The History of Hollywood & Politics, Part 2: How Hollywood Both at The Time And Now Took The Wrong Lessons From McCarthyism and its Effect On The Industry

 

 

Upfront it is important to state that in the moral definition the HUAC and the actions of Joseph McCarthy during the 1950s were an abuse of power and despicable. However both at the time and especially decades later and to this day historians, various progressives and Hollywood in particular have chosen to do what so many members of all three groups do: take events out of context and view it in moral terms rather than the big picture.

To be clear there was never any real danger of the Communist Party taking over America at any point in our history: it's doubtful even the most diehard defenders of McCarthy will argue otherwise. But the reason that so many people chose to believe McCarthy even after his fall has to do with multiple reasons, almost all of which are excluded years after the fact.

The first is, of course, that McCarthy's rise to power happened at the exact same period Communism's dictatorial drive were at its height. Stalin had just taken over much of Eastern Europe and it was only because of the policies of both the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine that the boundaries held where they did. Not long after this Mao and the Communists would officially take power in China and spent much of the next twenty years trying to take over countries in Asia, most notably Korea and Vietnam. Indeed at the start of 1950 the Korean War was declared and while it would initially seem to be able to stop the division of Korea it very quickly bogged down in a quagmire that would end with Korea being divided into a Northern Communist country and a Southern more democratic one. Coming just five years after the end of World War II after Americans had united to stop a fascist totalitarian state bent on world domination, we now seemed to be facing a communist totalitarian state with that same goal in mind. These fears were no doubt deep in the heart of every single American to an extent.

As I said in my previous article in October of 1947 62 percent of Americans thought the Truman administration was soft on Communism while only 24 percent felt it was just right. This feeling extended during Truman's second term as the argument "Who Lost China?" became part of the political conversation.  And it's worth noting a speech McCarthy gave in 1952 when he was running for reelection:

"In 1945, at the time of the first conference to map out the peace after the Second World War, there lived within the Soviet orbit 180 million people. Lined up on the antitotalitarian side were 1,620,000 people. Today just seven years later there are 800 million people under the domination of Soviet Russia: an increase of over 400 percent. On our side the figure has shrunk to under 500 million. In other words, in less than seven years, the odds have changed from nine to one in our favor to eight to five against us. The threat of global communist domination is a reality that can be ignored at the risk of our annihilation."

McCarthy, who was best known for pulling figures out of thin air to justify his actions, was completely correct with the math in this speech and every one in Washington knew it. And it is no doubt one of the reasons that the horror of McCarthyism was not just tolerated but openly approved up during his tenure in power not just by the majority of political figures in both parties but the American public at large.

Another critical factor not taken into consideration as to why so many Republicans might have tolerated the vileness not just of McCarthy but men such as Jenner and Karl Mundt was simple. After the 1948 election when Harry Truman had referred to Congress in terms that was short of demagoguery and just an importantly led to an electoral upset Republicans in both houses of Congress were inclined to despise Truman. Indeed many of the failures of his second term were built out of the spite that Congressional Republicans felt for him. The one who was inclined to be the angriest was Robert Taft, essentially the power behind Senate Republicans even though he didn't hold the official title of majority leader.  McCarthyism and HUAC were essentially seen as wedge issues: a way to win back power in the midterms and regain the White House in 1952. Taft, a strident anti-Communist and one of the last diehard isolationists in Congress, was considered a front runner for the Republican nomination that year. Twice he had been denied the nomination by the so-called Eastern establishment; by Wendell Willkie in 1940 and Dewey four years earlier. Taft was the leader of what was consider the midwestern wing and after three straight election losses led by that wing, it seemed certain that the old guard conservatives would take it in 1952. (In large part because of that threat Eisenhower would choose to challenge Taft for the Republican nomination that year, though no one could have known that when HUAC swung into action.)

And its worth remembering that Joseph McCarthy was the first politician of either party to effectively use film and television to maximum political effect. Millions of Americans were glued to their sets watching HUAC hearings and McCarthy during the 1950s and while one can argue how many were disgusted the fact remains just as many were in favor of it. Indeed McCarthy and the actions of the HUAC were considered one of the key reasons the Republicans returned to power in 1952. (I'll get back to that in a bit.) And one of the things that no doubt drew so many viewers was the fact that HUAC was constantly calling actors and writers from Hollywood to the stands for public hearings.  In a sense the pillorying of Hollywood from 1947 on could be seen as little more than a publicity stunt designed to attract attention for millions of Americans to get people to vote Republican.

It's worth looking at Hollywood's role. To be clear there was nothing illegal about being a member of the Communist Party and the numerous fellow travelers who were blacklisted had the moral high ground. But two things can be true and it has to be said that they were also incredibly naïve,  members of the bourgeoisie who basically never had the nerve to commit to taking over America the way their Russian counterparts were more than willing to do in Moscow thirty years earlier.

