The Truth About "Treason" (Book Review)

Claremont Institute ^ | July 25, 2003 | Ken Masugi

[TheDon]

The Claremont Institute
This is the print version of http://www.claremont.org/writings/030725masugi.html.

---

The Truth About "Treason"

A review of Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, by Ann Coulter. Crown Forum, 355 pages, $26.95

By Ken Masugi
Posted July 25, 2003

I enjoy reading Ann Coulter's books and lap up her commentary. I have enjoyed her company at conferences. I found her High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton to be most useful when I was teaching about impeachment in constitutional law. So I was somewhat at a loss when I saw reliable conservatives attacking her new book, Treason. They focus almost exclusively on her defense of Senator Joe McCarthy. This also delights liberals such as Richard Cohen and Sam Tanenhaus. In the latter's Slate formulation, "She has exposed the often empty semantic difference between the 'responsible' right and its supposed 'fringe.'" Conservatives such as David Horowitz find her abuse of cold war liberals such as Hubert Humphrey, Dean Acheson, and Harry Truman to be irresponsible. Dorothy Rabinowitz complained that she didn't account for McCarthy's honoring of certain Nazis.

About half of Treason deals with McCarthy, while the rest concerns familiar examples of Democrat blundering on foreign policy from Korea through Iraq. As the son of Japanese-Americans who were relocated in World War II, I was especially appreciative of her assault on the incompetent Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, whose vivid memories of being relocated caused him to argue against profiling at the airports. Coulter on Mineta: "A guard took Mineta's baseball bat as a child, and as a result he was subjecting all of America to the Bataan Death March. Someone should have sent him a baseball bat."

If I have a complaint about Coulter's book, it's that she doesn't go deep enough, although clearly this was not her intent here. I've always thought we needed a good book on treason, something that delves into the regime change that the Progressives sought, in undermining the principles of the American Founding, and which the liberals brought to fruition in the theory and practice of politics from the New Deal through the Great Society. And these are principles at odds with all the good that America has ever stood for in its politics. To protect that good, Ms. Coulter divides the house and gets to the bedrock political principle by maintaining that there is something un-American about liberalism's foreign policy and those who were active in its conduct and defense. But may one with justification use the jarring term "treason"?

Talk about treason and un-American conduct has charged our most important elections—Jefferson's in 1800, Lincoln's in 1860, and FDR's in 1932. The victors in those elections, which defined the political landscape for generations to come, used the language of betrayal and loyalty because first principles were at stake. They were not mere exercises in political self-aggrandizement but attempts to save the country from those who would betray it. Recall FDR's comparing himself to Christ driving out the money changers. And hardly anyone remembers FDR admonishing the nation about the similarity between conservative Republicans and fascists in his 1944 State of the Union address.

This search for differences of principle can get one into trouble; as it should when done irresponsibly;for one must always defend oneself against the charge of extremism, not to speak of dishonesty. The estimable National Review Online fired her for writing a post-9/11 column on Islam in which she argued American forces should "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Almost two years later, we are accomplishing steps one and two. Will Iraq's democratization proceed apace without some change in Islam, making it more like tolerant Christianity? Isn't this what the Christian heart prays for the world?

Coulter concludes Treason by maintaining that "Conservatives believe man was created in God's image; liberals believe they are God." While she may overestimate conservative piety, she does not exaggerate liberal arrogance. That vanity has its source in the rejection of the "laws of nature and of nature's God." Neither natural law nor God plays a role in liberal principles; passions, the forces of history, and the triumph of the will do. Coulter taps into a venerable theme in the history of political philosophy.

Ann Coulter's flashiness easily shades her argument that conservatives are modest in the face of God, while liberals pay no attention or are actually emboldened. If she omits certain unpleasantries about Joe McCarthy, she is writing a brief, not a biography. (She is a graduate of the prestigious University of Michigan law school and Cornell University, where she studied with certain Straussians.) Contrary to her leftist and conservative critics, Treason is a sobering addition to a political, popular, and philosophic confrontation with the corruption in our politics.

