a one-man crusade was possible in a an increasingly well-educated complex society honeycombed with local, regional and national organizations. By operating within the Republican party apparatus he lost the opportunity to create an independent grass roots political crusade in the style of Teddy Roosevelt, Huey Long, or Ross Perot. He never launched his own magazine or radio show or formed alliances with publishers who agreed with him.

McCarthy’s strained relations with Senate colleagues created a trapdoor. It was sprung after many Republicans realized that he had shifted the attack away from the Democrats. What use was his slogan “20 Years of Treason” once Eisenhower was in office? McCarthy’s answer was “21 Years of Treason!” Eisenhower’s supporters could no longer tolerate such a loose cannon, and as McCarthy unwisely shifted his attacks to Eisenhower’s beloved Army, his cause was doomed. While many Americans distrusted Ivy League, striped pants diplomats, soldiers were held in high regard; McCarthy’s charges of subversion were flimsy (one Communist dentist had been automatically promoted); he sabotaged his own reputation by finagling favors for an aide who had been drafted. The televised hearings proved fatal to an ill-prepared bully. After the Democrats regained control of Congress in the 1954 the censure motion carried, 67-22. McCarthy’s appeal, so widespread yet superficial, evaporated overnight and the Senator faded into the shadows.

==The term "McCarthyism"==
McCarthy is permanently associated with "McCarthyism" -- he did not coin the term but he did use it, to mean an aggressive attack on Communists who had infiltrated America, and on the liberals who protected them, without regard for due process. Although the left was unable to make heroes of the people who supported and sometimes were controlled by Stalin, they did make heroes of opponents of McCarthy, painting him as the internal menace to American values that was far worse than Communist subversion. Schrecker (1998) sees McCarthyism as anti-Communist political repression of the early Cold War, and explores its mechanisms through, and what she considers the exaggerated public fears on which it depended. During the 1940s-1950s, McCarthyism took on a variety of forms with an array of agendas, interested parties, and modes of operating. Despite its widespread and popular character, it started with the federal government and was driven by a network of dedicated anti-Communist crusaders such as J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism's repression both responded to and helped create widespread fears of a significant threat to national security.

[[Margaret Chase Smith]], Republican senator from Maine, gained a national reputation as one of the earliest critics McCarthyism with a Senate speech on June 1, 1950, called "the Declaration of Conscience." It was an attempt by Smith to address the excesses of McCarthyism, and was widely hailed as a call to reason by McCarthy;s opponents. Smith gave a critique of the American political process and political institutions in the responses to dissent on the left and the right. Smith, like other McCarthy critics, sought to bring a level of civility to political protest and dissent. She and many others who objected to the tactics of McCarthy actually believed in the underlying tenets of his anti-Communist crusade. Their responses to his excesses reflected a desire to narrow the scope of acceptable political dissent.<ref> Gregory Peter Gallant, "Margaret Chase Smith, McCarthyism and the Drive for Political Purification." PhD dissertation U. of Maine 1992. 302 pp. DAI 1992 53(5): 1642-A. DA9227981</ref>

==Impact on government==
Rausch (2000) argues McCarthy's campaign had a lasting impact on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations, particularly among professional diplomatic institutions like the State Department and its Foreign Service personnel, and McCarthyism did not disappear with the senator's censure in 1954. The "ism" in a broad sense was a set of ideas not only about internal subversion but also about the outside world, including a simplistic, isolationist anti-communism and a deep suspicion about social reform movements abroad. It stood in open opposition to a more complex, even accommodating, view of communism. Instead of ending the hunt for subversives begun under Truman, Eisenhower made the search systematic, universal, and more broadly defined. McCarthyist Scott McLeod took over security and personnel functions of the State Department and became one of the most famous and despised men in the executive branch. McLeod brought McCarthyist methods and assumptions to bear in ridding the department of what he defined as security risks. Oral history sources provide key evidence for the destructive atmosphere within the department in these years, and they shed valuable light on McLeod's impact on the foreign affairs bureaucracy. In the short term, the Foreign Service declined in morale, prestige, and influence. By 1954, professionally trained diplomacy, with nuanced, internationalist views lost ground to more simplistic, strictly anticommunist views. During Eisenhower's second term, the Foreign Service and the more moderate approach experienced a resurgence but still faced opposition from hard- liners who survived the McCarthy years. The Latin American branch of the department embodied the changes in professional diplomacy towards one region of the world. Within the division were the institutionalized tensions of the Eisenhower administration, between career diplomats and political appointees, conservative and moderate anti-communists, and trained diplomats and other specialists. The U.S. embassy in Cuba showed this internal conflict in a microcosm, as the administration's response to Latin American revolution evolved after 1954. McCarthyism accompanied Eisenhower into office, and its effects continued into his last foreign policy crisis and beyond.

In California McCarthyism began before the Senator was famous. In 1946 in the Los Angeles schools two teachers from Canoga Park High School were called before the Tenney Senate Investigating Committee on charges of communistic teaching. The two teachers were exonerated of all charges, but a campaign to rid the LA district of dissident teachers was effectively launched. The target of the campaign was a group of teachers who belonged to the Los Angeles Federation of Teachers (LAFT), formerly known as Union Local 430 and chartered under the American Federation of Teachers, until 1948, when the AFT revoked the charter. By 1954, Los Angeles teachers were required to take five loyalty oaths, although not one teacher was ever charged with or convicted of subversion. In 1953, the Los Angeles City School Board announced that 304 teachers were to be investigated because of alleged Communist affiliations. The Dilworth Oath, made law in 1953, required teachers to answer questions posed to them by the Investigating Committees. Teachers who refused to answer the Committee questions by claiming their Fifth Amendment rights could then be fired by the Board for insubordination.<ref> Ellen Chase Verdries, "Teaching with the Enemy: An Archival and Narrative Analysis of McCarthyism in the Public Schools." PhD dissertation Claremont Grad. School 1996. 286 pp. DAI 1997 57(9): 3853-A. DA9703815</ref>

==Media and popular culture==
Historians have debated the degree to which McCarthyism permeated the American mood and popular culture. Anti-Communist liberals at the time said it played to isolationism (especially strong in McCarthy's Wisconsin) by diverting attention away from the real threat, Stalin's Soviet Union as an external power. The Left said that they had a First Amendment right to their beliefs and that McCarthyism had a chilling effect. Dussere (2003) shows that comic strip artist Walt Kelly in "Pogo" parodied McCarthyism and promoted leftist politics as old-fashioned American common sense, representing a time when concerns about art and politics with respect to popular culture were in the forefront.

Hoover's FBI targeted retired film comedian [[Charlie Chaplin]] because of his status as a cultural icon and as part of its broader investigation of Hollywood. Some of Chaplin's films were considered "Communist propaganda," but because Chaplin was a British citizen and was not a member of the Communist Party, he was not among those investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. Nevertheless, he was vulnerable to protests by the American Legion and other patriotic groups because of both his sexual and political unorthodoxy. Although countersubversives succeeded in driving Chaplin out of the U.S., they failed to build a consensus that Chaplin was a threat to the nation. Chaplin's story testifies to both the power of the countersubversive campaign at mid-century and to some of its limitations.<ref> Sbardellati and Shaw (2003)</ref>

Strout (1999) looks at ''The Christian Science Monitor'' during the McCarthy era (1950-1954); it was a highly influential newspaper at home and abroad. Strout asks: (1) Was the ''Monitor'' a consistent critic of McCarthy? (2) How did the coverage compare to other elite and popular press newspapers? (3) How did the pressures associated with McCarthyism effect individuals at the ''Monitor'' and its news product? An extensive review of editorials and news articles suggests that it was thorough and fair in reporting, yet outspoken and responsible in editorial criticism. [[Mary Baker Eddy]]'s original 1907 statement that, "The purpose of the Monitor is to injure no man, but to bless all mankind," was referred to repeatedly in interoffice correspondence during the McCarthy era. The ''Monitor'' did not attack McCarthy personally as other paper's did, rather, its criticism centered on the actions of the senator and the negative effects they were having at home and abroad. The ''Monitor''served as a voice of moderation, yet at the same time, remained a persistent critic of McCarthy's tactics. Individuals were affected by the pressures of McCarthyism. For instance, veteran Washington correspondent Richard L. Strout was suspended from covering McCarthy for eight to 12 months after being mentioned in McCarthy's book, ''McCarthyism: The Fight for America.''

==''I have in my hand...''==
[[Image:FBI-Chart-Web.png|right|450px|thumb|FBI Master Chart of distribution in 1945-46 of investigative reports to the White House, Attorney General, and employing agencies of Communist agents in the Federal government.]]
It was McCarthy's charges of Communist, security, and loyalty risk infiltration of the State Department that shot him into prominence in 1950. At a Lincoln Day speech, on February 9, 1950, before the Republican Women's Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, at the Colonnade Room of Wheeling's McClure Hotel, he stated:
{{Cquote|I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.'' <ref>Senator Joseph McCarthy, [http://faculty.tnstate.edu/tcorse/h2020/senator_joseph_mccarthy.htm Speech at Wheeling, West Virginia], 1950, Congressional Record of the Senate, 81st Congress 2nd Session, February 20, 1950 (Tennessee State University). Cf. ''Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951, reprinted from the Congressional Record'' (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1951); "Senator Joe McCarthy's Visit to Valley Area," ''Wheeling Intelligencer'', February 11, 1950; "57 Reds Help Shaping U.S. Policy: McCarthy," ''Denver Post'', February 11, 1950; ''Salt Lake Tribune'', February 11, 1950; ''Salt Lake Telegram'', February 11, 1950; [http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/mccarthy-telegram/images/telegram-page-1.gif McCarthy to President Truman] (telegram), February 11, 1950; "McCarthy Blasts State Department," ''Nevada State Journal'', February 12, 1950.</ref><ref>McCarthy, Joseph (February 9, 1950) "[http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/mccarthy_wheeling.pdf Speech at Wheeling], West Virginia, 9 February 1950," in Michael P. Johnson, ed., Reading the American Past, Vol. II (Boston: Bedford Books, 1998), pgs. 191-195.</ref><ref>Vernon, Wes (January 13, 2006). [http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A4297_0_4_0_C/|''AIM Report: Looney Clooney Smears Senator McCarthy'']. Accuracy In Media</ref><ref>Irvine, Reed and Kincaid, Cliff (September 13, 2000). [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2958_0_2_0_C/|''Joe McCarthy, a Victimizer or Victim'']. Accuracy In Media</ref><ref>Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent (1954, 1995 Printing). ''McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning''. Regnery Publishing Inc., pgs. 41-61. ISBN 0-89526-472-2.</ref>}}

McCarthy compiled a list of 57 security risks and publicly named John S. Service, Gustavo Duran, [[Mary Jane Keeney]], Harlow Shapley, and [[H. Julian Wadleigh]] <ref>Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949.</ref> as being on the list. <ref>Reeves, Thomas C. (1997). ''The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography''. Madison Books. pgs. 222-238. ISBN 1-56833-101-0.</ref> These names came from the "Lee List" of unresolved State Department security cases compiled by the earlier investigators for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. Robert E. Lee was the committee’s lead investigator and supervised preparation of the list. <ref>U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, State Department Employee Loyalty Investigations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1950). </ref>

In a six hour speech on the Senate floor on February 20, 1950 in which McCarthy was constantly interrupted by hostile senators; four of whom -- Scott Lucas (61 times), Brien McMahon (27 times), Garrett Withers (22 times), and Herbert Lehman (13 times) -- interrupted him a total of 123 times, McCarthy raised the issue of some eighty individuals who had worked in the [[State Department]], or wartime agencies such as the [[Office of War Information]] (OWI) and the [[Board of Economic Warfare]] (BEW).

McCarthy sought to avoid naming names publicly when possible, using numbered cases instead of names in public session. He preferred to name his suspects only in executive session, in order to protect those who might have been erroneously identified by the FBI, State Department Security, Army counterintelligence, etc. "[I]t would be improper to make the names public until the appropriate Senate committee can meet in executive session and get them," explained McCarthy. "If we should label one man a Communist when he is not a Communist I think it would be too bad."