I don't so much judge the creative people in Hollywood for doing anything illegal rather than being naïve to the point of stupidity, talking about Communism as a serious way forward for America when Stalin was becoming a dictator just as bad as Hitler if not worse. In truth those in Hollywood who became members had all of the horrible qualities of the left that were historically true a century earlier and are just as true today: wealthy elitists who think that their superiority makes them fit to judge what the best system of governments, communists for whom capitalism had worked out just fine, and lacking any real plan to make their politics into a reality. All of these were on full display during Henry Wallace's campaign for the White House in 1948 and it is worth reminding them how many of those actors and followers were fellow travelers.

And it is worth noting that the actions of the Hollywood Ten were the definition of those who thought that they were above the system and not only didn't cooperate but challenged the legitimacy of it, comparing the tactics – to Nazi Germany. "I am not on trial," John Howard Lawson said. "This committee is on trial." All of them were held in contempt of Congress and to a man all ten were found guilty sentenced to spend a year in prison. They chose to appeal believing the Supreme Court would void their conviction. They were mistaken and in 1950 they all began to serve their sentences. Notoriously Dalton Trumbo and other believed they were political prisoners who had never committed a crime.

As to the blacklist itself Lillian Hellman would famous argue that the studio executives were spineless when it came to confronting the government. This makes sense in the moral universe that Hellman and her colleagues lived in and not the business one that Hollywood was. The studio executives knew how popular McCarthy was and they didn't want their business to be associated with the radical politics of Communism which the movie going public was very much against. So the blacklist was as much an economic decision as a political one.

It's worth noting that after the Cold War those who survived chose to frame this as a purely moral decision and showed particular contempt for those who chose to name names. This was perhaps made the most clear in 1999 when the Academy Awards chose to present Elia Kazan with a Lifetime Achievement award.

Kazan was one of the best directors in movie history who received Oscar nominations for directing such films as Gentleman's Agreement, Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, East of Eden and America, America. He also directed numerous other respected films as  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Viva Zapata!, A Face in the Crowd and  Splendor in the Grass. However at the height of McCarthy's reign in 1952 he chose to testify as a witness before HUAC and name among others Phoebe Brand and Clifford Odets. He was the subject of huge criticism from his liberal friends and colleagues. He justified his actions saying that he took: "only the more tolerable of two alternatives that were either way painful or wrong."

His colleagues, even those he didn't name, never saw it that way. In what it part of the martyr complex that has always been part of the left: it was more important to stay morally pure and face both the end of your professional career and possibly prison as opposed to 'compromising' but being allowed to keep making a living doing what you loved. And it is telling that Hellman chose to be the most condemning because for her she had a fallback position: leave Hollywood and go back to Broadway. The lion's share of those weren't nearly as lucky or as talented a writer as here.

It's worth noting that when the announcement was made the most bizarre commentary came from Rod Steiger who went out of his way to condemn Kazan. Steiger had come to prominence when he starred in On The Waterfront which was written by Budd Schulberg (and in some circles is seen as the two men's justification for testifying to Congress) and he received his first Oscar nomination for it. When confronted with this fact Steiger doubled down saying that if he had known about Kazan's actions he would never have starred in the film. Karl Malden, President of the Academy and Steiger's co-star in that film, pointed out "Rod is either ignorant or a liar." Given the behavior of so many of the left historically both are equally possible.

So much of what happened during the blacklist era could be seen as the first real example of how so many celebrities felt that their position allowed them to think that the rules of the government should not apply to them the same way it did everyone else. I have little doubt they felt they had the moral high ground and perhaps they did but it doesn't change the fact of their elitism and willful ignorance. And what must have galled them all the more was that much of this hostility was coming from a prominent California politician who rose to prominence on anti-Communism even more than McCarthy did.

Helen Gaghan  was an opera singer and actress who had starred on Broadway. In 1931 she married Melvyn Douglas, who would one day win two Oscars for Supporting Actor. A prominent friend of Eleanore Roosevelt she became a member of the Anti-Nazi league and had roles in the WPA and Youth administration. She became active in California politics in 1940 and in 1944 she ran for Congress, speaking at the Democratic National convention in 1944.

Douglas would serve three terms in the house championing issues such as civil rights, migrant worker welfare, affordable housing, progressive taxation and nuclear disarmament. One could make the argument that she was an early model for so much of the progressive elected officials we see today. She was a close friend of Henry Wallace but never defected to the campaign thinking he was making a horrible mistake. When Wallace announced this to many of her friends she would recall they were aghast and many of them left quickly "as if they were fleeing a bad odor." Douglas stayed behind trying to warn Wallace of what he would face. She would actually confide this to fellow Congressman (and her lover) Lyndon Johnson who told her that Truman and his colleagues would tear him apart.

