DOCSLIB.ORG

Working Paper How Leaders Get the Worst out of People: the Threat Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Working Paper How Leaders Get the Worst out of People: the Threat Of Working Paper 2020/60/EFE How Leaders Get the Worst Out of People: The Threat of Hate-based Populism Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries INSEAD, [email protected] Taking Jair Bolsonaro, the President of Brazil, as case example, this article explores various manifestations of hatred, viewed from both an individual and societal perspective. Distinguishing between interpersonal and intergroup hatred, it is pointed out that hatred is like a contagious disease that has contributed to many atrocities. The article also discusses how hate-based populism uses ideologies as a bonding mechanism, describing the ways in which populist leaders use hatred to create ingroups and outgroups, uniting their constituencies through the use of the defense mechanisms of projection and splitting, and using outgroups as scapegoats. The dynamics of dehumanization are also explored. In addition, the article shows how the rise of social networking has made hatred more pernicious. It ends with suggestions about how hatred can be transcended and ways to overcome destructive feelings. Key Words: Hatred; Anger; Contempt; Envy; Splitting; Scapegoating; Projection; Interpersonal; Intergroup; Ingroup; Outgroup; Contagion; Ideology; Dehumanization; Social Networking; Populist Leader; Demagogue. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3741909 Working Paper is the author’s intellectual property. It is intended as a means to promote research to interested readers. Its content should not be copied or hosted on any server without written permission from [email protected] Find more INSEAD papers at https://www.insead.edu/faculty-research/research Copyright © 2020 INSEAD Hate, in the long run, is about as nourishing as cyanide. —Kurt Vonnegut Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat. —Henry Emerson Fosdick Hate is a bottomless pit: I will pour and pour. —Euripides “No one has better leveraged hatred, fear and frustration than Bolsonaro. He has done so especially among sections of the white middle-class, who have suffered the erosion of their buying power and watched as the black community refused to return to its historical subaltern position. And especially among men challenged by women who decried sexual harassment and misogynistic jokes. Perceiving that its cultural, racial and class privileges were threatened, a slice of Brazilian society has sensed quicksand beneath its feet The price is being paid, in human lives and with Brazil being made into a global pariah, for this investment in hatred. In his election victory speech last year, Bolsonaro promised ‘liberation from socialism, inverted values … and political correctness’. His own advocacy of violence, including praise for torture and the assassination of opponents, is interpreted by his followers as ‘authenticity.’ He has spoken out against black people, indigenous people, women and the LGBTQ+community along with his adversaries, all labelled ‘communists.’ Brazilians who had hidden their prejudices deep in the internet’s sewers began displaying them in daylight and on social media like trophies. Bolsonaro, in power, had redeemed such people.” —Eliane Brum, The Guardian, 3 June 2020. 1 The many dimensions of hatred Hatred is one of the most powerful human emotions. But as long as human beings have been around, hatred has always been a source of sorrow and suffering. In spite of the misery brought on by hatred, for some people it becomes their driving force. In fact, there is no other faculty of human nature as persistent and universal as hatred. We often hate because we fear people who are different from us. Might our fear of the unknown, our ignorance of the other, push us to take refuge in hatred? William Shakespeare possibly thought so, writing in Anthony and Cleopatra: “In time we hate that which we often fear.” Perhaps when we hate someone or something it is actually because we are afraid. And are we afraid because we feel helpless? Love and hate seem to be very closely related. But if we take a hard look at both emotions, hatred is so much easier to generate than love—and much harder to get rid of. Here it’s important to recognize that hatred is not necessarily the direct opposite of love. Of course, there is a connection, but is a rather a complicated one. It is more accurate to say that the opposite of love is indifference, that is, we no longer care what happens to whoever or whatever bothers us. Whatever strong feelings we might have had towards someone, they have dissipated. Anger There is also a difference between hatred and anger. Often, people who express anger feel sorry for their angry outbursts. But that can’t be said about hatred. Angry people hope that the person they’re angry at can be influenced. They may even hope that something will change for the better within the relationship. But with hatred, there is no wish for change. People who hate, want to get rid of the object of their hatred. Put simply, we get angry at someone because of what they have done or said but we hate someone because of what they represent. 