Historical Parallels: McCarthyism & “Trumpism”
“Americans have a tendency to believe that when there’s a problem there must be a solution.” — Henry Kissinger
Our quest as Americans for a solution to our problems, whether unemployment, terrorism, or a generally unfair system, has periodically made us susceptible to men who capture our attention with ambitiously simple answers.
Joe McCarthy is a prime example of this. He was a populist politician who latched onto an issue in pursuit of political power. He blamed the government for failing to address threats, proposing extreme action in the name of security and taking advantage of fear to make unfounded claims.
In the Wheeling speech, which ignited his career, McCarthy claimed that communists had infiltrated the State Department despite failing to produce “any solid evidence that there was even one communist” in the department. Despite this lack of proof, McCarthy continued to manipulate anxiety towards communism and nuclear warfare for political gain.
Donald Trump, when announcing his presidential campaign, declared: “Our country is in serious trouble.” He proceeded to explain: “They’re [Mexicans] bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” In doing so, he emboldened concern over the security of our southern border. He continued to target sources of fear, adding:
“Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump. Nobody.”
Much like McCarthy, Trump appeals to the white working class by preying on feelings of being forgotten or ignored by figures in Washington.
Trump proclaimed to his supporters: “I’ve dealt with them [politicians] all my life… They will never make America great again.” Unlike “them,” Trump claims to understand the plight of American workers — he attempts to echo their thoughts: “‘What’s going on? I just want a job. Just get me a job. I don’t need the rhetoric. I want a job.’”
Both men emphasized a looming threat to Americans — for McCarthy, it was the threat of communism and for Trump, Islamic extremism. In doing so, they created a void in society which only they could fill.
McCarthy soon realized that the more he accused (with little regard to the truth), the more power and notoriety he gained. His influence came through propaganda, focusing on a big issue, framing it simply, and repeating it over and over. He obsessed over the vulnerability of a government infiltrated by communists. In Trump’s case, he consumed supporters with concerns over a weak border and flawed immigration, which endanger our economy, safety, and general well-being.
When questioned about his tweet that wrongly linked a protester to ISIS, Trump redirected the conversation, instead focusing on the protester’s treatment of the American flag and questioning the interviewer’s own respect for the flag. When further prodded about sharing false information, Trump countered, “What do I know about it? All I know is what’s on the internet.” These responses utilized two key strategies: deflection and an indifference towards the truth.
Trump, with a long history of being in the spotlight, understands how to get attention. “[McCarthy] knew about media, and also that he could use this new medium of television to promote his image, and his cause.” Their mutual understanding of and relationship with the media proved indispensable to their rise of power. Much like Trump, McCarthy freely expressed bias towards publications, favoring ones that wrote positively about him and degrading those that didn’t.
McCarthy and Trump managed to control the national narrative, using opposing or negative press as a means of exemplifying the elitist, liberal media that felt threatened by their ideas.
Trump’s antagonistic relationship with the press aligns so closely with McCarthy’s that they both derogatorily renamed the New York Times in an attempt to attack its reputation:
McCarthy referred to it as the “New York Daily Worker” (an allusion to communism), and Trump has taken to calling it the “failing New York Times”.
During his brief political career, McCarthy made so many baseless claims that by the time journalists had fact-checked one, numerous others had popped up in its place and the public’s attention had already shifted.
PolitiFact, which has won a Pulitzer Prize for its fact-checking initiative, currently has 6 pages of false claims made by Trump (compared with 4 for Obama, 2 for Hillary Clinton, and 2 for Ted Cruz).
In devaluing and delegitimizing the mainstream, especially politicians and the press, McCarthy and Trump created an environment that allowed them to make claims without the burden of verifiability, and those speaking out against them were framed as opponents to the American public who they claimed to represent.
To shield themselves from criticism, they leaned on their relationship with the common American. McCarthy claimed to be an advocate of Americans’ “good common sense and inherent decency”, and Trump declared at his inauguration: “…we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the people.”
Their rise to power followed a similar formula: appeal to populism through a threat to security that is large, intangible, and looming; counter criticism as biased or conspiratorial; offer oneself as The Solution: I can fix these huge problems, not those disconnected, corrupt politicians in Washington.
McCarthy and Trump both spoke to valid concerns: security and economy. But utilizing divisive blame to offer quick and simple solutions to fear, which is in its nature irrational, will inevitably cause problems.
For McCarthy, as he gained power through notoriety, he became bolder with his accusations and eventually picked a fight he couldn’t win — with the army.
Trump has exceeded the power and influence of McCarthy, and unlike McCarthy, the targets of his criticism go well beyond our borders during a time of increasing globalization.
So that fight that’s too big for him may go beyond our country’s means of damage control. And in doing so, it is not his ego or reputation that is at risk but the welfare and future of our country.
You can follow me on Twitter if you’d like.