But when McCarthy began reading his numbered cases to the Senate, the Majority Leader, Senator Scott Lucas (D-IL), interrupted, "I want him to name those Communists." In response to McCarthy's desire not to name names publicly in order to protect the innocent, Lucas bizarrely referred to the fact that statements in Congress are privileged against defamation suits, saying, "if those people are not Communists the senator will be protected."<ref>M. Stanton Evans, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=xCaDcYsr0sgC Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies]'' (Crown Forum 2007) ISBN 1400081068, p. 202.</ref> (This was hardly germane: McCarthy's expressed concern was not about protecting ''himself'', but protecting ''suspects who might be innocent''.) McCarthy responded:
{{Cquote|The Senator from Illinois demanded, loudly, that I furnish all the names. I told him at that time that so far as I was concerned, I thought that would be improper; that I did not have all the information about these individuals ... I have enough to convince me that either they are members of the Communist Party or they have given great aid to the Communists: I may be wrong. That is why I said that unless the Senate demanded that I do so, I would not submit this publicly, but I would submit it to any committee -- and would let the committee go over these in executive session. It is possible that some of these persons will get a clean bill of health...}}

Sen. William Benton (D-CT) introduced a bill to eject McCarthy from the Senate. His first charge was that at Wheeling, McCarthy had said that he had a list of 205 names, rather than 57 names. The Senate (then under Democrat control) sent staff investigators to Wheeling to try to substantiate Benton's charges. The investigation found no evidence to support Benton's charge. According to one investigator:
{{cquote|The newly unearthed evidence demolished Senator Benton’s charges in all their material respects and thoroughly proved Senator McCarthy’s account of the facts to be truthful.<ref>Statement by Daniel Buckley, December 13, 1951, McCarthy papers, cited in M. Stanton Evans, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=xCaDcYsr0sgC Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies]'' (Crown Forum 2007) ISBN 1400081068, pp. 438-439.</ref>}}
Senate Democrats quietly buried the 44-page staff memo summarizing these findings, but the charge that McCarthy had said “205” was likewise dropped. Thus the Congressional Record to this day records that McCarthy said "57," not "205." Nevertheless, many on the left continue to promote Benton's discredited claim as gospel.<ref>Washington Post (February 12, 1950).''Washington Post, February 12, 1950; McCarthy's speech in Wheeling & letter to President Truman are cited in the article titled "Security Risks" to the lower left of the photo''. Washington Post[http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/4/49/Washpost1950.jpg/250px-Washpost1950.jpg]</ref>
Benton made this allegation only about McCarthy's speech in Wheeling, WV and not in the other cities where he made the speech. The 205 number actually came in another part of his speech; on February 20, 1950, in a speech made on the floor of the Senate, McCarthy officially clarified the issue:

{{Cquote|I have before me a letter which was reproduced in the Congressional Record on August 1, 1946, at page A4892. It is a letter from James F. Byrnes, former Secretary of State. It deals with the screening of the first group, of about 3,000. There were a great number of subsequent screenings. This was the beginning.

The letter deals with the first group of 3,000 which was screened. The President--and I think wisely so--set up a board to screen the employees who were coming to the State Department from the various war agencies of the War Department. There were thousands of unusual characters in some of those war agencies. Former Secretary Byrnes in his letter, which is reproduced in the Congressional Record, says this:

''Pursuant to Executive order, approximately 4,000 employees have been transferred to the Department of state from various war agencies such as the OSS, FEA, OWI, OIAA, and so forth. Of these 4,000 employees, the case histories of approximately 3,000 have been subjected to a preliminary examination, as a result of which a recommendation against permanent employment has been made in 285 cases by the screening committee to which you refer in your letter.''

In other words, former Secretary Byrnes said that 285 of those men are unsafe risks. He goes on to say that of this number only 79 have been removed. Of the 57 I mentioned some are from this group of 205, and some are from subsequent groups which have been screened but not discharged.
I might say in that connection that the investigative agency of the State Department has done an excellent job. The files show that they went into great detail in labeling Communists as such. The only trouble is that after the investigative agency had properly labeled these men as Communists the State Department refused to discharge them. I shall give detailed cases.<ref>{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}</ref>}}

McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic Party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists.

McCarthy's support and popularity peaked in early 1954 when a January 1954 Gallup Poll showed that 50 percent of the respondents had a generally "favorable opinion" of him.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Kazin, Michael
| year = 1998
| title = ''The Populist Persuasion: An American History''
| publisher = Cornell University Press
| page = 342
| id = ISBN 0-801-48558-4}}</ref>
On March 9, 1954, CBS broadcasted [[Edward R. Murrow]]'s ''See It Now'' TV documentary attacking McCarthy.

===VENONA files===

In 1995, when the VENONA transcripts were declassified, further detailed information was revealed about Soviet espionage in the United States. FBI Director [[J. Edgar Hoover]] was among only a handful of people in the U.S. Government who was aware of the Venona project, and there is no indication whatsoever Hoover shared Venona information with McCarthy. In fact, Hoover may have actually fed McCarthy [[disinformation]], or dead end files, in an effort to put pressure on relatives, friends, or close associates of real Venona suspects by threatening to reveal embarrassing information about them in a public forum if they failed to cooperate and reveal what they might have known about someone's else’s activities and associations. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Vol. 150, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster150.pdf pgs. 50-64] pdf. Excerpts from memorandum by FBI agent Edward Morgan asserting that there was no possible legal case against the Bentley suspects and that investigation should be discontinued, with possible exception of trying to get one of the weaker suspects to break. </ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Vol. 93, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster093.pdf pgs. 166 - 170] pdf. Original Edward Morgan memo 1/14/47, "The only reasonable hope of salvaging a successful prosecution is (a) to endeavor to make an informant of one of the subjects and/or (b) interview the subjects in the hope that at least one will break...Failing to successfully develop one of the subjects as an informant, I doubt if any more can be accomplished of probative value through further investigation...This case will stand or fall dependent upon the extent to which the subjects may break and in breaking corroborate [Elizabeth Bentley]. I personally am of the opinion that the Bureau would be derelict in its responsibility in this instance if the various subjects were not thoroughly and exhaustively interviewed. The odds are not too good that such interviews would terminate successfully; however, it is quite possible that some lesser lights among the subjects would crack during the course of a careful and pointed interview....one of the subjects, probably the weakest sister, be contacted with a view to making him an informant. This is an outside chance but offers the only reasonable prospect of making a case with respect to contemporaneous and future events. Failing in this respect, that immediately the other subjects be exhaustively interviewed. Since an interview with one would virtually amount to putting all of them on notice, it would seem logical to conduct such interviews as nearly simultaneously as possible....That failing to break any of the subjects, serious consideration be given to exposing this lousy outfit and at least hounding them from Federal service. Several possibilities exist in this regard but this would seem to be a bridge to cross when we get to it."</ref> And there is no indication McCarthy might have known he was being used by Hoover in this way.

On February 7, 1950, three days before McCarthy's acclaimed Wheeling West Virginia speech, Hoover testified before House Appropriations Committee that [[Glossary_of_espionage_terms#Counterintelligence|counterespionage]] requires "an objective different from the handling of criminal cases. It is more important to ascertain his contacts, his objectives, his sources of information and his methods of communication" as "arrest and public disclosure are steps to be taken only as a matter of last resort." He concluded that "we can be secure only when we have a full knowledge of the operations of an espionage network, because then we are in a position to render their efforts ineffective." <ref>[http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/foxpaper.htm In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence], John F. Fox, Jr., FBI Historian, Presented at the 2005 Symposium on Cryptologic History, 10/27/2005. </ref>

McCarthy is said to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party." The famous "List", as it has come to be known, has always engendered much controversy. The figure of 205 appears to have come from an oral briefing McCarthy had with Hoover regarding espionage suspects the FBI was then investigating. The FBI had discovered on its own five Soviet agents operating in the United States during World War II; defector Elizabeth Bentley further added another 81 known identities of espionage agents; Venona materials had provided the balance, and by the time a full accounting of true name identities was compiled in an FBI memo in 1957, one more subject had been added to the number, now totaling 206. <ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/FBI_Synopsis_on_%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York,_1944-45%22 FBI Memo Referencing 206 Communists in Government]</ref>

Much confusion has always surrounded the subject. While the closely guarded FBI/Venona information of identified espionage agents uses the number of 206, McCarthy in his Wheeling speech only referred to Communist Party membership and other security risks, and not espionage activity. Being a security risk as a CPUSA member does not necessarily entail or imply that a person was or is actively involved in espionage activity. Venona materials indicated a very large number of espionage agents remained unidentified by the FBI. When McCarthy was questioned on the number, he referred to the Lee List of security risks, by which it appears Hoover was attempting to match unidentified code names to known security risks. Hoover kept the identities of persons known to be involved in espionage activity from Venona evidence secret. Hoover in the very early days of the FBI's joint investigation with the [[Army Signals Intelligence Service]] in May of 1946 did precisely the same deception with a confidant of [[President Truman]] using Venona decryptions. Hoover reported that a reliable source revealed “an enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington.” Of some fourteen names, [[KGB|Soviet agents]] [[Alger Hiss]] and [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]] were listed well down the list. The name at the top was “Undersecretary of State [[Dean Acheson]]” and included others beyond reproach, thus discrediting the Hiss and Silvermaster accusations, which actually were on target. Hence the Truman White House always suspected Hoover and the FBI of playing partisan political games with accusations of various administration members’ complicity in Soviet espionage. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster050.pdf Vol. 50, pgs. 13-16] pdf, May 29, 1946.</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, Chairmans Forward], 1997.</ref>

The Venona project specifically references at least 349 pseudonyms in the United States—including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents—who cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies, however not all were ever identified. In public hearings before the [[Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations]] (PSI) conducted by McCarthy, 83 persons plead the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. An additional 9 persons refused to testify on constitutional grounds in private hearings, and their names were not made public. <ref>Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). [http://www.jbs.org/node/632|''The Real McCarthy Record'']. The New American, Section III. Committee Chairman (1953-54).</ref> Of the 83 persons pleading the fifth amendment, several have been identified by [[NSA]] and [[FBI]] as agents of the Soviet Union in the [[Venona project]] involved in espionage. Several prominent examples are:

