McCarthy and McCarthyism

Was The Christian Science Monitor a front for the Communist conspiracy? Most certainly, according to Joseph McCarthy, the late junior senator from Wisconsin and namesake of McCarthyism.

McCarthy, and the witchhunt that failed to uncover any Communists in the government yet destroyed a number of lives during its course, struck at the very institution that prides itself on challenging government -- the press. "The Fourth Estate," as it was first called following the French Revolution, presumably protected by the First Amendment, found itself the target of McCarthy's powerful yet groundless attacks. When the press decided to challenge McCarthy, it was treated to his grueling punishment. As with his attacks against such noted Americans as George C. Marshall and Adlai Stevenson as well as the obscure bureaucrats, Sen. McCarthy was protected by the Constitutional immunity granted to senators and congressmen to be free from libel suits. McCarthy survived by never leaving the shelter of his immunity, though he repeatedly sued the unprotected for alleged defamation against his own character. McCarthy challenged one reporter, "You want me to repeat what I said without Congressional immunity so they can sue me. That's the Communist technique, to bring suits of libel."

One example of the intimidation of the press, which continued throughout McCarthy's reign, involved James A. Weschler, editor of the New York Post. On April 25, 1953, Weschler was called before a closed session of McCarthy's investigating committee looking into the editor's "student days." Weschler, who's Post opposed McCarthy, called the action "attempted intimidation."

The editorially conservative Christian Science Monitor and its staff were not spared from the Communist-hunter's attacks. They were the target of the Senator's tactics -- condemnation by comparison and by association. David Oshinsky documented McCarthy's anti-press campaign in his book A Conspiracy So Immense:

McCarthy's favorite ploy, however, was to compare hostile newspapers with the Daily Worker. By 1951, this category included the New York Post, Milwaukee Journal, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Madison Capital-Times, Denver Post, Christian Science Monitor. For good measure, he added The Nation, The New Republic, Time, Life, and Newsweek.

In 1952, Jack Anderson (then a young associate of the famous columnist Drew Pearson) and Ronald May compiled a critical biography of McCarthy. Anderson and May summarized McCarthy's strategy against the press:

By Joe McCarthy's count, the Communists appeared to control more newspapers in the United States than in Russia. And Joe was discovering new Communist mouthpieces just as fast as they joined in the editorial clamor against him.

In his anti-newspaper campaign, he started with the Madison Capital-Times and the Milwaukee Journal. Then he added the Washington Post, the New York Post, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Portland Oregonian, and even the Christian Science Monitor. "They, of course, criticize Communism generally to obtain a false reputation of being anti-Communist," Joe explained in a booklet of questions and answers. "They then go all out to assassinate the character and destroy the reputation of anyone who tries to dig out the really dangerous under-cover Communists."

 

The Christian Science Monitor and Richard Strout

Richard L. Strout, one of the Monitor's most distinguished journalists, incurred the wrath of McCarthy. Strout (who also became famous for the "TRB" column in The New Republic) called for McCarthy's dismissal from the Senate as early as August 1951. The journalist wrote:

I think McCarthy should be ousted for abusing the necessary privilege of Senatorial immunity [from libel actions] and introducing into American politics -- at a time of extreme global danger -- the Hitler technique of the Big Lie.

Strout's words were similar to the courageous statements of Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Republican of Maine. Much earlier, on June 1, 1950, Smith delivered her famous "Declaration of Conscience" speech. Although she did not refer to McCarthy by name, she implied his presence in "the four horsemen of calumny -- fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear." The following year, in October of 1951, Sen. Smith declared (reprinted in the Monitor):

Demagogues who shout the loudest about communism and who smear anyone who disagrees with them by calling them Communists are the foremost disciples of the top technique of communism -- the big lie. They can be just as great a danger to your country and mine -- to your freedom and my freedom -- as the Communist disciples. They can be even more dangerous in that they are not as easily detected and exposed as the Communists are.

The Monitor's editorial stance was not much different. In 1952, the same year the newspaper was rated third in the nation (after the New York Times and St. Louis Post-Dispatch) by newspaper publishers for "most nearly approaching the high ideals of journalism," the Monitor's editors wrote:

If Congress does not itself curb McCarthyism and official character assassins cannot be shamed into facing the libel laws, then the people must apply at the polls an effective penalty for unjust accusation.

Strout wrote a regular column for the editorial page from his post at the Monitor's Washington, D.C. bureau. Among one of his "Intimate Messages from Washington" was a piece entitled "Charges and Countercharges." In the column, Strout summarized the controversy around McCarthy's original accusation, made over a West Virginia radio station, of 205 or 57 or some other number of communists in the State Department. The columnist also discussed the demand of Senator William Benton, Democrat of Connecticut, for a Senate vote to censure McCarthy. Strout wrote:

The essence of it (Benton's proposal) is that the Senate should explore the McCarthy charges and determine for itself whether they are isolated cases and mere slips of rhetoric or (as he affirms) a deliberate and "calculated" pattern of "deceit and falsehood." Obviously if the latter, the Senate should act.