2 We can also look at anger in terms of behavior. We are angry because we consider a specific action of a certain person or group of people as immoral, unfair, or unjust. At the same time, we are telling ourselves, “If only these people would be prepared to change their behavior, I would be willing to let go of my anger.” Taking this factor into consideration, in some circumstances anger can be useful and contribute to reconciliation. But before this happens, we like the person we’re angry with to apologize, to make amends. The same thing can’t be said for hatred. With hatred, we are stuck. We have no hope for change. Not even a temporary change in behavior will diminish the intensity of someone’s hatred for someone else. Instead, we see the object of our enmity as unchangeable, irredeemable, and unimprovable. The goal of hatred is annihilation, not reconciliation. Contempt Sometimes, we are repeatedly angry with someone and if nothing changes, our anger may turn into contempt. We may decide that someone is no longer worth our anger and, in trying to regulate our anger, distance ourselves from the person who makes us angry. It makes contempt a cold version of hatred. As the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer put it, “Hatred is an affair of the heart; contempt that of the head.” Strange as it may sound, it could be argued that it is worse to be the object of contempt than the object of hatred. At least, with hatred, we are engaged, not indifferent. Hatred is a hungry beast A little hatred goes a long, long way and being full of hatred can be exhausting. Hatred is a hungry beast that demands to be fed and unfortunately, the more you feed it, the hungrier it gets. It’s never satisfied. It feeds on your heart and pollutes your mind and will squeeze all that’s human out of you. Hatred hungers for revenge and thrives on division and violence. It forces you to focus on animosity. It occupies your mind completely. Unfortunately, this beast can be so all-absorbing that it leaves no room for anything else. It leads to the emergence of demagogues, and populist leaders. No wonder that hatred is the source of much of the violence we see around us and the prime fuel for war. And 3 paradoxically, during times of war, hatred can become almost respectable, masquerading as patriotism. Acts of hatred are often the easiest way out of emotional quagmires. Compassion for others requires much more courage. Look at Bolsonaro, the subject of the devastating profile quoted at the start of this article. Does he love anybody but himself? Does he know what compassion is? He stirs up hatred and thrives on divisiveness. Although he is the leader of the country, he makes no effort to unite the people—quite the opposite. He wallows in self-righteousness. In fact, in many ways he is a pitiful figure. He doesn’t realize that building bridges is much more constructive than building walls. He doesn’t understand that hatred is an uncontrollable fire. If it burns for too long, it will consume him. But perhaps his passionate hatred gives a modicum of meaning and purpose to what would otherwise be an empty existence. His motto seems to be: I hate, so I exist. The danger of self-righteousness Isn’t it strange that human beings can hate people they don’t even know? Bolsonaro seems to make negative assumptions about people he knows nothing about. He is always ready with flippant, negative moral judgments. Without producing the slightest grain of evidence, he labels whoever is the target of his hatred as bad, dirty, dangerous, or all of the above. He brings out the worst in himself and any others who are willing to listen to his rubbish. And he is not a lone figure in our present-day world. The same could be said for other political leaders in very different countries: Donald Trump in the USA, Recip Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus receive the most media attention but are sadly not the only examples. We tend to resort to hatred when we perceive another person’s behavior as unjustified and unfair (making us angry), or morally inferior (making us contemptuous). This explains why we often have a sense of high mindedness when we talk about our hatred. Is there anything that contributes more to destructive feelings than moral indignation? We can all see that hatred is often acted out under the guise of virtue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CRITICAL THEORY and AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism
    CDSMS EDITED BY JEREMIAH MORELOCK CRITICAL THEORY AND AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism edited by Jeremiah Morelock Critical, Digital and Social Media Studies Series Editor: Christian Fuchs The peer-reviewed book series edited by Christian Fuchs publishes books that critically study the role of the internet and digital and social media in society. Titles analyse how power structures, digital capitalism, ideology and social struggles shape and are shaped by digital and social media. They use and develop critical theory discussing the political relevance and implications of studied topics. The series is a theoretical forum for in- ternet and social media research for books using methods and theories that challenge digital positivism; it also seeks to explore digital media ethics grounded in critical social theories and philosophy. Editorial Board Thomas Allmer, Mark