Ken Masugi is director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Local Government, and is an associate editor of the Claremont Review of Books. He is the co-author of Democracy in California: Politics and Government in the Golden State.

---

Copyright © 2003, The Claremont Institute.

Visit the Claremont Institute at claremont.org.

[TheDon]

McCarthyism should be redefined as an earlier version of being "Borked", as in being defamed by liberals.

[TheDon]

Ping

[moneyrunner]

Great point.

[MEG33]

Great find.The reviewer,unlike most,read the book.

[backhoe]

Locator ^

[dk/coro]

I suggest we tread a bit carefully here. My credentials as a conservative Republican are unassailable. However, I personally well remember the McCarthy Hearings in January, 1954 like it was yesterday.

McCarthy, without a shred of evidence, unleashed a vitriolic diatribe against the US Army (with the support of a thoroughly disreputable assistant, a sullied homosexual by the name of Cohn).

Robert Walsh, the superby competent counsel for the Army, shredded both McCarthy and Cohn (for both vicious slander and malicious lies) to the degree that the McCarthy Hearings were shortly thereafter brought to an abrupt end...and McCarthy was censured by the House for "abuse of his position and scurrulous conduct".

So much for Joe McCarthy. My contacts in Appleton, Wisc. have relayed to me that McCarthy should have been hospitalized for acute alcoholism even before the Hearings commenced; and was incapacitated a large part of the time...and subject to violent outbursts and fits of depression.

My point here is that Ann's case would have been much better served had she not treaded into these murky -- and most dangerous -- waters.

[jla]

Can the House of Rep's censure a Senator?

[MEG33]

I remember how unpleasant that was,too.Weren't those hearings actually investigating McCarthy?By that time Drew Pearson and others had thoroughly trashed him and the love sick Cohn had made a mess of things trying to get Shine special treatment.McCarthy's alcohol cosumption had increased and he was in the soup.Those are not the hearings that got him trashed.There are transcripts available of his hearings behind closed doors you will find enlightening.DPB101 has them.There were spies in the army.

[MEG33]

No.It was the Senate.

[jla]

No.It was the Senate.

DK's relating that it was the House.
Anyway, when either of you actually refute anyhing in our Ann's book, gimme a ping, will ya.

[DPB101]

McCarthy, without a shred of evidence, unleashed a vitriolic diatribe against the US Army. . .

Are you aware of the treason at the Ft. Monmouth Army Lab and the refusal of Ike to allow the Army to testify even in executive session?

[MEG33]

Actually I have found nothing in Ann's book to trash.That "appearance of McCarthy "during those hearings is not pretty.I just ggoogled the the famous "Have you no shame quote" and found a transcript.Guess who was attacked and browbeaten..it wasn't someone from the army.Welch practised that scene and took great delight in his dramatic outrage.No one has yet been able to name one person who McCarthy unfairly attacked and ruined.McCarthy was right.

[AUsome Joy]

Did you read Treason?

[MEG33]

I knew that McCarthy was right about Communists in government but had a bad impression of those hearings.Please read Ann's book and realize whatever his alcohol problems were,he has been unfairly attacked and smeared .

Ann is a flame thrower and makes some of us uncomfortable but the book is well researched and she makes you laugh,too.I thought I knew all about it but I learned more and of course the book is about more than McCarthy.

[dix]

Sounds interesting, but I gotta read this in the morning.

[potlatch]

PING!

[HISSKGB]

Robert Welsh was a lying grandstander. He demanded McCarthy publicly name names. When finally McCarthy named Fred Fisher, Welsh's law partner, this info had already become public two months before by the NYT with confirmatory quotes from Welsh. Robert Welsh told the NYT that Fischer belonged to a communist organization weeks before he said to McCarthy "Have you no decency!" for saying the same thing.

