Has this country ever been more divided? Y/N

[Stepping Razor]

Denny, this is all good material. Part of my dissertation had to do with the role of the CPUSA in American life in the 1930s-50s, so all of Harvey Klehr's and Johne Earl Haynes's books are on my bookshelf (and very well thumbed). Radosh I don't think is at quite their level of scholarship; like many other ex-Communists who broke with the party and then turned ferociously anticommunist, I think his perspective and judgment is often clouded a bit by his own emotional investment in the subject. (In other words, because the CPUSA was the dominant force in his life -- for good or (mostly) for ill -- he overstates the CPUSA's significance in American life in general.)

Anyways, I'm not unfamiliar with any of this history, and I'm not at all naive about what the CPUSA was and what it did. That said, I think that the CPUSA's power and influence were (and still are by folks like Klehr and Haynes) wildly overstated. There were never very many Communists inside the US. (Party membership maxed out at well under 100,000 nationwide during WWII.) The few Communists that did exist were always hated and feared by their countrymen; if you're forced to read thousands of pages of microfilmed local Party section documents -- the ones that Klehr and Haynes excerpt from in their books, and the ones that formed the backbone of my dissertation -- it becomes quite clear that the Communists spent most of their time just trying to avoid being arrested, attacked, infiltrated, or otherwise blown up by the infinitely more powerful anticommunist forces in American society. By the mid-1950s -- in large part because McCarthyism was extremely successful, whether or not we think it was just or ethical -- the CPUSA virtually ceased to exist. But from the very beginning, it was a totally beleaguered and kind of pathetic organization.

I guess what I'm getting at is that -- in my judgment, at least -- is that the CPUSA was never a real threat to American society, American democracy, or American capitalism. It was a tiny group on the fringe of society with no real power. Yes, there was a sprinkling of Communists in various prominent places in American life -- from Alger Hiss in the State Department to Paul Robeson in the radio theatre, from Harry Bridges in the West Coast longshore union to Ring Lardner and Dalton Trumbo in Hollywood. But... so what? None of them did (or could have, in any remotely realistic scenario) move the United States toward Communism. There was just zero chance it would ever happen. The political and economic institutions and traditions of our free society were far, far too strong for Communists to damage them.

During the Cold War, Communists in Moscow were a very real, very existential threat to our nation. Communists in the USA, though? They were a tiny band of fringe characters, not a real threat. (If we had gone into WWIII, they may well have sided with the Soviets... but I have no doubt they would have all been immediately rounded up and sent to camps for the duration; they were all under heavy surveillance at all times. Even the city of Portland police department had a whole "Red Squad" department with no purpose other than to spy on alleged Communists.) America was a much greater threat to the CPUSA than the CPUSA was to America.

So that's where we disagree. Have there been Hollywood films sympathetic to liberal or left causes over the years? Of course. Just as there have been many Hollywood films sympathetic to conservative or right-wing causes over the years. For every Warren Beatty, there's a John Wayne. But to make the jump from a few CPUSA guys active in Hollywood fifty years ago to a claim that "An Inconvenient Truth" or "Bowling for Columbine" is somehow a piece of propaganda rooted in an unbroken Hollywood tradition of Communist subversion? No way.

SR

 

[Jack RamsaysPants]

I don't know that we are more divided, but the division in my mind is causing people to not think but instead choose by that division. I don't mean to offend anyone in here, but many of the Obama backers I have encountered know very little other than he's not a republican and therefore not tied to Bush in any way. Literally I had a supporter ring my doorbell the other day and tell me that I should vote for Senator Obama not just because he's a good speaker but because we have a democratic Congress and in order for Government to be successful we need a Democratic President as well.

I proceeded to tell her that the worst thing that can happen for America is to have an Imbalance in favor of one party or the other. That fuels the fire of partisan politics polarizing every Washington into a Black and White atmosphere while the rest of us live in a grey world.

To me a 2 party system is flawed, terribly flawed. It either needs to be 1 and done or best of 3. IOW we either need no parties at all, simply politicians that run against each other regardless of affiliation to a political party or we need a legitimate 3rd moderate party.

The fact of the matter is both parties present good ideals and bad ideals, the problem is due to the division the division is the topic at hand often is overlooked in favor of who am I siding with and how will it help/hurt my position. As someone mentioned there are a ton of political games that are played, which fucking pisses me off, because it's the well being of me my family and friends that they are playing with, people who supposedly are supposed to represent and protect me.

 

[maxiep]

It's funny when Democrats invoke John F. Kennedy. If you looked at his policies today, he'd be on the right wing of the Republican Party. And as for the Bush Administration's policy of pre-emption, he'd be all over it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, this is all good material. Part of my dissertation had to do with the role of the CPUSA in American life in the 1930s-50s, so all of Harvey Klehr's and Johne Earl Haynes's books are on my bookshelf (and very well thumbed). Radosh I don't think is at quite their level of scholarship; like many other ex-Communists who broke with the party and then turned ferociously anticommunist, I think his perspective and judgment is often clouded a bit by his own emotional investment in the subject. (In other words, because the CPUSA was the dominant force in his life -- for good or (mostly) for ill -- he overstates the CPUSA's significance in American life in general.)