Andrejevic, Miriyam Aouragh, Charles Brown, Eran Fisher, Peter Goodwin, Jonathan Hardy, Kylie Jarrett, Anastasia Kavada, Maria Michalis, Stefania Milan, Vincent Mosco, Jack Qiu, Jernej Amon Prodnik, Marisol Sandoval, Se- bastian Sevignani, Pieter Verdegem Published Critical Theory of Communication: New Readings of Lukács, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the Internet Christian Fuchs https://doi.org/10.16997/book1 Knowledge in the Age of Digital Capitalism: An Introduction to Cognitive Materialism Mariano Zukerfeld https://doi.org/10.16997/book3 Politicizing Digital Space: Theory, the Internet, and Renewing Democracy Trevor Garrison Smith https://doi.org/10.16997/book5 Capital, State, Empire: The New American Way of Digital Warfare Scott Timcke https://doi.org/10.16997/book6 The Spectacle 2.0: Reading Debord in the Context of Digital Capitalism Edited by Marco Briziarelli and Emiliana Armano https://doi.org/10.16997/book11 The Big Data Agenda: Data Ethics and Critical Data Studies Annika Richterich https://doi.org/10.16997/book14 Social Capital Online: Alienation and Accumulation Kane X.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chronicle Review Our 'Prophet of Deceit'
    The Chronicle Review Our 'Prophet of Deceit' WWII-era social scientists explained Trump’s appeal By Richard Wolin October 30, 2016 To date, much ink has spilled attempting to historically situate Donald Trump’s unprecedented and disturbing run for the American presidency. Of course, one of the problems in trying to do so is that, as a political outsider, Trump is a consummate shape- shifter. His positions can and do change from day to day, moment to moment. By the same token, this rather basic and unarguable fact already reveals something significant about his candidacy. Whereas such glaring inconsistencies would have undoubtedly torpedoed a conventional candidate, remarkably, for more than a year, they left Trump more or less politically unscathed. Trump himself quipped in January: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody. And I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?" Time and again, Trump’s bluster and outsize personality trump (pardonnez- moi) the customary considerations of rational accountability. His loyal supporters seem to be, for the most part, indifferent to what Trump says: whether or not it is practicable (a wall to stanch immigration from Mexico), or constitutional (his proposal of a religious test to rebuff Muslims seeking to enter the United States). Instead, their devotion is largely predicated on Trump’s personality and charisma. And on these grounds, they seem consistently willing to engage in a worrisome suspension of disbelief, waiving the evidentiary claims that voters traditionally rely on to evaluate a candidate’s trustworthiness and viability. Many commentators have also pondered whether Trump might be accurately described as a fascist.
    [Show full text]
  • The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue
    ASRXXX10.1177/0003122417749632American Sociological ReviewHahl et al. 7496322018 American Sociological Review 2018, Vol. 83(1) 1 –33 The Authentic Appeal of the © American Sociological Association 2018 https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417749632DOI: 10.1177/0003122417749632 Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming journals.sagepub.com/home/asr the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy Oliver Hahl ,a Minjae Kim,b and Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivanb Abstract We develop and test a theory to address a puzzling pattern that has been discussed widely since the 2016 U.S. presidential election and reproduced here in a post-election survey: how can a constituency of voters find a candidate “authentically appealing” (i.e., view him positively as authentic) even though he is a “lying demagogue” (someone who deliberately tells lies and appeals to non-normative private prejudices)? Key to the theory are two points: (1) “common-knowledge” lies may be understood as flagrant violations of the norm of truth- telling; and (2) when a political system is suffering from a “crisis of legitimacy” (Lipset 1959) with respect to at least one political constituency, members of that constituency will be motivated to see a flagrant violator of established norms as an authentic champion of its interests. Two online vignette experiments on a simulated college election support our theory. These results demonstrate that mere partisanship is insufficient to explain sharp differences in how lying demagoguery is perceived, and that several oft-discussed factors—information access, culture, language, and gender—are not necessary for explaining such differences. Rather, for the lying demagogue to have authentic appeal, it is sufficient that one side of a social divide regards the political system as flawed or illegitimate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dangerous Rise of Populism Global Attacks on Human Rights Values