* [[Mary Jane Keeney]], a United Nations employee, and her husband [[Philip Keeney]], who worked in the [[Office of Strategic Services]];<ref>
Senator McCarthy stated, "Then there was a Mrs. Mary Jane Keeney from the Board of Economic Warfare in the State Department, who was named in a F.B.I. report and a House Committee report as a courier for the Communist Party while working for the Government. And where do you think Mrs. Keeney is -- she is now an editor in the U.N. Documents Bureau."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = February 20, 1950
| title = Page 1956
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Lauchlin Currie]], a special assistant to President Roosevelt;<ref>
On September 9, 1950, at the Columbia County Republican Club in Portage, Wisconsin, Senator McCarthy stated, "Just turn back a page of history to 1945. This Lauchlin Currie was administrative assistant to the President. This is the same Lauchlin Currie who has been named under oath by [[Elizabeth Bentley]] as the man who tipped off her Russian espionage agents that we were about to break the Japanese code...This is the same Lauchlin Currie whose picture I hold in my hand, with a picture of [[Harry Dexter White]], John Abt, and Alger Hiss -- all named under oath repeatedly as Communists...At that time Lauchlin Currie was Administrative Assistant to the President. The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved sending vast amounts of German captured arms to those fighting Communism in China. After the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Eisenhower had approved the shipment -- after vast quantities had left German ports destined for our allies in China -- Lauchlin Currie, Truman's Administrative Assistant, the man named by Bentley and Chambers, signed an order on White House stationery ordering that all this military equipment be destroyed."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}) 
On June 14, 1951, Senator McCarthy gave the Senate information about Currie and his connection to the other individuals involved in supporting the Chinese Communists. He stated, "The Stilwell-Davies group took over in China in 1942. Soon thereafter, Lauchlin, at the White House, and [[John Carter Vincent]], and subsequently [[Alger Hiss]] at the State Department were exercising their influence at the Washington end of the transmission belt conveying poisonous misinformation from ChungKing. The full outlines of Currie's betrayal have yet to be traced....In this connection it should be recalled that Currie issued an order on White House stationery depriving the Republic of China of 20,000 German rifles."
({{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = June 14, 1951
| title = Page 6574
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Virginius Frank Coe]] <ref>McCarthy Hearings, Testimony of V. Frank Coe, Executive Session, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol1.pdf Vol. 1]: 147-50, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvo43.pdf Vol. 4]: 3403, 3413, 3417-18, 3421, 3428-29
testimony of, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol2.pdf Vol. 2]: 1349-72.
</ref>, Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund;
* [[William Ludwig Ullman]] <ref>McCarthy Hearings, Testimony of William Ludwig Ullman, Executive Session, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol3.pdf Vol. 3]: 2146, 2147, 2152, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol4.pdf Vol. 4]: 3403, 3411-14, 3418, 3421, 3426-29, testimony of, Vol. 3: 2345-49.</ref>, delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;
* [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]] <ref>McCarthy Hearings, Testimony of Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Executive Session, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol2.pdf Vol. 2]: 1349, 1361, 1362, [http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mccarthy/hearingsvol4.pdf Vol. 4]: 3403, 3412-14, 3425-29.</ref>, Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;
* [[Harold Glasser]], U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;
* Four staff members of the [[LaFollette Committee|LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee]], a Senate subcommittee on labor rights;
* [[Allan Rosenberg]], Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, [[Foreign Economic Administration]]; Counsel to the [[National Labor Relations Board]];
* [[Solomon Adler]], U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of [[Mao Zedong]];
* [[Robert T. Miller]], Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern Division United States Department of State; also identified in the ''Gorsky Memo'' from Soviet Archives; McCarthy's Case #16 and Lee list #12;<ref>Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949.</ref>
* [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]]; also identified in the ''Gorsky Memo'' from Soviet Archives;
*[[Laurence Duggan]], head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics; <ref>Joseph R. McCarthy Papers, Series 14, Senate Subject Files, Marquettte University Library Special Collections.</ref>
* [[Leonard Mins]], <ref>[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Volume3.pdf Army Signal Corps—Subversion and Espionage, October 22] (PDF). Executive Sessions Of The Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Of The Committee On Government Operations; Vol. 3. pgs. 2717-2726, U.S. Government Printing Office (1953).</ref> Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of the [[Office of Strategic Services]];
* [[Cedric Belfrage]] <ref>[http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06amay20030700/www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83870.html Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations], Vol. 2, Eighty-third Congress, 14 May 1953, pgs. 1135-1164.</ref>, [[British Security Coordination]]; founder the ''[[National Guardian]]''.
* [[Gerald Graze]], U.S. State Department; Lee List #29, confirmed in the ''Gorsky Memo'' from Soviet Archives, brother of Stanley Graze;
* [[Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov]], ''[[Daily Worker]]''; <ref>Joseph R. McCarthy Papers, Series 14, Senate Subject Files, Marquettte University Library Special Collections.</ref>
* [[David Karr]], Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew Pearson.

Venona transcripts confirm the Senate Civil Liberties Subcommittee, chaired by former Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr., whom McCarthy defeated for election in 1946, had at least four staff members working on behalf of the [[KGB]]. Chief Counsel of the Committee [[John Abt]]; [[Charles Kramer]], who served on three other Congressional Committees; Allen Rosenberg, who also served on the [[National Labor Relations Board]], [[Board of Economic Warfare]] (BEW), the [[Foreign Economic Administration]] (FEA) and later argued cases before the United States Supreme Court; and [[Charles Flato]], who served on the BEW and FEA, all were [[CPUSA]] members and associated with the [[Comintern]].

While the underlying premise of Communists in the government was true, many of McCarthy's targets were not complicit in espionage. Recent scholarship has established of 159 persons investigated between 1950 and 1952, there is substantial evidence nine had assisted Soviet espionage using evidence from Venona or other sources. Of the remainder, while not being directly complicit in espionage, many were considered security risks. <ref>[http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona], by John Earl Haynes, April 2007.</ref>

===Known security/loyalty risks===

In June 1947, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee addressed a secret memorandum to Secretary of State George Marshall, calling to his attention a condition that developed and was continuing in the State Department. The memo stated that
{{Cquote|it was evident there was a deliberate, calculated program being carried out not only to protect communist personnel in high places, but to reduce security and intelligence protection to a nullity. On file in the department is a copy of a preliminary report of the FBI on Soviet espionage activities in the United States which involved a large number of State Department employees, some in high official positions.}}
Robert E. Lee was the committee’s lead investigator and supervised preparation of the list. The Lee list, also using numbers rather than names, was published in the proceeding of the subcommittee. <ref>U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, State Department Employee Loyalty Investigations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1950).</ref>

The memorandum listed the names of nine State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." Ten persons were removed from the list by June 24th. But from 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. <ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm John Emil Peurifoy, Foreign Service Office & United States Ambassador], Arlington National Cemetery Website, retrieved 21 March 2007.</ref> In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.

Most but not all of Senator McCarthy’s numbered cases were drawn from the “Lee List” or “108 list” of unresolved Department of State security cases compiled by Lee for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. <ref>[http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona], by John Earl Haynes, April 2007.</ref> The Tydings subcommittee also obtained this list. In addition to some of the person involved in espionage identified in the [[Venona project]] listed above, there are other security and loyalty risks identified correctly by Senator McCarthy included in the following list:


* [[Robert Warren Barnett]] & [[Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #48 and #49 respectively and both are on Lee list as #59;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Numbers 48 and 49 respectively and both are Number 59 on the Lee list. McCarthy stated, "The letters of charges against the Barnetts--both Robert Warren Barnett and his wife, Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett-charge them with close association and constant contact with known Soviet espionage activity." See also FBI Silvermaster file, Vol. 116, Robert Barnett contacts with [[Donald Wheeler]] formerly of [[OSS]]; Robert Barnett also served in OSS.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})
See also
{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file, Hottel to the Director
| year = May 12, 1947
| title = [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster116.pdf Vol. 116, pg. 100] pdf
| publisher = U. S. Government,}}
Robert Barnett contacts with [[Donald Wheeler]] formerly of [[OSS]]; Robert Barnett also served in OSS).</ref>
* [[Esther Brunauer]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #47 and Lee list #55;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 47 and Number 55 on the Lee list. She belonged to a number of [[Communist front]] organizations, including chairman of a meeting of the American Friends of the Soviet Union where the main speaker was a well known Communist and writer for the ''Daily Worker''. "Brunauer was a signer of a call to the annual meeting of the [[American Youth Congress]] which was publicly known to be completely dominated by the Communist Party. She admitted that her husband had Communist connections and had been a member of the [[Young Communist League]]." Brunauer was suspended by the State Department in 1951 pending adjudication of security proceedings against her. On June 16, 1952, she was discharged by the State Department as a security risk. See ''McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning'' for greater detail on this case.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Stephen Brunauer]], U.S. Navy, chemist in the explosive research division;<ref>
McCarthy stated, "Brunauer, an admitted former member of the Young Communist League, was suspended from his job as head of the Navy's high explosives section where he was engaged in top secret work. He resigned before the Navy's Loyalty Board could complete questioning him and dispose of his case." Brunauer also had a reputation for associating with know Communists. McCarthy stated, "For example, his very good friend, [[Noel Field]], a known Communist and espionage agent, spent night after night with Stephen Brunauer, who had access to all the top secrets in the explosive section of our Navy. Field then left the country, and has since disappeared behind the iron curtain, taking with him all the information which his friend Brunauer had given him ... What forced the Navy to take action was that it appeared during the atom-spy investigations that Stephen Brunauer was involved."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = May 8, 1951
| title = Page 5058
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}</ref>
* [[Gertrude Cameron]], Information and Editorial Specialist in the U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #55 and Lee list #65;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 55 and Number 65 on the Lee list. Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], and [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Cameron as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Cameron, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Cameron remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Cameron, like, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>
An FBI Surveillance report on [[Edward Fitzgerald (Soviet spy)|Edward Fitzgerald]] from September 1947 notes that on May 20 1947 Fitzgerald's brother-in-law had lunch with [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]] and an appointment with [[Leslie Groves]]. Sometime later Frank Cameron, a regular contact of Fitzgerald tried to contact Gertrude Cameron in the State Department from the Fitzgerald’s home.
{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file,
| year = September 1947
| title = Volume 130, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster130.pdf pgs 17 -18] pdf
| publisher = Federal Bureau of Investigation}})</ref>
* [[Nelson Chipchin]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's list #23;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 23. Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], and [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Chipchin as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Chipchin, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Chipchin remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Chipchin, like Cameron, Fishburn, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Oliver Edmund Clubb]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
McCarthy presented Clubb's name and evidence against him to the [[Tyding's Committee]]. In 1952, by unanimous vote, the U.S. State Department Loyalty and Security Board found that Clubb's employment in the State Department constituted a security risk. The Deputy Under Secretary for Administration, Carlisle Humelsine agreed with this decision. Clubb ultimately resigned. On March 5, 1952, [[Dean Acheson|Secretary Acheson]] confirmed to the Media that Senator McCarthy was correct.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[John Paton Davies]], U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Committee;<ref>
McCarthy stated that, "Both [John Stewart] Service and Davies spent considerable time in China as State Department officials. In their recommendations to Washington both followed the Communist Party line. For example, on November 7, 1944, Davies submitted a memorandum to the State Department outing that the Communist Party in China was 'a modern dynamic popular government.' At the same time he referred to the anti-Communists as 'feudal.' 'The Communists are in China to stay. And China's destiny is not Chiang's but theirs,' said Davies. On December 12, 1944 he urged that we supply the Chinese Communists with arms -- a proposal which [[Dean Acheson]] two years later requested Congress to approve." In 1944, Ambassador to China, [[Patrick J. Hurley]], accused Davies of working behind his back to support the Communists. According to Hurley, "Davies had one day flown off to Yenan to tell [[Mao Zedong|Mao TseTung]], the Communist leader, that Hurley, our Ambassador (an anti-Communist), did not represent the American viewpoint." According to ''The China Story'' by [[Freda Utley]], Davies was a great fan of Communist operative [[Agnes Smedley]] who operated in China. Utley states, "Davies was also a great admirer of [[Agnes Smedley]], whom he called one of 'the pure in heart.' He used to invite us all to excellent dinners at the American consulate, at which he expressed both his admiration and affection for Agnes. Together with [[Edgar Snow]] and other journalists I knew in Hankow, he [Davies] became one of the most potent influences in the Department [of State] furthering the cause of the Chinese Communists." The [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] had found that Davies had "testified falsely before the subcommittee in denying that he recommended the Central Intelligence Agency employ, utilize and rely upon certain individuals having Communist associations and connections. This matter was...substantial in import." Despite the enormous evidence of Davies' support of the Communists, the State Department cleared him of being a security/loyalty risk. Eventually, in 1954, under political pressure from McCarthy and Senator [[Patrick McCarran]], Secretary of State [[John Foster Dulles]] asked Davies to resign. When he refused, on 5 November, 1954, Dulles terminated his employment, stating that Davies had "demonstrated a lack of judgment, discretion and reliability."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = June 14, 1951
| title = Page 6574
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Utley
| first = Freda
| year = 1951
| title = The China Story
| publisher = Chicago, H. Regnery Co.
| id = ASIN B00005VL2B}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Gustavo Duran]], U.S. State Department, assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, and Chief of the Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs of the United Nations;<ref>
The Duran Case is considered one of Senator McCarthy's "Nine Public Cases". McCarthy attempted to present evidence of Gustavo Duran's status as a security risk during the [[Tydings Committee]]. In violation of its mandate, the Tydings Committee refused to discuss McCarthy's evidence. Intelligence reports presented by McCarthy made the case quite clear that Duran was a bad security risk. All evidence submitted indicated that Duran was a Communist agent prior and during WWII, who took orders directly from the Soviet Union. It is unclear whether Duran was either hired with the knowledge that he had a Communist Party background or whether the State Department Loyalty Board simply failed to perform its obligation to properly screen out security risks. Either way, the State Department failed to perform its duties.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}},
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}},
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = February 20, 1950
| title = Page 1956
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}},
Isaac Walton League, Fond du Lac (July 30, 1950), Wisconsin)
{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file, Tamm to the Director,
| year = April 22, 1946
| title = [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster042.pdf Vol. 42, pg. 100] pdf
| publisher = U. S. Government}}