The Monitor, however, was not always so openly anti-McCarthy. For example, in July 1953, the newspaper carried an extensive piece on Communist infiltration of education. In a full page (broadsheet) set of articles, complete with photographs, the paper reprinted the names and descriptions of educators who had claimed their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. McCarthy's insinuation, often carried uncritically by the press, was that those who refused to answer questions must be hiding something. As a result, at least one school established the policy of firing any educator who claimed the Fifth Amendment. The Monitor accurately but uncritically reported the accusations, in effect perpetuating the McCarthy tactic of guilt by innuendo.

The Monitor's editorial stance generally was balanced, walking the tight-rope between fighting Communism and fighting demagoguery. Erwin Canham, the paper's editor, in his weekly radio broadcast (over the ABC network), stated, "In our resistance to irresponsible demagoguery we should not protect any slightest loophole for Communist penetration."

McCarthy Reacts

In retaliation to the editorials, McCarthy set out to smear Strout. The Senator issued a report anchored in Strout's guilt by association. As Oshinsky wrote: "Richard Strout of the Christian Science Monitor was admonished for 'shaking the hand of Rob Hall of the Communist Daily Worker.'" Anderson and May reprinted most of McCarthy's "ominous report," which extended the attack to the newspaper itself:

I saw Richard L. Strout of the Christian Science Monitor shaking the hand of Rob Hall of the Communist Daily Worker. As I witnessed that comradely handshake between an American newspaperman and the reporter for the official Communist newspaper, there flashed across my mind the story of Gunther Stein, who had been the Christian Science Monitor's correspondent in China. General MacArthur's intelligence headquarters had exposed the fact that Gunther Stein was a Communist and an "indispensable and important member" of the famous Sorge Communist spy ring. I thought that Stein had cleverly deceived the Christian Science Monitor when they made him their China correspondent. But now I began to wonder as I watched Strout of the Christian Science Monitor and Rob Hall of the Daily Worker cheek by jowl...and then read the venomous, distorted, parallel stories which they both wrote.

"Strout has emphatically denied ever meeting Hall." Erwin Canham, the Monitor's editor, also replied to the accusations against Strout and the charges about Stein. In his history of the newspaper, Canham wrote: "In one of Senator McCarthy's books there is an invidious reference to Richard L. Strout. It is patently false and misleading. It was at once denied in the paper's columns with convincing evidence." At the time, Canham stated:

Gunther Stein was never on the staff of the Christian Science Monitor. However, in 1937 on the recommendation of William Henry Chamberlin, a distinguished anti-Communist writer, we began to accept special correspondence from Mr. Stein. We ceased this relationship, and published no further dispatches from Mr. Stein in China, at a date long before publication of the spy charges against him. During all the period of his writing for us, Mr. Stein was highly regarded in the profession and enjoyed the confidence of the Nationalist Government of China.

In his history of the newspaper, Commitment to Freedom, Canham addressed the "infiltration" of the paper by Stein, Wilfred G. Burchett (an Australian now widely known to be a highly biased writer), and David E. Walker (who admitted in 1957 to being a British agent while writing for the paper during the Second World War). Canham, perhaps to demonstrate the Monitor's anti-Communist credentials, also included stories of William Henry Chamberlin (the Moscow correspondent) and Reuben Markham. Of the latter, Canham wrote: "The various threats of communism were exposed in the Monitor's columns by nobody more effective than Reuben Markham."

At the time of the attacks, Henry Hayward was the Monitor's Far East Correspondent. On his return to Boston, the headquarters of the international newspaper, he joined an internal investigation into the reporting of Stein and Burchett. According to Hayward, he was part of a team that reviewed all the articles written by the two stringers (people who are paid by the story rather than regular staff members) to determine if their stories were biased in favor of communism. The search came up empty-handed. The team could find no evidence of "Communist influence."

Ronald May, the co-author of the biography that compiled quotes such as Strout's, came in for even more scathing attack from McCarthy. Oshinsky tells the following story about May's experience:

Joe often displayed real ingenuity in striking back at his critics. While headlining a banquet in Milwaukee, he spotted a young writer, Ronald May, who had just co-authored a biography critical of him. Discarding his prepared text, McCarthy complained of being harassed by Communists. Why, one of them was now in the audience, he said, sitting right down in front. "He aroused such feeling against this 'spy,'" May wrote later, "that the audience soon resembled a mob. Then he named myself, and dared me to stand up. I stood up, and pandemonium broke loose." May tried to escape, but his path was blocked by one of Joe's bodyguards. Retreating slowly, he was jostled and verbally abused by angry diners.

The Milwaukee Sentinel, a part of the pro-McCarthy chain of papers owned by William Randolph Hearst, issued the following headline: "McCarthy Points Finger at Snooper: Charges He Is Seeking Smear Material."