    The Dangerous Rise of Populism Global Attacks on Human Rights Values By Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch Human rights exist to protect people from government abuse and neglect. Rights limit what a state can do and impose obligations for how a state must act. Yet today a new generation of populists is turning this protection on its head. Claiming to speak for “the people,” they treat rights as an impediment to their conception of the majority will, a needless obstacle to defending the nation from perceived threats and evils. Instead of accepting rights as protecting everyone, they privilege the declared interests of the majority, encouraging people to adopt the dangerous belief that they will never themselves need to assert rights against an overreaching government claiming to act in their name. The appeal of the populists has grown with mounting public discontent over the status quo. In the West, many people feel left behind by technological change, the global economy, and growing inequality. Horrific incidents of terrorism generate apprehension and fear. Some are uneasy with societies that have become more ethnically, religiously and racially diverse. There is an increasing sense that governments and the elite ignore public concerns. In this cauldron of discontent, certain politicians are flourishing and even gaining power by portraying rights as protecting only the terrorist suspect or the asylum seeker at the expense of the safety, economic welfare, and cultural preferences of the presumed majority. They scapegoat refugees, immigrant communities, and minorities. Truth is a frequent casualty. Nativism, xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia are on the rise.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1932 Presidential Election: the Tough-Minded Common- Man and the Virtuous Savior
    The 1932 Presidential Election: The Tough-Minded Common- Man and the Virtuous Savior Julia Devin In his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) famously proclaimed that it was his “firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”1 Using an inspirational tone he continued, as he had throughout his campaign, to emphasize that hope in dark economic times required “a leadership of frankness and vigor…met with that understanding and support of the people.”2 As the nation listened to his words, FDR solidified his carefully constructed self-image as a tough-minded common-man trumping Herbert Hoover’s seemingly antiquated virtuous savior image. FDR’s sweeping victory during the 1932 election showed quite clearly that the tough-minded common-man image made more sense than Hoover’s virtuous savior narrative. In the context of the Great Depression and Prohibition, weary Americans looked toward FDR’s proactive depiction of leadership revealing that Hoover’s principles and words were just not enough to confront the nation’s problems. FDR’s victory emphasized an alignment with “common difficulties” of the people and promised a mental 1 Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Inaugural Address” (speech, U.S. Presidential Inauguration, March 4, 1933), http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14473&st =&st1= (accessed November, 2012). 2 Ibid. 2 Perspectives toughness aimed at approaching leadership with “a candor and decision” necessary to combat the economic and social perils fostered by the context of the Great Depression and Prohibition.3 Previous historians have approached the 1932 presidential election between Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover and Democratic candidate Franklin Roosevelt using a more traditional political lens.
    [Show full text]
  • Victoria WOHL Cleon Before Pericles: Thucydides on the "Turn" in Athenian Politics
    Victoria WOHL Cleon before Pericles: Thucydides on the "turn" in Athenian politics In his summation of Pericles' achievements, Thucydides draws a strong distinction between Pericles and his successors (2.65). In his intelligence, integrity, and near monarchical authority, Pericles represented a perfection in Athenian history never to be matched. By comparison, his successors were mere parodies of his greatness, poor imitations of the original. Cleon in particular is presented in Thucydides' narrative as a failed or parodic Pericles. This paper questions not only the relation between Cleon and Pericles, but also the historiographic impulse (ancient and modern) to conceive of history in terms of perfect originals and failed copies. What does it mean to view Cleon as a purely derivative figure, a parodic Pericles? What is at stake for Thucydides in this contrast? What is at stake for Pericles and "Periclean" Athens? Thucydides' contrast turns on the issue of democratic pleasure. Pericles leads the demos because of his refusal to "speak to please" (2.65.8); his successors "turned to pleasing the people and relinquished affairs to them" (2.65.10). Aristophanes reaffirms this historiographical schism: his Knights literalizes this "turn to pleasure," and its vile economy of oral gratification exposes the vital concerns behind Thucydides' insistence that Pericles, unlike his successors, did not speak to please. But while Thucydides represents Cleon as a failed Pericles, Plutarch shows us Pericles as a barely sublimated Cleon. In his Life of Pericles, the statesman's early career is characterized by precisely the sort of pleasing politics associated with Cleon. Plutarch's Pericles turns away from Cleontic pleasures, but the turn is never complete and the line between Pericles and Cleon is not as clear as Thucydides, for one, would like.