{{cite book
| last = FBI Silvermaster file
| year = October 10, 1946
| title = http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster076.pdf [Vol. 76, pgs. 9 and 126] pdf
| publisher = U. S. Government}}; (heavily redacted). Memorandum discuss inquiry from the U.S. Statement as to the participation of [[Alger Hiss]], Gustavo Duran and others in the [[Amerasia]] case. Fitch recommends replying to the State Dept. by referring to the detailed memoranda on Hiss and Duran which was previously submitted and a summary memo transmitted to General Holmes, to Fred Lyon's attention on May 29, 1945 in connection with [[Philip Jaffe]] and the Amerasia case (pg. 9). Statement that memos on Alger Hiss and Gustavo Duran will follow. Hiss memo is included, but that on Duran is not (pg. 126).</ref>

* [[Arpad Erdos]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
Just like [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], and [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Erdos as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Erdos, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Erdos remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Erdos, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Herbert Fierst]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's case #1 and Lee list #51;<ref>
Presented by McCarthy as Case Number 1 and Number 51 on the Lee list. Fierst was employed by the State Department beginning in September, 1946. In 1951, he was placed into the loyalty-security channels of the State Department. The Civil Service Loyalty Review Board expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of his case, and sent it back to the State Department Board for readjudication. Afterwards, a judgment was issued by the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board that, "a State Department officer's loyalty status had not been explored with sufficient thoroughness even after seven years." According to Robert L. Bannerman, Special Assistant and security officer in the State Department, in a memo issued by him on August 2, 1946, indicates that, "physical surveillance showed that this man Fierst was in constant contact with members of an espionage group and that he recommended Communists for State Department employment, and was engaged in a number of other Communist activities."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster064.pdf Vol. 64, pg. 240] pdf. Brief background on Herbert Fierst.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster077.pdf Vol. 77, pg. 202] pdf, September 1946.</ref>
* [[John Tipton Fishburn]], U.S. State Department; Lee list #106;<ref>Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Fishburn as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Fishburn, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Fishburn remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Fishburn, like Cameron, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Theodore Geiger]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
During the [[Tydings Committee]] hearings, Robert Morris, the Chief Counsel for the Minority, stated that Geiger was engaged in espionage activities as part of a Communist Party cell operating in the U.S. Morris offered to provide several witnesses who were also in Geiger's Communist Party cell however the Chairman of the [[Tydings Committee]], [[Millard Tydings]] declined to hear the testimony. On July 25, 1950, Senator McCarthy told the Senate about this case and that the witnesses to Geiger's Communist Party cell where willing to testify but that [[Millard Tydings]] refused the opportunity to expose a known Communist working for the State Department.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = July 25, 1950
| title = Page 1091
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Stella Gordon]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #40 and Lee list #45<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Gordon as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Gordon, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Gordon remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Gordon, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Hunt, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Stanley Graze]], U.S. State Department intelligence; McCarthy's Case #8 and Lee list #8, brother of Gerald Graze, confirmed in KGB Archives;<ref>
Graze was McCarthy's Case Number 8. Graze and his brother, [[Gerald Graze|Gerald]], were both employed by the State Department during [[World War II]] and in 1944, Gerald was identified as a secret member of the [[Communist Party of the United States]]. Even so, Stanley continued to work for the State Department until 1948. Oddly enough, on April 20, 1948, the Loyalty Security Board cleared him. Ten days later he resigned and became employed with the United Nations. Both Gerald and Stanley Graze are identified in the 1948 ''Gorsky Memo'' of Compromised American sources and networks having a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence. On October 14, 1952, while testifying before the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] he refused to answer questions regarding participation in the [[Communist Party of the United States]] and questions regarding espionage activity against the U.S. How Graze passed the State Department's Review Board remains unexplained.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Ruth Marcia Harrison]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #7 and Lee list #4;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Harrison as being a U.S. State Department employee who was clearly a security and loyalty risk. McCarthy mentioned that Harrison belonged to a long list of [[Communist front]] organizations and the Library of Congress branch of the Communist Party. Harrison was investigated by various branches of the Federal government numerous times before her termination in 1951, mainly because of her involvement in the 1930’s in organizations that had been identified as subversive. These organizations include the American Student Union, the [[Young Communist League]], and the Washington Bookshop Association. Subversive elements in the Federal government were able to clear Harrison in all prior investigations, but in 1951, her luck ran out. An informant revealed that Harrison had been active in the Library of Congress branch of the Communist Party when she was employed there as a cataloger, and this information ultimately led to the Loyalty and Security Board’s determination that Harrison posed a security risk as a Federal employee. Government documents related to her case that were declassified after amendments to the Freedom of Information Act in 1975, including investigation files from the [[FBI]], the State Department, the [[CIA]], and the Civil Service Commission indicated that the government's case against Harrison was absolutely correct and her termination justified.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Myron Victor Hunt]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #65 and Lee list #79;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Hunt as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Hunt, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Hunt remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Hunt, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Kopelewich, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Philip Jessup]], U.S. State Department, Assistant Director for the Naval School of Military Government and Administration at Columbia University in New York, Delegate to the U.N. in a number of different capacities, Ambassador-at-large, and Chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations Research Advisory Committee; McCarthy's Case #15;<ref>
McCarthy's first comments regarding Jessup were made during the [[Tydings Committee]] hearings where McCarthy stated that Jessup had an unusual affinity for Communist causes. McCarthy was never allowed by the Tydings Committee to outline his case regarding Jessup but the committee did allow Jessup to fly in from Pakistan and give his defense against charges that McCarthy had not yet even made. Needless to say, the Tydings Committee cleared Jessup as they did with everyone that appeared before them. However, in two speeches on the floor of the Senate, McCarthy gave his evidence regarding Jessup's "unusual affinity for Communist causes". They are as follows: 
(1) That Jessup had been affiliated with five [[Communist front]] groups;
(2) That Jessup had been a leading light in the [[Institute of Pacific Relations]] (IPR) at a time that organization was reflecting the Communist Party line;
(3) And that he had "pioneered the smear campaign against Nationalist China and Chiang Kai-shek" and propagated the "myth of the 'democratic Chinese Communist'" through the IPR magazine, ''Far Eastern Survey'', over which he had "absolute control";
(4) That Jessup had associated with known Communists in the IPR;
(5) That the IPR's American Council under Jessup's guidance had received more than $7,000 of Communist funds from [[Frederick Vanderbilt Field]];
(6) That Jessup had "expressed vigorous opposition" to attempts to investigate Communist penetration of the IPR;
(7) That Jessup had urged that United States atom bomb production be brought to a halt in 1946, and that essential atomic ingredients be "dumped into the ocean";
(8) That Jessup had appeared as a character witness for Alger Hiss, and that later, after Hiss's conviction, Jessup had found "no reason whatever to change his opinion about Hiss's veracity, loyalty and integrity."
While it may be questionable that Jessup pioneered the smear campaign against Chiang Kai-Shek, it's clear that he aided in it. There's no doubt that every single one of these allegations was essentially correct. Solid evidence shows that Jessup was associated with four Communist front organizations. They are as follows:
the [[American Russian Institute]], the [[National Emergency Conference]] (and its successor, the [[National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights]]), the [[American Law Students Association]], and the [[American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations]]. According to the House Committee on Un-American Activities each of these organizations was cited as Communist front groups at the time of Jessup's association with them. Although the Tydings Committee did not allow McCarthy to present his evidence against Jessup, the Tydings Committee did refer to some of McCarthy's evidence that were made on the floor of the Senate. Of course, as usual, the Tydings Committee either ignored the significance of the evidence or downplayed it. It was up to the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] a year later to do the real investigating and in discussing the IPR, it stated, "The IPR was a vehicle used by Communists to orientate American Far Eastern policy toward Communist objectives." The McCarran Committee Hearings clearly indicate that the IPR was more than just a Communist front organization in that there was an active Communist "cell" that put the services of the IPR at the disposal of "Communist imperialism". And that this was achieved by "manipulating" the IPR's policy-making officials. 
The McCarran Committee reported that ten of the thirty-three individuals whom Jessup recommended as delegates to the IPR Hot Springs Convention in January of 1945 have been named as members of the Communist Party. Jessup was well aware that Frederick Vanderbilt Field was a member of the Communist Party, and especially so when Field resigned from the IPR to devote full time to the [[Communist front]] organization, [[American Peace Mobilization]]. 
Jessup also presided over the State Department Policy Conference of October 1949 that was not only stocked with Jessup's pro-Communist associates but also, in the words of the McCarran Committee, which stated, "...the prevailing [majority] view at the conference advocated (a) the recognition of Communist China; (b) normal trade relations between the United States and Communist China; (c) encouragement of trade between Japan and Communist China; (d) economic assistance to Communist China; (e) recognition that Communist conquest in Asia was a natural and inevitable consequence of revolutionary ferment in Asia with its Communist nature being incidental." [[Harold Stassen]] and [[General Joseph Fortier]] have respectively testified that Jessup not only ignored advice to disregard the pro-Communist direction of the conference and that Jessup was in favor of recognizing Communist China. The above evidence clearly demonstrates that Jessup was at least a security risk and that the State Department Loyalty program failed to identify him as such.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Tydings Committee Hearings
| year = 1950
| title = Pages 28, 41, 42, 100, 229, 247, 256, 257, 273, 497-498, etc.
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = March 30, 1950
| title = Pages 4402-4405
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = June 2, 1950
| title = Pages 8000-8003
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarran Report,
| year = July 1952
| title = Pages 100-103, 122-123, 147-148, 212, 225, 494-495, etc.
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Dorothy Kenyon]], New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;<ref>
Dorothy Kenyon is considered one of McCarthy's "Nine Public Cases" that was presented to the [[Tydings Committee]]. Kenyon was McCarthy's first case and it took two days in order for McCarthy to present the evidence due to the constant interruptions by members of the Tyding's Committee. This prompted Senator Lodge to state that, "I think to interrupt the witness [McCarthy] every time and break up his continuity and destroy the flow of his argument, the way we are doing, is not the right procedure....For some reason that has not been made clear to me, whether it is to rattle or whether it is to confuse, I don't know, we have an entirely different procedure today...I am objecting to the constant interruption of the witness so that he never gets a fair shake." 
Despite the constant harassment, McCarthy's evidence included showing that Kenyon belonged to at least 24 Communist front organizations labeled as such in part by the [[United States Attorney General]], the [[House Un-American Activities Committee]], and other governmental committees. The documents presented by McCarthy included, official organization letterheads that listed Kenyon as a sponsor or as a member, official programs of organization sponsored dinners, and newspaper reports of open letters that Kenyon had signed that connected her with the organizations. Certainly, these were all documents that were easily accessible to the State Department should they have cared to look into Kenyon's political background. 
When Kenyon was asked by the Tydings Committee whether she had ever been interviewed by the State Department as to her affiliation to any Communist front organizations, she responded that she had never been asked. According to the security evaluation procedure of the State Department, Kenyon should have been asked about these affiliations but failed to do so. McCarthy had easily demonstrated from this first case that the screening process of the State Department was certainly lax and quite possibly purposefully ignoring easily identifiable security risks. However, the Tydings Committee instead ignored this evidence and set the precedent for the hearings that anyone that came before the committee was going to be given a positive evaluation no matter how strongly the evidence indicated the witness was a security risk.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Tydings Committee Hearings
| year = 1950
| title = Page 68
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = March 30, 1950
| title = Pages 4380-81
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}})</ref>
* [[Leon Hirsch Keyserling]], President [[Harry Truman]]'s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;<ref>
Keyserling had an extensive background of service in the U.S. government. He had helped to shift the emphasis of U.S. economic policy toward a more [[Socialist]]ic structure. Evidence in the form of sworn testimony submitted to the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] indicated that he agreed with the principles of the Communist Party except for the idea that Communization of the U.S. could only be achieved through "bloody revolution" and he was against the idea of a separate political entity for Black people in the U.S. South. Other than those two details, Keyserling, a major official in the U.S. government, agreed with the Communization of the U.S. Less than a year after Senator McCarthy made this information public, Keyserling left U.S. government work for the private sector yet continued to act as a paid consultant to the U.S. Congress.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 21, 1952
| title = Page 4153
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Mary Dublin Keyserling]], U.S. Department of Commerce;<ref>
Keyserling is the wife of [[Leon Hirsch Keyserling]] and also had an extensive background working for the U.S. government. On April 21, 1952, McCarthy gave her specifics to the Senate. He stated that the evidence presented to the Commerce Department's Loyalty Board showed that Keyserling had been a member of the Communist Party and that she also belonged to a great many Communist front organizations.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 21, 1952
| title = Page 4153
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Esther Less Kopelewich]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #24;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Robert Ross]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Kopelewich as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Kopelewich, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Kopelewich remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Kopelewich, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Ross, Schimmel, Tuchser, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Owen Lattimore]], Board member of the communist-dominated [[Institute of Pacific Relations]] (I.P.R) and editor the I.P.R.’s journal ''Pacific Affairs'';<ref>
Identified by McCarthy as a Communist and under Party discipline. Former Communist Party member and head of the Buben group of spies, [[Louis Budenz]] corroborated McCarthy's claims and detailed how Lattimore had been of service to the Communist Party in the ''Amerasia'' case. Lattimore was also identified by former Soviet Army General [[Alexander Barmine]] as a member of Russian Military Intelligence ([[GRU]]). In a unanimous report, the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] classified Lattimore as a "conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy". Lattimore wrote a letter of introduction for [[Haakon Chevalier]] to [[KGB]] operative, [[Lauchlin Currie]]. Chevalier was attempting to obtain a Government job during this period of time. Chevalier is a known Soviet Secret Intelligence Service ([[NKVD]]) contact and was associated with numerous members of the Communist Party on the West Coast. Currie also recommended Lattimore to President Roosevelt to serve as a special advisor to [[Chiang Kai-shek]]. Indicted for committing perjury. In December 1952, Currie gave evidence in New York to a grand jury investigating Lattimore's role in the publication by [[Amerasia]] magazine of secret State Department documents. All evidence indicates that Lattimore was a security and a loyalty risk and served to guide U.S. foreign policy to the detriment of U.S national interests.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Paul A. Lifantieff-Lee]], U.S. Naval Department; McCarthy's Case #56 and Lee list #66;<ref>
Born in the Soviet Union. On August 9, 1951, McCarthy presented to the Senate information about Lifantieff-Lee. He stated that, "His file in the Navy Department, which was transmitted to the State Department, shows that he took secret State Department documents, which were found in his room and picked up by naval intelligence. That is shown by the naval intelligence report."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Val R. Lorwin]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #54 and Lee list #64;<ref>
In December, 1945, Lorwin became employed with the State Department. He quickly became Chief of the State Department's European Division of International Labor, Social, and Health Affairs. After that, he became a labor economist for the State Department. On February 5, 1952, approximately one year after the [[Tyding's Committee]] cleared Lorwin, the State Department suspended him. On March 28, 1952, he was restored to full duty, and in June 1952, was formally cleared of all charges regarding security or loyalty issues. Shortly thereafter, Lorwin resigned, and went to work for the University of Chicago as an assistant professor of social sciences and industrial relations. According to Buckley, "on December 4, 1953, a Federal Grand Jury handed down an indictment of Lorwin, charging that he had lied under oath in claiming (1) that he had never been a member of the Communist Party, (2) that he had never carried a Communist Party card, and (3) that he had never held a Communist Party meeting in his home.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Daniel F. Margolies]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #41 and Lee list #46;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy gave the Senate information on an employee of the State Department named Daniel F. Margolies. McCarthy described Margolies as, "one of the top security men in the State Department" and was hired by the State Department despite the fact that he was disapproved on the grounds that he was a "bad loyalty and security risk." The State Department never explained the rationale in hiring someone who was clearly a security and loyalty risk.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref> <ref>FBI Silvmaster file 5c pg. 11 pdf. [http://foia.fbi.gov/silversm/silversm5c.pdf]</ref>
