Read Arthur Miller on the subject . . full of insights, and his lack of rancour makes him all the more refreshing. (Sorry, I'm not going to try to express his views here, because I'm simply not up to the task.)

A small point: remember the key question of the committee was "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party". To "take the 5th" in answer to that question was to "speak volumes".

Also, the other "aim" of the committee was to get people to "name names" - not an area where "the fifth" is of any help.

Of course, during this period, someone took a copy of the US Constitution out on the streets and asked folks to sign it, as a pettition. The great majority of those asked refused to do so, on the grounds of its being un-american! (This tale may be apocrophal, but I think it's actually true.)

As for John Hardy's original post, he "identifies" a problem which simply does not exist.

I assume he accepts that the (a) part of his "communist dichotomy" is legitimate political activity and so should not be penalised. The (b) part ("a covert movement . . take over . . by whatever means") should - in any "free" or democratic society be acted against only as and when it breaks the laws of that society. There is no case fo taking any further action. Within a "free" society it has always been easy for "intellegence" operators to infiltrate such organisations unless and until they are driven underground.

But wasn't McCarthy's concern that of the Communists "poisoning the minds" of Americans (or was it just of American Youth)? An admission that the "American way of life" couldn't argue its case, in a fair contest, against the communist manefesto?

G.