Communists were working for the Army. Communists were stealing classified information. A communist defector from East Germany brought with him prototypes of US secret military stuff stolen from Fort Monmouth where Julius Rosenberg ran a huge spy cell working in classified areas. McCarthy held investigations in order to stem the tide and put pressure on those who were allowing these criminals commit these crimes.

Those that snivel about McCarthyism are either completely uninformed or are deliberately defending traitors.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

The point is not whether the man had his faults, but rather the fact that he nailed alot of communists spot on.

His attackers knew he was nailing communists rightly and attacked him viciously, denying each and every assertion he made. They were protecting anti US leftists who were in high positions via conspiracy. They then changed history to cover up.

'McCarthy, without a shred of evidence, unleashed a vitriolic diatribe against the US Army'...Congress persecutes groups before hearings daily. So what?
The army needed to receive the message that they had better not tolerate subversives. He was censored by mostly democrats who wanted to shut him down for their own political reasons, not to defend the army.

As far as his acute alcoholism for years, this is simply impossible. An acute alcoholic could never function like he did. If he was wasted daily it would have been obvious and the story of the decade. It wasn't even the story of the week.

'My point here is that Ann's case would have been much better served had she not treaded into these murky -- and most dangerous -- waters.'...Communists and sympathisers were exerting influence all over society and government-then there was a coverup and rewriting of history regarding the evil McCarthy era. These are facts. The truth is finally exposed...and you are worried about him being aggressive? You are upset that Communists were exposed and the coverup is now evident?

Have you ever been a member of the Communist party?

[MEG33]

Thanks for the posts.

[Plutarch]

McCarthy, without a shred of evidence, unleashed a vitriolic diatribe against the US Army...

Robert Walsh, the superby competent counsel for the Army, shredded both McCarthy and Cohn...

So McCarthy's allegations of espionage within the Army were "vitriolic diatribe" [bad!], while Robert Walsh's "shredding" (free of 'vitriolic diatribe'?] was evidence of his being "superby competent"?

Sounds like Pravda: "Everyone knows that McCarthy was bad...."

[DPB101]

And hardly anyone remembers FDR admonishing the nation about the similarity between conservative Republicans and fascists in his 1944 State of the Union address.

The net knows:

Franklin Roosevelt's 11th State of the Union Message

" . . .We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all . . ."

[JoeSchem]

My contacts in Appleton, Wisc. have relayed to me that McCarthy should have been hospitalized for acute alcoholism even before the Hearings commenced

Putting people in mental hospitals because they criticize the regime is something they used to do in the Soviet Union. Perhaps your self-described 'unassailable conservative credentials' are just a wee bit assailable.

[Conservative84]

McCarthy, without a shred of evidence, unleashed a vitriolic diatribe against the US Army (with the support of a thoroughly disreputable assistant, a sullied homosexual by the name of Cohn).

Your tone carries the implication that you equate "thoroughly disreputable," "sullied," and "homosexual." Despite knee-jerk liberal assertions of conservative intolerance and regardless of your unassailable credentials, I have found that only liberals tend to sink to such low, ad-hominim attacks. Further, didn't Cohn successfully prosecute the Rosenbergs? And weren't they executed? Cohn was indeed homosexual, and he did once engage in a bit of attempted influence peddling. But if such minor flaws render him "thoroughly disreputable" and "sullied," then I submit that virtually no one can be considered reputable. Regardless of one's dislike of the messenger, it is the message that matters. And his performance in the Rosenberg affair makes up for that relatively minor matter.

As to the Senate's virtually party-line censure of McCarthy , a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts scheduled surgery rather than be present for such a scurrilous display of partisanship - yes, JFK himself was an admirer of McCarthy.