* [[Peveril Meigs]], U.S. State Department; Department of the Army; McCarthy's Case #3 and Lee list #2;<ref>
Meigs became employed with the State Department in September, 1945, and was allowed to resign from the State department in 1948 even though there were concerns regarding his security/loyalty. McCarthy related to the Senate the fact that Meigs was under investigation by the State Department's security/loyalty board yet was allowed to resign without noting his file as having been under investigation. Subsequently, Meigs went to work for the Department of the Army and after McCarthy communicated to the Army that Meigs should be investigated, the Army then looked into Meigs' background and found him to be a clear loyalty/security risk. In January 12, 1952 and again on May 26, 1952, McCarthy stated to the Senate that, "On February 20, I believe, I laid before the Senate the case of Perveril Meigs. The State Department held a hearing. They knew that they could not conceivably clear Perveril Meigs, even with the type of board which they have. What did they do? They notified him that he would not be cleared, so he then resigned, went over to the Army and got a job in the Army, with no notification to the Army that this man was an extremely bad security risk because of close association with espionage agents. It was only after we called the Army's attention to the case that the Army Loyalty Board took the case up, and of course, they promptly ordered him discharged." Meigs' case is a perfect example of the State Department covering up either its' incompetence in hiring individuals that are security/loyalty risks and/or in being able to properly filter out such individuals once they are employees of the State Department. The tactic of informing a suspected security/loyalty risk and allowing him or her to resign was a strategy implemented in order for the State Department to avoid appearing incompetent or as though they did not make any effort to avoid hiring loyalty/security risks.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = January 15, 1952
| title = Page 192
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = May 26, 1952
| title = Page 5963
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[Ella M. Montague]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #34 and Lee list #32;<ref>
She was born in the [[Soviet Union]] in 1896. On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy stated, "She [Montague] worked for the [[Amtorg Trading Corporation]]. The testimony before three different committees is that only top members of the Communist Party could work for Amtorg." McCarthy also stated that, "...5 or 6 of the officers of Amtorg were picked up about a year ago and charged with espionage. Under pressure from the State Department they were allowed to return to Russia." As usual, McCarthy was correct about both Montague being a security/loyalty risk and about Amtorg being a front organization to further the expansionistic goals of the Soviet Union. [[Amtorg Trading Corporation]] is an American company based in New York that was founded in 1924 by the Soviet Union to serve as its buying and selling organization in trade between the USSR and the USA. It handled the bulk of Soviet-American trade until 1935, and continues to exist today. Working as an Amtorg employee served as a convenient cover for Soviet spies, such the Soviet spy, [[Morris Cohen]].
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = The American Legion
| year = 1937
| title = ISMS: A Review of Alien Isms, Revolutionary Communism, and Their Active Sympathizers in the United States, Pages 85-87
| publisher = The American Legion, Indianapolis
| id = ASIN B000KIJS6Y}})</ref>
* [[Philleo Nash]], Presidential Advisor, [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and [[Harry S. Truman]] administrations;<ref>
On January 29, 1952, Senator McCarthy outlined the charges against Nash, who had been a Presidential advisor in the Franklin D. Roosevelt and Truman administrations. McCarthy stated that this matter was "developed by the F.B.I." and that Nash "had been in close contact with the Communist underground in Washington D.C."; that he had been a close friend and associate of a convicted Canadian Communist; that Nash had "contributed to the support of the Canadian ''Tribune'', the official organ of the Communist Party in Canada"; that during the early 1940's some of the Canadian spy ring were using his home in Toronto as a meeting point and that some of them were living there; and that in the early 1940's Nash "was attending Communist meetings and had officially joined the Communist Party." In an interview with Jerry N. Hess on May 15, 1969, Nash essentially confirmed the essence of these charges, yet Nash was never adversely affected by these issues. Nash had worked in the [[Office of War Information]] beginning in 1942.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = January 29, 1952
| title = Page 581
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = Hess
| first = Jerry
| title = Oral History Interview with Philleo Nash
| publisher = Truman Presidential Museum and Library
| date = May 15, 1969
| url = http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/nash15.htm}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster058.pdf Vol. 58, pgs. 107 - 110] pdf.</ref><ref> [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster065.pdf Vol. 65, pgs. 155 - 156] pdf. August 1946. Notes contact between Nash and [[Louise Bransten]] in January 1944. Bransten was the mistress of San Francisco [[KGB]] [[Rezident]] [[Grigory Kheifets]] who made initial contact with [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]] in the home of Bransten on December 6, 1941.</ref>
* [[Olga V. Osnatch]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #81 and Lee list #78;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Osnatch as his Case #81. At the time of McCarthy's original investigation, Osnatch was not yet a citizen of the United States. At the time of this speech, it was not clear if she had gotten her citizenship papers or not. McCarthy stated that, "She worked for the Russian Embassy in Turkey for 3 years. Then with the Russian Welfare Society, and so forth. One of the significant things here, of course, is that the Russians do not hire people in their embassies unless they are Communists." So, what McCarthy was making clear in this speech was that only committed Communists are employed with Soviet agencies. Why an assumed Communist was allowed to work for the U.S. government was yet another mystery that the Truman administration would not explain.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9707
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Edward Posniak]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case Number 77;<ref>
Posniak was submitted to the Tyding's Committee by McCarthy as Case Number 77. An F.B.I. agent and an F.B.I. informant reported that Posniak was a member of the Communist Party. On November 15, 1950, the State Department contacted the Loyalty Review Board that Posniak "elected to resign rather than accept suspension pending investigation and adjudication of certain charges bearing loyalty."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Philip Raine]], U.S. State Department, Regional Specialist; McCarthy's Case #52 and Lee list #62;<ref>
On August 9, 1951, McCarthy stated, "He [Raine] is tied up, in the letter of the charges, very closely with Robert T. Miller, who has been identified under oath several times as a Russian espionage agent." McCarthy was making a close association to Miller who he himself had been identified by former Soviet operative, [[Elizabeth Bentley]] in her 1945 FBI statement. Again, it was incumbent upon the State Department to investigate these serious allegations yet did nothing about them.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster023.pdf "Underground Espionage Organization (NKVD) in Agencies of the United States Government"], Vol. 23, pgs. 55 - 272 pdf, February 21, 1946. Includes alphabetical index at end. In the later part of February 1946, the [[FBI]] transmitted to Secretary of State [[George Marshall]]l a 194 page Report based upon Soviet defector [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition three months earlier entitled, "Underground Espionage Organization (NKVD) in Agencies of the United States Government." Preliminary investigations and other information in Bureau files gave support and credence to the providential value of Bentley's serious allegations. Bentley had been assigned a covername by the FBI, "Gregory," and the highly secret investigation was referred to by investigators as "the Gregory Case." State Department internal investigators provided a list of questions to the FBI for the confidential informant to answer. The Statement requested information about Philip and Alice Raine. Bentley, who worked out of New York, responded the names were entirely unfamiliar (pg. Vol. 96, pg. 87). Philip and Alicia Raine subsequently were developed as leads by FBI investigators in the Washington field office while surveilling the many contacts of [[Mary Jane Keeney]]. </ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Hoover letter to Secretary of State George Marshall, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster096.pdf Vol. 96, pgs. 85 -90] pdf, March 10, 1946.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster077.pdf Vol. 77, pgs. 133, 135, 201] pdf, September 1946.</ref>
* [[Robert Ross]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #32 and Lee list #30;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Sylvia Schimmel]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Ross as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Ross, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Ross remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Ross, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Neumann, Schimmel, and Tuchser, was able to carry on his activities despite concerns about his loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[Sylvia Schimmel]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #50 and Lee list #60;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], [[Frances M. Tuchser]] on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Schimmel as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Schimmel, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Schimmel remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Ross, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, Neumann, and Tuchser, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster061.pdf Vol. 61, pgs. 74 -79] pdf; Hottel to the Director, "Just Lunning," July 18, 1947. Discussion between [[Mary Jane Keeney]] and Sylvia Schimmel about Just Lunning, who would become Schimmel’s supervisor at the State Department. Sylvia Schimmel complained to Just Lunning she was not being given meaningful work at the State Dept. due to Schimmel's work for the Political Action Committee. Just Lunning had links to William T. Stone, [[V. Frank Coe]], Philip Dunaway, David Wahl, [[Donald Wheeler]], [[Allan Rosenberg]], Bowen Smith, and [[Edward Fitzgerald]]. Mary Jane Keeney had innumerable contacts in the [[CPUSA]] underground espionage apparatus which included [[Greg Silvermaster]], [[Helen Silvermaster]], [[Sergey Kurnakov]], [[Joseph Bernstein]], [[Frederick Field]], [[Maurice Halperin]], [[Haakon Chevalier]], [[Richard Bransten]], [[Laurence Todd]], [[William Ullman]], and [[Robert Miller]]. Much of the Silvermaster file is devoted to surveillance reports on them. Mary Jane Keeney had served in the occupation of Berlin while at this time her husband, [[Philip Keeney]] was serving in Japan. Mary Jane Keeney was seeking to join him there. The FBI and State Department officials were moving to prevent this, and to have Philip recalled from his position with the occupation forces. Mary Jane Keeney had turned to Sylvia Schimmel for assistance with her passport problems.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster065.pdf Vol. 65, pg. 51] pdf.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster096.pdf Vol. 96, pg. 78] pdf.</ref>
* [[Frederick Schumann]], contracted by U.S. State Department as lecturer; Professor at Williams College; not on Lee list;<ref>
Schumann was a consultant for the State Department but not as an employee. His job was to lecture and train State Department employees who were subsequently to be placed in sensitive posts. In this capacity, out of 57 instructors, only three, Schumann, Edward Acheson (Dean's brother), and Communist [[Owen Lattimore]] were not government officials. According to the [[House Committee on Un-American Activities]], Schumann was a member of over 50 Communist front organizations. In 1932, Schuman supported the Communist Party ticket for President. Schumann wrote a pro-Soviet book titled, ''Soviet Politics at Home and Abroad'' that appeared just before the State Department enlisted him for his help in helping out orient the Foreign Service officers. While Schumann declined an invitation to the [[Tydings Committee]] in order to address charges against him, the Committee, as with other cases, showed no interest in determining why pro-Soviet lecturers were being utilized by the State Department and who was doing the hiring.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
({{cite book
| last = Herman, Arthur
| year = 1999
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = December 19, 1950
| title = Page 16747
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1952
| title = McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe
| publisher = The Devin-Adair Company
| id = ASIN B0007DRBZ2}})</ref>
* [[John S. Service]], U.S. State Department;<ref>
Accused by McCarthy of being a security and loyalty risk. Between the years of 1942 and 1945, Service submitted memos to the U.S. State Department supporting the Chinese Communists and Mao and advocated that the U.S. destroy [[Chiang Kai-shek]]. According to Senator McCarthy, "Service was named by the U.S. Ambassador to China as one of the men who was serving the cause of Communism in China. He asked the President to remove Service. He said that this man's actions are not good for the United States, they are good for Russia. While in China, Service, in secret recommendations to the State Department, urged that the Communists were the only hope for China. On June 6, 1945, Service was arrested by the F.B.I. for, "having transmitted, without authority, classified documents to the editors of ''Amerasia'', a Communist magazine". Service had in effect turned over to a known Communist, not only State Department documents, but also secret military information. In December of 1951, Service was fired from the U.S. State Department, "as a result of an adverse finding as to his security qualifications by the Loyalty Review Board of the Civil Service Commission."
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2 }}
{{cite book
| last = Klehr, Harvey and Radosh, Ronald
| year = 1996
| title = The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism
| publisher = The University of North Carolina Press
| id = ISBN 0-80782-245-0}})</ref>
* [[Harlow Shapley]], U.S. State Department appointee to UNESCO, Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions;<ref>
Shapley joined at least six [[Communist front]] groups during the period of 1939-1941. By the time McCarthy had presented Shapley's case to the [[Tydings Committee]], Shapley was a member of at least 21 Communist front organizations, eight of them listed on the Attorney General's list. McCarthy's documentation clearly showed that Shapley remained associated with at least ten of these groups even after they were exposed and officially cited as subversive by multiple legislative investigating committees. In March 1949, at the "Waldorf Peace Conference", Shapley was Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions, of which even President Truman denounced as a "tool for Russia and a sounding board for Communist propaganda". Even so, Secretary of State Dean Achesson appointed Shapley as a representative of the U.S. and the U.S. State Department at UNESCO. 
So, despite even Truman's concerns, the State Department appointed yet another clear security risk. As Buckley states in his book, "...a Rider to the Appropriations Act forbade the paying of funds to a person actively affiliated with any organization on the Attorney General's list. And Shapley, according to the evidence before the Tydings Committee, clearly was such a person." As usual, the Tydings Committee ignored the facts and only made mention of Shapley's limited association with the State Department. Once again, McCarthy proved his case but was brushed aside by the Tydings Committee.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
({{cite book
| last = Herman, Arthur
| year = 1999
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = February 20, 1950
| title = Page 1973
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[William T. Stone]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #46 and Lee list #54;<ref>
Accused by McCarthy as a security/loyalty risk, Stone is McCarthy's Case Number 46. As early as 1946, the Bannerman Security Screening Board of the State Department concluded that Stone should be "terminated", that Stone's "continued presence in the Department is embarrassing...that he be given an opportunity to resign" and failing to do so should result in his forced termination "under Civil Service Rule 3." The State Department failed to act on this recommendation and Stone continued working in the State Department. Stone was on the Communist controlled editorial board of ''Amerasia'' magazine, recommended fellow ''Amerasia'' members to jobs with the U.S. State Department, informed Venona identified Communist and espionage operative, [[Greg Silvermaster|Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]] of an adverse security report concerning Silvermaster, was constantly under investigation as a security/loyalty risk, and was eventually given the opportunity to resign, which he did in 1952.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[Frances M. Tuchser]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #6 and Lee list #6;<ref>
Just like [[Arpad Erdos]], [[Gertrude Cameron]], [[Nelson Chipchin]], [[John Tipton Fishburn]], [[Stella Gordon]], [[Myron Victor Hunt]], and [[Franz Leopold Neumann]], on August 9, 1951, Senator McCarthy listed Tuchser as being one of the individuals that he had given to the [[Tydings Committee]] a year earlier. McCarthy submitted to the Senate, Tuchser, as yet another example of a clear security risk who was currently in the loyalty-security channels in the State Department. There was no explanation from the State Department as to why Tuchser remained in loyalty-security channels for such a lengthy period of time. In the meantime, Tuchser, like Cameron, Fishburn, Chipchin, Erdos, Gordon, Hunt, and Neumann, was able to carry on her activities despite concerns about her loyalty and security clearance.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}}
{{cite book
| last = McCarthy
| first = Joseph
| year = 1953
| title = Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office
| id = ISBN 0-87968-308-2}}
{{cite book
| last = Congressional Record,
| year = August 9, 1951
| title = Page 9708
| publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>
* [[John Carter Vincent]], U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #2 and Lee list #52;<ref>
One of McCarthy's numbered cases given to the [[Tydings Committee]]. During his tenure as chief of the Division of Chinese Affairs, Vincent played an important role in hastening Mao's conquest of China. The [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] concluded that "over a period of years, John Carter Vincent was the principal fulcrum of [[Institute of Pacific Relations|IPR]] pressures and influence in the State Department." [[Louis F. Budenz]] testified in the summer of 1951 that Vincent was a member of the Communist Party. In December 1952, the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board found reasonable doubt regarding Vincent's loyalty. In 1953, [[John Foster Dulles|Secretary Dulles]] requested Vincent's resignation.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>
* [[David Zablodowsky]], U.S. State Department & Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. McCarthy's Case #103;<ref>
Zablodowsky was McCarthy's Case Number 103. Zablodowsky worked in the State Department and later as Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. He admitted to being a member of an espionage ring in 1936 after [[Whittaker Chambers]], on October 23, 1952, gave testimony before the [[United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security|McCarran Committee]] regarding Zablodowsky's activities.
({{cite book
| last = Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent
| year = 1954, 1995 Printing
| title = McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning
| publisher = Regnery Publishing Inc.
| id = ISBN 0-89526-472-2}})</ref>