    [Show full text]
  • Demagogues in America: from the Revolution to the Second World War*
    Demagogues in America: From the Revolution to the Second World War* Dan Bernhardt† Stefan Krasa‡ Mehdi Shadmehr§ Abstract We define demagogues as anti-establishment politicians who provide simplistic expla- nations and solutions for the people’s problems. We identify two key forms of these simplis- tic solutions: those that ignore resource constraints and those that blame particular ethnic or cultural groups for resource shortfalls. There are two main results: (1) demagogues arise on the national stage in the form of presidential contenders in the aftermath of an economic crisis, or during the slow recovery that follows. (2) Established parties often adjust their positions toward demagogues to fend them off (e.g., FDR in the mid 1930s); and when they refuse (e.g., John Quincy Adams), demagogues win and implement far worse policies that destroy physical and social capital. We highlight how concerns for demagogues dominated the thinking of Americans in the Revolutionary Era and the Early Republic, and were a main factor behind the Constitutional Movement. *We wish to thank Charles Cameron, Justin Fox, Mark Harrison, Bing Powell, Michael Walzer, and Adam Zelizer for helpful conversations, suggestions and comments. †University of Illinois, Department of Economics, and University of Warwick, Depatment of Economics. ‡University of Illinois, Department of Economics. §University of Chicago, Harris School of Public Policy, and University of Calgary, Department of Economics. 1 Introduction “General Jackson is the slave of the majority: he yields to its wishes, its propensities, and its demands; say rather, that he anticipates and forestalls them,” wrote Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. But the ever observant de Tocqueville knew all too well that Jackson was far from a humble servant of the people.
    [Show full text]
  • Demagogues and the Fragility of Democracy
    Demagogues and the Fragility of Democracy Dan Bernhardt Stefan Krasa Mehdi Shadmehr* August 15, 2019 Abstract Our paper investigates the long-run susceptibility of Democracy to demagogues, study- ing the tension between far-sighted, magnanimous representatives who guard the long-run interests of voters, and office-seeking demagogues who cater to voters’ short-run desires. We model the political decision process as a capital/social capital investment problem in which parties propose how to allocate existing resources between current consumption and investment. Voters with CRRA preferences base political choices on a comparison of the current period utility derived from policies and a stochastic valence shock. With log utility, we establish that the benevolent party’s investment converges to zero when the depreciation rate goes to one, regardless of the valence advantage, even though, absent political com- petition from the demagogue, the economy would grow forever. When the coefficient of relative risk aversion exceeds one, we establish that, regardless of the current capital stock there is always a positive probability of entering a death spiral in which once capital falls below a critical level, it continues inevitably downward toward zero. *University of Illinois, Department of Economics, Urbana, IL 61801 USA; [email protected] University of Chicago 1 Introduction “The republican principle,” wrote Hamilton in Federalist No. 71, “does not require an unqual- ified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.” Quite the opposite, Hamilton argued: “When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delu- sion...
    [Show full text]
  • 4. the Nazis Take Power
    4. The Nazis Take Power Anyone who interprets National Socialism as merely a political movement knows almost nothing about it. It is more than a religion. It is the determination to create the new man. ADOLF HITLER OVERVIEW Within weeks of taking office, Adolf Hitler was altering German life. Within a year, Joseph Goebbels, one of his top aides, could boast: The revolution that we have made is a total revolution. It encompasses every aspect of public life from the bottom up… We have replaced individuality with collective racial consciousness and the individual with the community… We must develop the organizations in which every individual’s entire life will be regulated by the Volk community, as represented by the Party. There is no longer arbitrary will. There are no longer any free realms in which the individual belongs to himself… The time of personal happiness is over.1 How did Hitler do it? How did he destroy the Weimar Republic and replace it with a totalitarian government – one that controls every part of a person’s life? Many people have pointed out that he did not destroy democracy all at once. Instead, he moved gradually, with one seemingly small compromise leading to another and yet another. By the time many were aware of the danger, they were isolated and alone. This chapter details those steps. It also explores why few Germans protested the loss of their freedom and many even applauded the changes the Nazis brought to the nation. Historian Fritz Stern offers one answer. “The great appeal of National Socialism – and perhaps of every totalitarian dictatorship in this century – was the promise of absolute authority.