When accusations of Communist influence failed to halt criticism by the press, McCarthy used the tool his victims were constitutionally deprived of -- the libel suit. In an October 19, 1951, editorial, the Syracuse Post-Standard questioned McCarthy's relationship with a convicted spy, Charles Davis. The Senator responded with a $500,000 suit. He told the newspaper's lawyers, "I decided sooner or later one of these left-wing smear articles would go so far we'd have to teach (the editor) a lesson. Your paper went even farther than the Daily Worker."

The pretrial examination was classic McCarthy. In response to a question about the Milwaukee Journal, which he had already labelled as Communist, the Senator said he refused to read it "unless ordered by the court." He gave the reason, "I would know the line they would follow -- the Daily Worker line." He then added, "I read substantially the same editorial either in the Daily Worker or the Washington Post." The New York Supreme Court judge, Jesse Kingsley, was bewildered. He asked the witness, "Are you confused between these two papers?" McCarthy answered, "They parallel each other pretty close."

McCarthy used the forum to denounce other magazines and newspapers, including Time, the Saturday Evening Post, and the Monitor. The defense attorneys attempted to cross examine the Senator about the Monitor. "Shown an editorial from the Christian Science Monitor, and asked whether he would consider the Monitor 'a left-wing smear paper' Senator McCarthy evasively replied, 'I can't answer yes or no.'"

Only a few months earlier, Editor and Publisher, the trade journal of the newspaper industry, finally reacted to McCarthy's attempts to intimidate the press. It declared:

It is one thing to answer or attack critics -- it is another thing to attempt to intimidate and silence them. And in this case the dignity and influence of the United States Senate is being perverted to this end. The whole thing reeks of totalitarianism.

In March of 1952, McCarthy filed a slander suit against a fellow senator, William Benton, the Democrat from Connecticut who had proposed a vote of censure. McCarthy accused Benton of "libel, slander and conspiracy" after Benton claimed McCarthy committed perjury, fraud and "calculated deceit in claiming Communists had infiltrated the government. Benton agreed to waive his congressional immunity against libel, something McCarthy never did. McCarthy filed a personal suit, asking for two million dollars in damages, and claiming he would serve as his own attorney, "so I personally will be able to cross-examine Senator Benton." In his complaint, McCarthy accused Benton of acting "as a defense witness for persons attacked for security and other reasons, and has used every means at his command to protect persons who are bad security risks for the State Department and elsewhere." That fall McCarthy was re-elected and Benton was defeated. McCarthy dropped the suit on March 6, 1954.

Four years earlier, McCarthy led the campaign to defeat Senator Millard Tydings, Democrat of Maryland. Tydings had dared to challenge McCarthy during the first of McCarthy's loyalty hearings. The dramatic 1950 defeat of the Maryland Senator led to an investigation in charges of corruption by McCarthy. A Senate subcommittee heard allegations that McCarthy was somehow involved in "a composite or faked photograph purportedly showing Senator Tydings talking to Earl Browder, Communist leader."

At the same time McCarthy was bringing his libel suit against Benton, Strout was documenting how McCarthy was attacking Benton and twisting his words. Strout summarized, "Mr. McCarthy was offering evidence (on the Edward R. Murrow television show of March 16) to suit his own purpose and it was false evidence." Strout went on to describe how McCarthy was intimidating the press:

Mr. McCarthy has meanwhile started a maneuver against publications which attack him. He has urged the retail food dealers of Milwaukee to boycott one of his Wisconsin critics, the Milwaukee Journal. He is widely credited with having lost columnist Drew Pearson his radio sponsor. He has recently written to Henry Luce, the publisher of Time and Life magazines, warning him that he is preparing to organize a boycott of his advertisers.

These tactics have caused the New York Daily News (no enemy of Mr. McCarthy in the past) to dub him "Low Blow Joe." Editor and Publisher comments, "The whole thing reeks of totalitarianism."

 

McCarthy's Fall

On December 2, 1954, the U. S. Senate, by a vote of 67-22, censured McCarthy. As Strout had urged three years earlier, the Senate censured the Wisconsin Senator because he had "repeatedly abused the committee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate" and "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."

After his passing, Jean McCarthy described her late husband as a true believer, "which undoubtedly was true...the senator came to believe in the cause he had stumbled upon in 1950. His enemies never accepted this fact." Joe McCarthy and his ideology came to embody the very totalitarianism he was committed to exposing.

The Christian Science Monitor was just one victim, primarily in response to Richard Strout's outspoken editorials. Unlike many of the individual targets of McCarthy's witchhunt, most of the newspapers survived, some actually increasing their circulation as they challenged "Tailgunner Joe," McCarthy's self-endowed sobriquet. In the end, it was Joe's tail that was gunned down. Unfortunately, it took a slow-to-anger Senate, who's own immunity allowed McCarthy to thrive, to extinguish his flame. He died on May 2, 1957, from the effects of alcoholism. This was not a shining period for the Monitor, which wavered under McCarthy's onslaught in its defense of Strout and its attacks on McCarthyism.