==Attacks on McCarthy==
One of the most prominent attacks on Senator McCarthy was an episode of the TV documentary series ''See It Now'', hosted by [[Edward R. Murrow]], which was broadcast on March 9, 1954.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref> By the time Murrow produced his "See It Now" assault on Senator McCarthy in 1954, the senator had been under almost constant vicious attack for four years. According to McCarthy biographer Arthur Herman, Murrow and his staff had spent two months carefully editing film clips to portray McCarthy in the worst possible light. There were no clips showing McCarthy in a professional manner. Despite Murrow's claims, this "was not a report at all but instead a full-scale assault, employing exactly the same techniques of 'partial truth and innuendo' that critics accused McCarthy of using." The episode consisted largely of clips of McCarthy in the most unflattering context, including "belching and picking his nose".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4 }}
</ref>

In these clips, McCarthy accuses the [[Democratic Party]] of "twenty years of treason" because of the Democratic Party's concessions to the [[Soviet Union]] at the [[Yalta conference]] and [[Potsdam conference]], describes the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] as "listed as 'a front for, and doing the work of,' the Communist Party," and berates General Zwicker for Zwicker's claim that he would protect any other general who promotes Communist's within the military. Murrow also portrays a Pentagon coding room employee, [[Annie Lee Moss]] as an innocent victim of McCarthy even though it was later established that the F.B.I. had warned the Army and the Civil Service Commission about her [[Communist Party]] connection.<ref>Herman, pages 333-337</ref>

However, even some McCarthy critics were outraged by this one-sided presentation. Consistent McCarthy critic, John Cogley of ''[[Commonweal]]'', "sharply attacked Murrow and his producers for their distorted summary and selected use of video clips."<ref>Herman, p. 253</ref> Cogley commented that a different selection of footage could have easily portrayed McCarthy in an extremely positive light and, then further warned against the misuse of television in this fashion. He and another McCarthy critic from the ''Saturday Review'' agreed that it "was not a proud moment for television journalism".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Lately
| first = Thomas
| title = When Even Angels Wept
| publisher = Morrow
| date = 1973
| pages = page 466
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

To counter the negative publicity, McCarthy appeared on ''See It Now'' on April 6, 1954, and presented his case in order to clarify the misconceptions that Murrow had televised. McCarthy countered that his committee, "has forced out of government, and out of important defense plants, Communists engaged in the Soviet conspiracy." McCarthy went on to say, "For example, 238 witnesses were examined [in] public session; 367 witnesses examined [in] executive session; 84 witnesses refused to testify as to Communist activities on the ground that, if they told the truth, they might go to jail; twenty-four witnesses with Communist backgrounds have been discharged from jobs [in] which they were handling secret, top-secret, confidential material, individuals who were exposed before our committee." McCarthy also exposed Murrow's left-wing background and previous associations with Communist organizations.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/murrowmccarthy2.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref>

The Murrow report, together with the televised Army-McCarthy hearings of the same year, and four years of consistent anti-McCarthy media reporting were the major causes of a nationwide popular opinion backlash against McCarthy. However, well-known broadcaster Eric Sevareid said the Murrow assault "came very late in the day. The youngsters read back and they think only one person in broadcasting and the press stood up to McCarthy and this has made a lot of people feel very upset, including me, because that program came awfully late."<ref>Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the media'']. Renew America.</ref>

Even Murrow discounted his role in the decline of Senator McCarthy's popularity. Murrow stated, "My God, I didn't do anything. (Times columnist) Scotty Reston and lot of guys have been writing like this, saying the same things, for months, for years. We're bringing up the rear."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Bayley
| first = Edwin R.
| title = Joe McCarthy and the Press
| publisher = University of Wisconsin Press
| date = 1981
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

Nevertheless, despite the deceptive nature of the ''See It Now'' program and the late date in which it appears, anti-McCarthy historians have credited and celebrated Murrow as playing a major role in damaging Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove security risks from the U.S. government.

