I’m enjoying a documentary about the Cold War, which, not surprisingly, includes a segment regarding the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
McCarthy is infamously known as the primary prosecutor of the “Red Scare” of the 1940s and 50s, in which millions of Americans were concerned that communists were plotting to take over our nation. (Interestingly, the documentary does not reveal that McCarthy won his first senatorial campaign with help from a communist-controlled labor union.)
For roughly a decade, McCarthy terrorized his political enemies (real and perceived) with withering accusations that they were communists. This included labor unions, journalists, politicians, organizations that had aligned with communists, and members of the entertainment industry. McCarthy initiated multiple investigations that he said would expose undercover communists. Unfortunately, he often made accusations that he knew not to be true. He even manufactured evidence.
McCarthy finally began to lose credibility as he increasingly accused well-respected governmental institutions of being influenced by communists, including the Eisenhower Administration, the CIA, and the U.S. Army. McCarthy died ignominiously in 1957 at age 48. Notably, he never completed a single investigation that he launched.
The key lesson of what is appropriately referred to as “McCarthyism” is that a legitimate cause (e.g., fighting communism) can be derailed by an unscrupulous populist who is more interested in sowing doubt and division than in solving a problem. We see that phenomenon today regarding President Donald Trump’s response to the legitimate challenge of illegal immigration to the U.S.
Trump is correct that illegal immigration became egregious during President Joe Biden’s tenure. Having been relentlessly pushed by Trump, Biden drastically curtailed immigration near the end of his term. By then, however, the damage had been done. Trump won the presidential election in 2024 largely due to his promises to stop illegal immigration.
In principle, there is nothing wrong with Trump’s stance (though he also publicly advocates severely limiting legal immigration as well). The problem is the language that Trump has used beginning with his first presidential campaign. He has frequently singled out Mexicans, repeatedly referring to them as criminals, murderers, rapists, and other execrable terms. Trump has also repeatedly lied about the extent of crime and gang affiliation among immigrants, advancing well-worn racial tropes.
And he has gone further. Echoing a repulsive phrase from Adolf Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf” (My Struggle), Trump has said that undocumented immigrants – who overwhelmingly are Hispanic – are “poisoning the blood” of Americans. (Hitler said the same thing about Jewish people regarding Germany and the “Aryan” race.) When a reporter asked Trump why he would use such language, he claimed not to know from where that phrase had originated. However, he later used the same phrase in responding to another reporter.
Whereas in the not-too-distant past, a politician who was “caught” using such language would have been ostracized, Trump feels no need to temper his words. That’s because his millions of supporters largely agree with him. Or, even when they disagree, blatant racism is not the automatically disqualifying issue that it should be. Driven by a variety of factors (especially social media), fringe language, ideas, and policies have now come to the mainstream.
Then there are the methods that Trump has employed since taking office this year. There have been dozens of videos of agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) over-aggressively rounding up undocumented immigrants — as well as legal citizens of Hispanic origin. Further, Trump has stated his goal of having virtually unlimited power to deport anyone in this nation, including American citizens.
Most importantly, he has repeatedly stated his desire to undo birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Last week, the Supreme Court — while not explicitly addressing that issue — limited lower courts’ ability to issue injunctions against Trump’s executive orders. He immediately took to the airwaves to state his view that the decision gave him authority essentially to ignore the 14th Amendment, which he claimed only applied to former slaves.
The key difference between the McCarthy Era and today is that the concern about communism was actually legitimate — McCarthy’s lies and demonizing notwithstanding. For example, confidence in the American political and economic systems faltered greatly in the aftermath of the stock market crash and the Great Depression. Further, communists infiltrated not only the highest levels of government (e.g., at the State Department); they also infiltrated the top-secret Manhattan Project.
By contrast, there has been no invasion at America’s southern border — as Trump claims. The term “invasion” connotes a military or paramilitary plot to overtake the government of a sovereign nation. There was no such action at our southern border. His claim was a cynical (and successful) attempt to stoke anger and cause panic.
History has many ironic twists. One of them is the fact that McCarthy had a then-young attorney named Roy Cohn join his team of anti-communist crusaders. As one of the prosecutors in the case against communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Cohn was a perfect fit for McCarthy. Years later, Trump’s father thought that the younger Trump needed to understand the rough and tumble of politics. He recruited Cohn to be Trump’s mentor.
In Mark Twain’s words, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” Hopefully, the denouement of Trump’s epic poem will rhyme with McCarthy’s.
Larry Smith is a community leader. Contact him at larry@leaf-llc.com.