And what of McCarthy's censure? It seems that McCarthy said unkind things, indicating that one senator had to be "taken out of mothballs" and that he referred to another as "the only man in the world who had lived so long with neither brains nor guts." These words are what earned him censure - NOT his pursuit of communist spies employed by the US Government. Yet your post implies that he was censured for some sort of wrongdoing during his hearings. Either you did not know the trivial basis for his censure or you intentionally juxtaposed the fact he was censured with mention of the McCarthy Hearings with the intention of discrediting the latter through association. Since a conservative Republican with unassailable credentials would definitely not engage in anything so disingenuous, I will grant that you were victim of the liberal smear campaign against McCarthy and did not intend to deceive.

[nutmeg]

read later bump

[PGalt]

Bump for morning read.

[dk/coro]

OK...we all have our positions on this. And, I certainly agree that the government was rife with leftists during that period.

I still contend that the United States should have had a much more credible sword carrier than McCarthy...and I hold both him and his henchmen in total distain for their scatter-gun approach to the problem.

As for the negative aspersions to my patriotism: How about 800 plus carrier landings; three combat tours in SEA and a Silver Star, (along with a host of other awards) -- accelerated promotion to 0-6...and three commands prior to early retirement (on principle) during Watergate. Match that, youngsters.

Goodnight all..and have a great weekend.

[DPB101]

I still contend that the United States should have had a much more credible sword carrier than McCarthy...and I hold both him and his henchmen in total distain for their scatter-gun approach to the problem

Got any specifics? The transcripts don't show a "scatter-gun" approach (Anyone want excerpts of the 5,000 pages send me a private reply).

What was not credible that McCarthy said?

Btw...these were not just "leftists", they were agents of a foreign power at the highest levels of our government.

[dix]

This is a bit off topic, but since you are our resident expert on just about anything McCarthy. Gretta Van Sustreen, and McCarthy were both from Wisconsin, and I think Gretta’s Dad was a judge who wound up being disbarred I think, for his support of Joe. I think I also heard Gretta spent years trying to clear her Dad’s name. Does any of this ring any bells with you?

[DPB101]

Amazing isn't it? Judge Urban P. Van Susteren even helped McCarthy with his speeches.

[goldstategop]

Joe McCarthy was right about the substance and wrong on the process. The American people knew he was flawed but they believed he was right and his liberal critics were wrong. Communism was a danger. As for his victims they turned out to have been Communists or fellow travellers. What happened to them? Oh they were excluded for awhile from polite society. Under Communist regimes, millions of opponents were simply executed without due process. Ann Coulter knows McCarthy was flawed but points out this country faced a terrible danger. The Democrats initially fought Communism but after McCarthy was discredited eventually moved on to champion the Vietcong, unilateral disarmament, and losing our mortal fear over Communism. They were on the wrong side of history and now they're trying to position themselves to be on the wrong side of the war on terrorism. Now as once upon a time this country faces a terrible danger. Is siding against your country when it faces a dedicated enemy treason? Let the debate rage on.

[MEG33]

My cable went out just as I finished FDR's speech that you linked.That second Bill of Rights was what he sought to advance after the war.They are admirable goals mostly ,certainly not rights,and it sounded more socialistic or UN ish than American and I found myself profoundly disturbed about the influence on Roosevelt of the socialist solution.Eleanor was not alone in flirting with communism.How "fascist" of me to think this way!

[HISSKGB]

The communists contend that McCarthy was not credible. They decree this in spite of mountains of evidence that proved McCarthy was credible. The only reason McCarthy is perceived as not credible is because of communist propaganda.

You are to commended for your military service but that in itself does not always prove true patriotism. Peress was promoted to Captain while he was recruiting communist spies at Fort Monmouth. Army Intelligence reported this to McCarthy who tried to investigate why Peress was promoted when his communist activities were known.

[MEG33]

I recall that at least one area was shut down at Fort Monmouth after the McCarthy hearings...with no recognition of the problem but in effect cleaning out the problem.I can't find the answer in google.