==Senate opposition to McCarthy==
While over the previous few years, Senator McCarthy had withstood countless biased and unsubstantiated attacks by [[Liberals]], [[Communists]], etc., who sought to prevent him from damaging their causes any further; the organized and co-ordinated effort between the two groups to remove McCarthy from his Chairmanship and officially condemn him began in March of 1954.
===Senate opposition===
On March 9, 1954 a fellow conservative and anti-communist [[Republican]] Senator, [[Ralph E. Flanders]] of [[Vermont]], gave a speech criticizing what he felt was Senator McCarthy’s "misdirection of our efforts at fighting communism” and his role in “the loss of respect for us in the world at large.” Flanders felt the nation should pay more attention looking outwards at the “alarming world-wide advance of Communist power” that would leave the United States and Canada as “the last remnants of the free world.” <ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| date = March 9, 1954
| title = Activities of Senator McCarthy—The World Crisis
| publication-place = Washington, D.C.
| publisher = Proceedings and debates of the 83rd Congress, second session—Congressional Record
}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| year =1961
| title = Senator from Vermont
| publication-place = Boston
| publisher = Little, Brown
| pages = 255-257
}}
</ref> [[Eisenhower Administration]] cabinet officials told Flanders to “lay off,” while President Eisenhower sent Flanders a brief note of appreciation for his speech, but did not otherwise confer with him or explicitly support him.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| year =1961
| title = Senator from Vermont
| publication-place = Boston
| publisher = Little, Brown
| pages = 258
}}
</ref> In a June 1, 1954 speech, Flanders emphasized how the Soviet Union was winning military successes in Asia without risking its own resources or men, and said this nation was witnessing "another example of economy of effort...in the conquest of this country for communism." He added, "One of the characteristic elements of communist and fascist tyranny is at hand as citizens are set to spy upon each other."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Crozier
| first = Barney
| title = Vermont Senator's Speech Heralded McCarthy's End
| publisher = Times-Argus Newspaper
| publication-place = Randolph, Vermont
| pages =
| year =1979
| date =September 29, 1979
| url =
}}</ref> Flanders told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of [[Adolf Hitler]] as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority"; he accused McCarthy of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Woods
| first = Randall Bennett
| title = Fulbright: A Biography
| publisher = Cambridge University Press
| date = 1995
| pages = 187
| id = ISBN 0-521-48262-3}}</ref>

On June 11, 1954 Flanders introduced a resolution charging McCarthy “with unbecoming conduct" and calling for his removal from his committee chairmanship. Upon the advice of Senators John Sherman Cooper and J. William Fulbright and legal assistance from the [[National Committee for an Effective Congress]], a liberal organization, he modified his resolution to “bring it in line with previous actions of censure.”<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Flanders
| first = Ralph E.
| year =1961
| title = Senator from Vermont
| publication-place = Boston
| publisher = Little, Brown
| pages = 260-261, 267
}}
</ref> After introducing his censure motion, Flanders had no active role in the ensuing Watkins Committee hearings. Flanders bore McCarthy no personal animosity and reported that McCarthy accepted his invitation to join him at lunch after the hearings had taken place.<ref>Flanders, pages = 267-268
</ref>

===Watkins Committee===
Ultimately, McCarthy was accused of 46 different counts of allegedly improper conduct and another special committee was set up, under the chairmanship of Senator [[Arthur Watkins]], to study and evaluate the charges. This was to be the fifth investigation of Senator McCarthy in five years. This committee opened hearings on August 31, 1954. After two months of hearings and deliberations, the Watkins Committee recommended that McCarthy be censured on only two of the original 46 counts. The committee exonerated McCarthy on all substantive charges.<ref>44 of the 46 charges were dropped.[http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/newsletter/nov05nl.html]</ref>

On November 8, 1954, a special session of the Senate convened to debate the two charges. The charges to be debated and voted on were: 1) That Senator McCarthy had "failed to cooperate" in 1952 with the Senate Subcommitee on Privileges and Elections that was looking into certain aspects of his private and political life in connection with a resolution for his expulsion from the Senate; and 2) That in conducting a senatorial inquiry, Senator McCarthy had "intemperately abused" General Ralph Zwicker.

The Zwicker count was dropped by the full Senate on the grounds that McCarthy's conduct was arguably "induced" by Zwicker's own behavior. Many senators felt that the Army had shown contempt for committee chairman McCarthy by disregarding his letter of February 1, 1954 and honorably discharging Irving Peress the next day. So, for this reason, the Senate concluded that McCarthy's conduct toward Zwicker on February 18th was justified.

Therefore, the Zwicker count was dropped at the last minute and was replaced with this substitute charge: 2) That Senator McCarthy, by characterizing the Watkins Committee as the "unwitting handmaiden" of the Communist Party and by describing the special Senate session as a "lynch party" and a "lynch bee," had "acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity."<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/60.htm Censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy] (1954) The United States Department of State.</ref>

On December 2, 1954, even though more than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him but had to do so because of the enormous pressure being put on them by the [[Eisenhower Administration]] and by leaders of both political parties, the Senate voted to "condemn" Senator Joseph McCarthy on both counts by a vote of 67 to 22. The Democrats voted unanimously in favor of condemnation and the Republicans split evenly.

===Resolution condemns McCarthy===
The resolution condemning Senator McCarthy has been criticized as a ridiculous attempt to silence the strongest voice in the Senate investigating security and loyalty risks in the U.S. government. When examined closely, the two counts used in condemning McCarthy were hopelessly flawed.

In analyzing the first count, "failure to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections", the fact is that the subcommittee never subpoenaed McCarthy, but only "invited" him to testify. One senator and two staff members resigned from the subcommittee because of its dishonesty towards McCarthy. In its final report dated January 2, 1953, the subcommittee, stated that the matters under consideration "have become moot by reason of the 1952 election." Up until this moment in U.S. history, no senator had ever been punished for something that had happened in a previous Congress or for declining an "invitation" to testify. Therefore, the first count was a complete fraud and nothing more than a trumped up charge in order to damage Senator McCarthy.

The second count was even more flawed than the first. McCarthy was condemned for opinions he had expressed outside the Senate when he criticized the Watkins Committee and the special Senate session. In an editorial by David Lawrence in the June 7, 1957 issue of ''U.S. News & World Report'', other senators had accused McCarthy of lying under oath, accepting influence money, engaging in election fraud, making libelous and false statements, practicing blackmail, doing the work of the communists for them, and engaging in a questionable "personal relationship" with Roy Cohn and David Schine. However, these other Senators were not censured for acting "contrary to senatorial ethics" or for impairing the "dignity" of the Senate. Only Senator McCarthy would be held responsible for his words. <ref>Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). [http://www.jbs.org/node/632|''The Real McCarthy Record'']. The New American.</ref>

==Final years==
[[Image:CapitolStepsSenatorMcCarthy.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The flag-draped coffin containing the body of Senator McCarthy is carried up the steps of the U.S. Capitol for funeral services in the Senate chamber after an earlier service at St. Matthew's Cathedral, May 6, 1957. Photograph courtesy of [http://www.apl.org/history/mccarthy/capitol_steps.html ''The Post-Crescent'']]]
Senator McCarthy's power and clout to continue the search for Communists in positions of power in America was severely curtailed. After the Republicans lost control of the Senate in 1954, McCarthy, now a member of the minority Party, had to depend on public speeches to continue his campaign of warning the American people to the danger of Communism. He did this in a number of important addresses during those two and a half years.

In January 1957, McCarthy and his wife, Jean, adopted a baby girl and named her, Tierney. Unfortunately, several months later, McCarthy died of acute [[hepatitis]], likely brought on by his lifelong struggle with alcoholism, in Bethesda Naval Hospital on May 2, 1957, at the age of 48.

McCarthy was given a state funeral attended by 70 senators. McCarthy was the first senator in 17 years to have funeral services in the Senate chamber. Thousands of people viewed the body in Washington D.C. and it is estimated more than 30,000 people from Wisconsin filed through St. Mary's Church in the senator's hometown of Appleton, Wisconsin, where the clergy performed a Solemn Pontifical Requiem before more than 100 priests and 2,000 others. Three senators, George Malone, William E. Jenner, and Herman Welker, had flown from Washington D.C. to Appleton on the plane carrying McCarthy's casket. [[Robert Kennedy]] attended the funeral in Wisconsin. McCarthy was buried in St. Mary's Parish Cemetery in Appleton and was survived by his wife, Jean, and their adopted daughter, Tierney.

== Retrospective views on McCarthy==

* In her popular book, ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism'', [[Ann Coulter]] said of McCarthy:

::"A half century later, when the only people who call themselves Communists are harmless cranks, it is difficult to grasp the importance of McCarthy's crusade. But there's a reason 'Communist' now sounds about as threatening as 'monarchist' -- and it's not because of intrepid ''New York Times'' editorials denouncing McCarthy and praising Harvard educated Soviet spies. McCarthy made it a disgrace to be a Communist. Domestic Communism could never recover."<ref>Coulter, Ann (2004). ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism''. Three Rivers Press. pg. 33. ISBN 1-400-05032-4.</ref>

When Ann Coulter asked [[Fox News]]’ [[Bill O'Reilly]] to identify a McCarthy-tormented innocent, O'Reilly responded with [[Dalton Trumbo]], one of [[House Un-American Activities Committee]]'s (HUAC) “Hollywood Ten”, not realizing [[HUAC]] investigated CPUSA infiltration in Hollywood and called “the Hollywood Ten” of writers, directors and producers to testify in 1947. McCarthy did not start his crusade against Communism until 1950.

* In 1953-54, McCarthy had been investigating lax security in the top secret facility at [[Ft. Monmouth]], N.J. He was attacked by [[liberals]] and [[Communists]] on the grounds that there were no security problems at Ft. Monmouth. Years later, in addressing the reason why the U.S. Army's top-secret operations at Fort Monmouth were quietly moved to Arizona, Senator [[Barry Goldwater]], in his 1979 book ''With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater'', Goldwater stated:

::"Carl Hayden, who in January 1955 became chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate, told me privately Monmouth had been moved because he and other members of the majority Democratic Party were convinced security at Monmouth had been penetrated. They didn't want to admit that McCarthy was right in his accusations. Their only alternative was to move the installation from New Jersey to a new location in Arizona."<ref>Goldwater, Barry M. (1979). ''With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater''. Morrow. ISBN 0-688-03547-7.</ref>

Even though McCarthy's investigations proved that his suspicions were right, for many years afterwards and continue to this day, liberals have spread the falsehood that McCarthy had found nothing at Fort Monmouth.

