The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #38626   Message #543649
Posted By: John Hardly
06-Sep-01 - 03:35 PM
Thread Name: BS: kim C's cold war question...
Subject: Kim C's cold war question...
...in the "McCarthyism..." thread

"This all happened before I was born and I know ve...ry little about it. My question has always been, though: in America, a supposedly free society, doesn't an individual have a right to belong to whatever political party he/she chooses? And then, isn't it unConstitutional (or just plain wrong) to make someone testify under duress?" --Kim C

I've always wondered about this question too. I hope I can ask this and 1. be understood, and 2. Not be assumed to be flaming (especially as I'm enjoying reading the above mentioned thread, especially as someone raised on the other side of the political spectrum).

Clearly, what happened re: forced testifying and "deputizing" citizenry to spy on ourselves, during the House Committee..., was probably unconstitutional.

The question that is unasked though, and of interest to me is; When is the line crossed between what Kim C characterizes as "belong to...the party of your choice" and collusion to overthrow a government.

Said another way, should a group whose goal is to overthrow a government expect civil protection from the very government whose goal it is to overthrow?

It seems to me that much of what confused this early cold war period When we look back at it from our 2001 perspective is that the communist movement in this country at the time------whether successful or not is totally beside the point-------was a mix of 1.) a political party seeking to take over the government by in tact constitutional means (getting elected into power), and 2.) a covert movement (again, however successful is beside the point)whose goal it was to take over by whatever means.

Trouble was, it was VERY hard to deal with one without the other getting "caught in the crossfire".



The government owes me, as a citizen protected by our constitution, protection against forces that will take over by unconstitutional means. On the other hand, if I wish for the status quo, it is equally up to me to do that which is within my constitutional rights and means to do so---thus, if the Communist Party USA became a power by constitutional means tomorrow, I may not like it but I would have to accept it.