    [Show full text]
  • The RISE of DEMOCRACY REVOLUTION, WAR and TRANSFORMATIONS in INTERNATIONAL POLITICS SINCE 1776
    Macintosh HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:15554 - EUP - HOBSON:HOBSON NEW 9780748692811 PRINT The RISE of DEMOCRACY REVOLUTION, WAR AND TRANSFORMATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS SINCE 1776 CHRISTOPHER HOBSON Macintosh HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:15554 - EUP - HOBSON:HOBSON NEW 9780748692811 PRINT THE RISE OF DEMOCRACY Macintosh HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:15554 - EUP - HOBSON:HOBSON NEW 9780748692811 PRINT Macintosh HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:15554 - EUP - HOBSON:HOBSON NEW 9780748692811 PRINT THE RISE OF DEMOCRACY Revolution, War and Transformations in International Politics since 1776 Christopher Hobson Macintosh HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:15554 - EUP - HOBSON:HOBSON NEW 9780748692811 PRINT © Christopher Hobson, 2015 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun – Holyrood Road 12 (2f) Jackson’s Entry Edinburgh EH8 8PJ www.euppublishing.com Typeset in 11 /13pt Monotype Baskerville by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire, and printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 0 7486 9281 1 (hardback) ISBN 978 0 7486 9282 8 (webready PDF) ISBN 978 0 7486 9283 5 (epub) The right of Christopher Hobson to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498). Macintosh HD:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:15554 - EUP - HOBSON:HOBSON NEW 9780748692811
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph Mccarthy and the Red Scare David Culver Bridgewater State College
    Bridgewater Review Volume 2 | Issue 3 Article 12 Jul-1984 Cultural Commentary: Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare David Culver Bridgewater State College Recommended Citation Culver, David (1984). Cultural Commentary: Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare. Bridgewater Review, 2(3), 23-25. Available at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/br_rev/vol2/iss3/12 This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Joseph and McCarthy ••• the hI' f)o,·jd ell""" Ano<.:lllli' Pro/eHor (~l His/ory Red Scare ExactlY thirty years ago millions of New Deal. HUAC charged Franklin Americans were fascinated by a day-time TV Roosevelt's Administration with "coddling" drama featuring the Republican Senator Reds and claimed that the New Deal was from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy. The taking America down the road to socialism. Army-McCarthy hearings, called by one As the Cold War intensified in the late I940s, writer, "the greatest political show on HUAC conducted highly publicized earth," were televised by ABC from April 22 investigations of Communists in to June 17, 1954. For many it was the first government, education, industry, unions, opportunity to see the Senator whose name radio, and the movies. Long before Joseph epitomized militant anti-Communism and McCarthy seized the Communist issue, who since 1950 had attracted more attention HUAC bullied witnesses, smeared than the President ofthe United States. Few opponents, and cleverly manipulated the viewers could know, however, that TV's press. exposure would help destroy McCarthy's In 1948 HUAC heard testimony that political career and leaa to his censure by the would lead to one ofthe most famous battles Senate later that year.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Chris, I'm a Fan of "All In" and Recently Began Listening to Your
    Dear Chris, I’m a fan of "All In" and recently began listening to your podcasts. In addition to being on the same wavelength politically, I particularly respect the intellectual rigor you bring to your work. Your focus on policy details, historical context and an appreciation for nuance are sorely needed in the political discourse of this day and age. I was especially eager to listen to your recent podcast with Rachel Maddow, as I routinely watch her show and have been following her Bag Man series. Around minute 12, you made a passing reference to Huey Long as a “demagogue” and “really corrupt” (with seeming assent by Rachel), which I think is unfair and not supported by the facts. This was especially disappointing coming from two of my favorite progressive commentators. Caricaturing Huey as a corrupt demagogue is part of a longstanding effort by those who oppose the progressive premise that government can and should work to improve the lives of the common man. Unfortunately, this mischaracterization of Long is often the extent of people’s familiarity with the man. If you have time to read 900+ pages on Huey Long, I would recommend T. Harry Williams’ authoritative biography, which won the Pulitzer prize and National Book Award (see https://www.amazon.com/Huey- Long-T-Harry-Williams/dp/0394747909). For an easier read, check out www.HueyLong.com, an educational site about Huey Long. (Full disclosure: I worked on the web design and development of this site back in 2006 and my wife is a descendant of Long's.) I think these resources would radically change your assessment of Long.
    [Show full text]