In 1950 Douglas chose to challenge incumbent Sheridan Downey for his seat in the Senate. Encouraged not to wait until 1952 rather then split the party in a fight Gahagan Douglas told Malone that Downey was insufficiently leftist and had to be unseated. Downey withdrew from the race and supported a third candidate, Manchester Boddy.

It was Boddy who coined the phrase that Gahagan Douglas was 'the Pink Lady…right down to her underwear." Richard Nixon, who was the Republican opponent, merely repeated the line. And its worth noting that many prominent Democrats – include John F. Kennedy – would donate money to Nixon's campaign because they shared similar views on Communism. 

The campaign was one of the most vicious in California political history and dealt with numerous assassinations of her character, which involved calling her a Communist and using anti-Semites to attack her reputation. It was one of the dirtiest campaigns imaginable. It was also incredibly effective as Nixon won in a landslide getting 59 percent of the vote. Douglas admitted later she would likely have lost the election anyway as voters felt Douglas was too liberal and felt more of  a personal connection to a thirty-something man with a young family.

This essentially destroyed Douglas's career in politics mainly because she was too controversial. But it made Douglas the best thing possible in the mind of the left and Hollywood: a martyr. And its almost certain that this action pretty much cut off any chance Hollywood would ever feel affinity with Nixon.

In 1952 Dwight Eisenhower became the Republican nominee for President and mainly due to the influence of members of his advisors, chose Richard Nixon as his running mate. He went out of his way to distance himself from the most zealous anti-communists Jenner and McCarthy but his personal views on them came into conflict for campaigning within them. He shared the platform with both men when they were running for reelection but did as little possible to mention them by name. Famously he felt dirty at the mere touch of Jenner. The compromises he made cost him dearly in the minds of liberal admirers. That however didn't count for much as he won the biggest electoral landslide a Republican had to that point, carrying 39 of 49 states and 442 electoral votes.

Nixon was even more vitriolic and in a far darker place, particularly when he accused Truman and Democrat Adlai Stevenson as being 'traitors to which a majority of the nation's Democrats believe'. Then on September 18^th the news of Nixon's slush fund became public.

It's worth noting that there was nothing either unethical or illegal about the fund. It was used largely to pay office expenses not covered by Nixon's Senate allowance. Stevenson had a similar fund. Nixon was infuriated that Eisenhower refused to defend him and putting the burden proof on the man he shared the ticket with. Eisenhower's advisers came up with a plan in which the RNC would pay for a half-hour nationally televised address in which he would provide an explanation of the fund and offer to resign. When Eisenhower called Nixon, he told him that he had not made a decision. Nixon refused to offer to resign: if his political life had to end he wanted it to be done by him. It's not clear who had the moral high ground in this argument or if Nixon's chronic paranoia made him suspect Eisenhower was being disloyal.

The Checkers speech was to that point in the brief history of television the most watched political broadcast in American history. Nixon chose to plead his case in emotional, an often maudlin terms – his wife's respectable cloth coat, just to use one example – and he took the decision out of Ike's hand and put it in the hands of the people. He told viewers to send their opinions to the RNC, not Eisenhower, and he said that he would abide by their decision. Furthermore he demanded that Stevenson and his running mate also make a full financial accounting which meant putting public pressure on Eisenhower to show his favorable tax treatment for books like Crusade in Europe. 

The Checkers speech would quickly become repudiated and mocked by liberal America as well as Democrats ever since, ignoring the fact that it overwhelmingly worked. The response was enormously favorable and Eisenhower made the easy decision to keep Nixon on the ticket.

It's worth noting that the first two politicians to use television to obtain massive effect and support were two of the most conservative, near demagoguing, elected officials. For the left and Democrats their enormous success and popularity at the time should have been a clear warning sign as to how well the right could use emotional response more than intellectual debate to win the hearts and minds – and more importantly the votes – of Americans.  That both men would later suffer public defeats in large because of the media – though critically, not in the minds of many of those conservatives who had supported them both at the time and in the future – make it at least forgivable that the Democrats failed to comprehend this lesson.

Hollywood should have taken a larger one from it but there's no sign they did and its worth noting even if they had there is no reason to suspect anyone in either party was going to take them seriously. In the 1950s no one in the political world seriously thought anyone in Hollywood could be an asset to a campaign, there was no sign they could even help in California. Indeed the 1952 election was going to prove just how out of touch the left was with its own state as it would go for the Republican candidate for the first time since 1928.  It would go Republican for what would be nine times out of the next ten Presidential elections, only going for LBJ in his 1964 landslide victory. Even Helen Gahagan Douglas's presence on the campaign trail in 1960 would not stop the state from going to Nixon even as Kennedy won the closest Presidential election in history.

Even during the most liberal time in American history Hollywood had no political power. And starting in the 1960s they were about to become even more behind the rest of the country then before. In the next article I will deal with Hollywood's official embrace of leftist activism began in an earnest during the 1960s even as the conservative movement officially started led by two of the most successful California politicians in history – who won office going against everything they stood for.