[nopardons]

Your military credentials are not in question; your Conservatism is . While I applaud and am thankful for your service, That doesn't prove a damned thing; your post to this thread, OTOH, does. It proves that you are SOFT on Communism, have swallowed, as whwole cloth, all of the rabid anti-McCarthy propaganda, and are unable to actually see the forrest for the trees.

Which of " McCathy's henchmen " do you still hold in disdain ...Cohen, Nixon, Bobby Kennedy ?

You laud Welsh, a known bully, self aggrandizing blowhard, yet lash out against those who stood couragiously up to the stinking Commies. For that, you expect us US to somehow acknowledge your Conservative bona fides ? In what universe ?

For much of your time here, you have remained silent. Better, by far, that you should go back to doing so.

[HISSKGB]

As you say, some things are to find. I read the same thing but can't find it now.

BTW, I see that Anne Coulter has been called 'Hitler with a pretty face'.

[MEG33]

I thought the left said Ann is over the top..pot/kettle!Ann impressed me with Treason.Of course reading it made me angry all over again!The carping by the dems right now is a warning..they love to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Conservative84]

As for the negative aspersions to my patriotism: How about 800 plus carrier landings; three combat tours in SEA and a Silver Star, (along with a host of other awards) -- accelerated promotion to 0-6...and three commands prior to early retirement (on principle) during Watergate. Match that, youngsters.

I, for one, never cast any doubts on your patriotism, valor, abilities, or service to this country. I served 4 years in the Army as a Tank officer and left without being promoted to O-3. Plenty of explanations, but the bottom line is I didn't come anywhere close to O-6. It was the "conservative Republican" part I was a bit unsure about.

To put into perspective my rather jaundiced view of advanced military rank, I present my final brigade commander in the Army back in 1988: none other than COL (O-6) Wesley K. Clark. Yes, that Wesley K. Clark, who was eventually promoted to General (O-10, 4 stars). My opinion of him as my brigade commander was he was a self-centered, politically motivated man who would never rock the boat and would do nothing that might jeapordize his career. During Desert Storm, he was an O-7 and I happened to meet a woman who had been his West Point roommate's girlfriend and later the roommate's wife. She got to know Clark rather well both as a Cadet and as an officer. Her opinion of GEN Clark was far lower than mine. In support of these opinions, note which party is courting GEN Clark for their ticket in the 2004 Presidential race. One hint: it isn't the Republicans!

However, before you take any offense in the comparison, allow this rather unsuccessful officer to express great respect for your service. Further, the fact that you resigned on principle when you could not stomach what was happening (and, as an O-6, probably did not wield enough power to effect change) speaks volumes for your character and definitely means you don't qualify as a liberal. Far from it. That alone is enough to convince me of your conservatism.

The fact that we conservatives often have differing opinions on some issues, that we are willing (and able) to marshal logical arguments in defense of our opinions, and that we are willing to admit it when we realize we're wrong on an issue (well, sometimes - it sure isn't easy) is what really differeniates us from liberals.

A couple points on the McCarthy issue. First, he died before I was born. Second, assuming all else is equal, you lose to Ann Coulter for the one very minor reason that tips closely balanced scales every time: she's a babe! :-)

Okay, that last isn't a very logical argument. But it was an excuse (even if not a good one) to post her picture!

Would anyone happen to have a mailing address for Ann? :-)

[VOA]

From hearing Coulter on a couple of radio shows, I'm suprised that they've yet to
answer her real challenge. In MY words, I would sum it up thusly:

1. Name ONE person FALSELY accussed by McCarthy of Communist sympathies/collaboration
AND
2. suffered substantively due to that FALSE accussation.

I've heard probably 10 or more liberal/Democratic callers on "Treason" on talk
radio and...I'm still waiting.
Instead the lefties have simply thrown vitriol at Coulter, often about her previous books.

The longer I don't see them trot out such a case, the more I think they HAVE NO CASE.
AND/OR they are too worked up at keeping the memory of McCarthy in Hades, they can't
think straight.