Anyways, I'm not unfamiliar with any of this history, and I'm not at all naive about what the CPUSA was and what it did. That said, I think that the CPUSA's power and influence were (and still are by folks like Klehr and Haynes) wildly overstated. There were never very many Communists inside the US. (Party membership maxed out at well under 100,000 nationwide during WWII.) The few Communists that did exist were always hated and feared by their countrymen; if you're forced to read thousands of pages of microfilmed local Party section documents -- the ones that Klehr and Haynes excerpt from in their books, and the ones that formed the backbone of my dissertation -- it becomes quite clear that the Communists spent most of their time just trying to avoid being arrested, attacked, infiltrated, or otherwise blown up by the infinitely more powerful anticommunist forces in American society. By the mid-1950s -- in large part because McCarthyism was extremely successful, whether or not we think it was just or ethical -- the CPUSA virtually ceased to exist. But from the very beginning, it was a totally beleaguered and kind of pathetic organization.

I guess what I'm getting at is that -- in my judgment, at least -- is that the CPUSA was never a real threat to American society, American democracy, or American capitalism. It was a tiny group on the fringe of society with no real power. Yes, there was a sprinkling of Communists in various prominent places in American life -- from Alger Hiss in the State Department to Paul Robeson in the radio theatre, from Harry Bridges in the West Coast longshore union to Ring Lardner and Dalton Trumbo in Hollywood. But... so what? None of them did (or could have, in any remotely realistic scenario) move the United States toward Communism. There was just zero chance it would ever happen. The political and economic institutions and traditions of our free society were far, far too strong for Communists to damage them.

During the Cold War, Communists in Moscow were a very real, very existential threat to our nation. Communists in the USA, though? They were a tiny band of fringe characters, not a real threat. (If we had gone into WWIII, they may well have sided with the Soviets... but I have no doubt they would have all been immediately rounded up and sent to camps for the duration; they were all under heavy surveillance at all times. Even the city of Portland police department had a whole "Red Squad" department with no purpose other than to spy on alleged Communists.) America was a much greater threat to the CPUSA than the CPUSA was to America.

So that's where we disagree. Have there been Hollywood films sympathetic to liberal or left causes over the years? Of course. Just as there have been many Hollywood films sympathetic to conservative or right-wing causes over the years. For every Warren Beatty, there's a John Wayne. But to make the jump from a few CPUSA guys active in Hollywood fifty years ago to a claim that "An Inconvenient Truth" or "Bowling for Columbine" is somehow a piece of propaganda rooted in an unbroken Hollywood tradition of Communist subversion? No way.

SR

I actually have little problem with there being a Communist Party in the USA or that people join it. I am no fan of what McCarthys and the Kennedys and Nixons of the time did.

I spent most of my life believing that Alger Hiss was demonized, persecuted, and prosecuted by Nixon because Nixon was a vicious asshole seeking to advance his career. I believed that the story of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was a tragic love story and that they were innocent. But based upon the scholarly work of people looking at the documents released by the Russians after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there's no way anyone who's intellectually honest can believe those things anymore. The documents detail numerous individuals, how much they paid, tasks assigned to them, and just how the communists actually did infiltrate the govt. at high levels. As someone who tries to be intellectually honest, I can hate what McCarthy did (his methods) but I can also recognize there was a there there.

I don't see any reason to dismiss scholarly work because the author was a Communist. This is good reading:
http://genus.cogia.net/
It is a book by Bella V. Dodd, former president of the CPUSA, and it details the party's agenda and achievements - not much about being unable to do anything but avoid being arrested.

I happen to be a huge fan of M*A*S*H, the book, the movie, and the TV show. The humor, acting, and connection with the characters is top notch. There were always a few things about it that jumped out at me as being pretty obvious. First, they sucked you in with the humor and once they got your attention, they laid some serious political or moral message on you. Second, everything USA was the butt of a joke; anyone military was put down, the military brass were portrayed as idiots and philanderers, and Frank Burns (bible thumper!) was portrayed as if he were the enemy. Third, there was an obvious sympathy with the communist enemies throughout - not only were they medically treated because they're human beings (not a bad thing), but they were portrayed as smart, funny, and the equals of the main cast. It is hardly subtle in its put down of the USA.

The use of alegory in numerous films post WW II is more often subtle than not. Many stories mirror the land (robber) barons vs. proletariat or "workers of the world unite!" kind of appeal made by Marx on behalf of Communism. The self congratulatory method of giving Oscars to these films reinforced their credibility, another propaganda technique.

The masses may have been duped, but it's the generations of film makers that followed who were immersed in these products as "excellence" make the work of the Communists still an influence. Though there are obvious propaganda pieces that glorify (make martyrs of) the blacklisted actual communists, making it tougher to figure out who's a "sympathiser" (for lack of a better word) and who's oblivious to the basis of the craft.

Yes, Michael Moore's anti-USA works are from this school of Hollywood. Gore's film was a bad powerpoint presentation based upon bad science and filled with untruths yet wins Oscars and even netted him the Nobel Prize - it's not shocking that peoples outside the USA might be anti-USA but who cares, really?

There's an obvious Jewish influence on both Hollywood and the Communist movement. I'm not saying this in any way to empathize with Nazi or Neo-Nazi thought or conspiracy theories. Which of Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer wasn't Jewish? Many of the initial group of revolutionaries in the Russian Revolution were Jews, as well. The irony is that in Hollywood, these people were the most brutal of capitalists! Studio contracts for the actors, huge profits of course, and ownership of the industry from production through distribution (the studios owned the theaters until the govt. broke up their monopoly).

My thesis is simple and well supported. Hollywood was infiltrated in the 1920s by the CPUSA and ultimately dominated by it through about 1960. There are certainly a handful of exceptions to the rule, but that does not change this fact.