* Before the 1989 release of [[Carl Bernstein]]'s book, ''Loyalties: A Son's Memoir'', Albert Bernstein, Carl's father, expressed dismay at the revelations that the book would make regarding Communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other sectors of American society. Albert Bernstein stated:

::"You're going to prove [Sen. Joseph] McCarthy was right, because all he was saying is that the system was loaded with Communists. And he was right. ... I'm worried about the kind of book you're going to write and about cleaning up McCarthy. The problem is that everybody said he was a liar; you're saying he was right. ... I agree that the Party was a force in the country."<ref>Brennan, Phil (April 23, 2003). [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/22/225916.shtml ''The Left’s Lies That Never Die'']. NewsMax.com. Retrieved on 2007-06-20.</ref>

Both Albert Bernstein and Sylvia Bernstein, Carl's mother, had both been Communists since the 1940's. Albert Bernstein was a Union activist, while Sylvia Bernstein was a secretary for the War Department in the 1930's and, during the [[Clinton Administration]], volunteered in the White House, answering letters that were addressed to [[Hillary Clinton]]. During the 1950's, Sylvia Bernstein invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid revealing her party ties to Congress but worked openly in assisting convicted spies [[Julius Rosenberg]] and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed in 1953 for espionage.

It should be pointed out how many people followed McCarthy on his crusade, and that many pro-Americans still do. The majority of the sources that discredited Senator McCarthy originated from a large assault by the liberal media that managed to sway the majority of Americans against him at that time.

== Quotes ==
* "if liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America's interests." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=0hlSo3QC27oC&pg=PA72&dq=if+liberals+were+merely+stupid,+the+laws+of+probability+would+dictate+that+at+least+some+of+their+decisions+would+serve+America's+interests.&hl=en&ei=pyVjTdetBYH68AbDnbWKDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA A If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans - Page 72, Ann Coulter, 2008]</ref>

==Bibliography==
* Buckley, William F. ''McCarthy and His Enemies'' (1954), a major statement by a young conservative
* Crosby, S.J., Donald F. ''God, Church and Flag: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and the Catholic Church, 1950-1957'' (1978). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104464047 online edition]
* Fried, Richard M. ''Nightmare in Red: The McCarthy Era in Perspective'' 1990 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=79027083 online edition][[File:Joe-McC.jpg|thumb|250px]]
* Griffith, Robert. ''The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate'' 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=81177256 online edition]
* Herman, Arthur ''Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator'' (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-McCarthy-Reexamining-Americas-Senator/dp/0684836254/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964395&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search], very favorable to McCarthy
* Latham, Earl ''Communist Controversy in Washington: From the New Deal to McCarthy.'' (1969).
* O'Brien, Michael. ''McCarthy and McCarthyism in Wisconsin.'' (1981)
* Oshinsky, David M. ''A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy'' (1983), standard biography [http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-So-Immense-World-McCarthy/dp/019515424X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964395&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Reeves, Thomas C. ''The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography'' (1982), standard biography by a leading conservative scholar
===McCarthyism===
* Klehr, Harvey, John Earl Hayes and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov. ''The Secret World of American Communism'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Secret-World-American-Communism-Annals/dp/0300068557/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964654&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Klehr, Harvey, and Ronald Radosh. ''The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism'' (1996), suggests that Soviet spying in the postwar United States was extensive and that in the case of the arrest of the editors of the ''Amerasia'' magazine, and others, in 1945, naive liberals in the Justice and State departments blocked efforts to bring the spy ring to justice. [http://www.amazon.com/Amerasia-Spy-Case-Prelude-McCarthyism/dp/0807822450/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964692&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Earl Raab. ''The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790-1970'' (1970) (Chap. 6 "The 1950's: McCarthyism") [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65264140&oplinknum=16 online edition]
* Morgan, Ted. ''Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America.'' 2003. 685 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Reds-McCarthyism-Twentieth-Century-Ted-Morgan/dp/B000I0RTS8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964728&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* O'Reilly, Kenneth. ''Hoover and the Un-Americans: The FBI, HUAC, and the Red Menace'' 1983
* Ottanelli, Fraser M. '' The Communist Party of the United States: From the Depression to World War II'' 1991 [http://www.amazon.com/Communist-Party-United-States-Depression/dp/0813516137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964802&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Rausch, Scott Alan. "McCarthyism and Eisenhower's State Department, 1953-1961." PhD dissertation U. of Washington 2000. 231 pp. DAI 2000 61(6A): 2438-A. DA9976046
* Schrecker, Ellen. "McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism." ''Social Research'' 2004 71(4): 1041-1086. Issn: 0037-783x Fulltext: in Ebsco; summarizes her books on the subject
* Schrecker, Ellen. ''Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Many-Are-Crimes-McCarthyism-America/dp/0316774707/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964838&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schrecker, Ellen. ''The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents.'' (2d ed. 2002). 308 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Mccarthyism-History-Documents-Bedford/dp/0312294255/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964838&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Tanenhaus, Sam. ''Whittaker Chambers: A Biography'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Whittaker-Chambers-Biography-Library-Paperbacks/dp/0375751459/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964901&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Theoharis, Athan. ''Chasing Spies: How the FBI Failed in Counterintelligence but Promoted the Politics of McCarthyism in the Cold War Years.'' (2002). 307 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Spies-Counter-Intelligence-Promoted-McCarthyism/dp/1566634202/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964932&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Weinstein, Allen, and Vassiliev, Alexander. ''The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America: The Stalin Era'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Haunted-Wood-Espionage-America-Paperbacks/dp/0375755365/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205964983&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

===Media issues===
* Doherty, Thomas. ''Cold War, Cool Media: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Cool-Medium-McCarthyism/dp/0231129521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205965016&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dussere, Erik. "Subversion in the Swamp: Pogo and the Folk in the McCarthy Era." ''Journal of American Culture''2003 26(1): 134-141. Issn: 1542-7331 Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Murphy, Brenda. ''Congressional Theatre: Dramatizing McCarthyism on Stage, Film, and Television.'' (1999). 310 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Congressional-Theatre-Dramatizing-McCarthyism-Television/dp/0521891663/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205965050&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sbardellati, John and Shaw, Tony. "Booting a Tramp: Charlie Chaplin, the FBI, and the Construction of the Subversive Image in Red Scare America." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 2003 72(4): 495-530. Issn: 0030-8684 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684(200311)72%3A4%3C495%3ABATCCT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I in JSTOR]
* Strout, Lawrence N. ''Covering McCarthyism: How the Christian Science Monitor Handled Joseph R. McCarthy, 1950-1954.'' 1999. 171 pp. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/covering-mccarthyism-how-the-christian-science-monitor-handled-joseph-r-mccarthy-1950-1954-by-lawrence-n-strout.jsp online edition]

===Primary sources===
* Joe McCarthy. ''Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951'' U. S. Government Printing Office, 1953 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9034820 online edition]
* Joe McCarthy. ''McCarthyism: The Fight for America'' 1952 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97298720 online edition]
* Fried, ed. Albert. ''McCarthyism: The Great American Red Scare: a Documentary History'' 1997 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54810194 online edition]
* Schrecker, Ellen W. "Archival Sources for the Study of McCarthyism," ''The Journal of American History,'' Vol. 75, No. 1 (Jun., 1988), pp. 197-208 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723(198806)75%3A1%3C197%3AASFTSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T at JSTOR]

==See also==


*[[David Greenglass]]
*[[Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations]]
*[[Institute of Pacific Relations]]
*[[Amerasia]]
*[[William Henry Taylor]]
*[[Anatoli Gorsky]]
*[[Annie Lee Moss]]
*[[Morton Sobell]]
*[[Soviet spies in America (1921-1948)]]
*[[Larry McDonald]] Congressional anti-communist successor


==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==

#Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 Murrow, McCarthy, and the media]. Renew America.
#Bayley, Edwin R. (1981). ''Joe McCarthy and the Press''. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.
#Brennan, Phil (April 23, 2003). [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/22/225916.shtml ''The Left’s Lies That Never Die'']. NewsMax.com.
#Buckley, Jr., William F. and Bozell, L. Brent (1954, 1995 Printing). ''McCarthy & His Enemies, The Record And Its Meaning''. Regnery Publishing Inc. ISBN 0-89526-472-2.
#Cohn, Roy (1968). ''McCarthy''. The New American Library, Inc. ASIN B000KIR8FC.
#[http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/Communist_54.html Communist Control Act of 1954] U.S. Statutes at Large, Public Law 637, Chp. 886, p. 775-780.
#Coulter, Ann (2004). ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism''. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 1-400-05032-4.
#Drummey, James J. (May 11, 1987). [http://www.jbs.org/node/632 ''The Real McCarthy Record'']. The New American.
#Evans, Medford (1970). ''The Assassination of Joe McCarthy''. Western Islands. ISBN 0-88279-217-2.
#[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/McCarthy_Transcripts.htm Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations, Transcripts] (2003). U.S. Government Printing Office.
#Fox, Jr., John F., FBI Historian, (Presented at the 2005 Symposium on Cryptologic History, Washington, D.C., 10/27/2005). [http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/foxpaper.htm ''In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence'']. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
#Goldwater, Barry M. (1979). ''With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater''. Morrow. ISBN 0-688-03547-7.
#Haynes, John Earl and Klehr, Harvey (2003). ''In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage''. Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-088-X.
#Herman, Arthur (1999). ''Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator''. Free Press. ISBN 0-684-83625-4.
#Kazin, Michael (1998). ''The Populist Persuasion: An American History''. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-801-48558-4.
#Lately, Thomas (1973). ''When Even Angels Wept''. Morrow. page 466. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.
#McCarthy, Joseph (1961). ''America's Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall''. American Opinion (Reprint Series). ASIN B0007EKWVQ.
#McCarthy, Joseph (1953). ''Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951''. U. S. Government Printing Office. ISBN 0-87968-308-2.
#McCarthy, Joseph (1952). ''McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend and Foe''. The Devin-Adair Company. ASIN B0007DRBZ2.
#[http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950], telegram.
#Morgan, T. (Nov./Dec. 2003). ''Judge Joe: How the youngest judge in Wisconsin's history became the country's most notorious senator''. Legal Affairs.
#[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22 Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45]
#Reeves, Thomas C. (1997). ''The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography''. Madison Books. ISBN 1-56833-101-0.
#Rusher, William A. (1968). ''Special Counsel''. Arlington House. ASIN B0006BUY2M.
#Utley, Freda (1951). ''The China Story''. Chicago, H. Regnery Co. ASIN B00005VL2B.
#Wicker, Tom (2006). ''Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy''. Harcourt, Inc. ISBN 0-15101-082-X
#Woods, Randall Bennett (1995). ''Fulbright: A Biography''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-48262-3.

==External Links==

*[http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/victory.html America's Retreat From Victory], by Senator Joe McCarthy.
*[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the media'']. Renew America.
*[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/McCarthy_Transcripts.htm Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations, Transcripts]. (2003). U.S. Government Printing Office.
*[http://foia.fbi.gov/venona/venona.pdf FBI Venona file]
*[http://education-research.org/CSR/Holdings/Silvermaster/summaries.htm Silvermaster File Summaries]
*[http://boomp3.com/m/91d184a59074 Joseph McCarthy: Address To The Chicago Irish Fellowship Club] (listen online)
*[http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/mccarthy.htm Joseph McCarthy FBI FOIA File], 4,296 pages.
*[http://www.marquette.edu/library/collections/archives/Mss/JRM/mss-JRM.html Joseph McCarthy Papers, Marquette University Library]
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=455 McCarthyism: Waging the Cold War in America], by M. Stanton Evans, ''Human Events'', 05/30/1997. Updated 05/08/2003.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''See It Now, Edward R. Murrow report on Senator McCarthy'']. (March 9, 1954). CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540406.html ''See It Now, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's Reply to Edward R. Murrow'']. (April 6, 1954}. CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.
*[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_3.pdf Oral Interview with Ruth Young Watt], Chief Clerk, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 1948-1979. United States Senate Historical Office. Retrieved from www.senate.gov 24 June 2007.

[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Communism]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:McCarthy, Joseph}}
[[Category:Espionage]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Kennedy Family]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Wisconsin]]
[[Category:1950s]]

Hawthorne effect

2012-08-28T16:11:21Z

Richman: more accurate

The '''Hawthorne effect''' is that changes in people's behavior are only related to the special social situation and social treatment they receive. The effect has been studied and demonstrated in factories.
[[Category:Psychology]]