When I was teaching college mass communication courses, I thought it important for students to experience the real deal. While covering the history of media, I carefully passed around a 1950 first edition of "Red Channels: The Report of Communist Influence in Radio and Television." This is the publication that helped fuel the famous McCarthy hearings and deprived hundreds of actors, announcers, writers, producers, etc. of their livelihoods. That's because it had become the bible for media managers to help them decide who was "safe" to hire for work in broadcasting and film. If they chose the wrong names, they risked organized boycotts of their sponsors' products.
Red Channels is nothing more than 213 pages of alphabetically listed names accompanied by the organizations and political activities of each person. Sounds harmless, right? Most of the people are unknown to us today, but some, like Orson Welles, Edward G. Robinson and Ruth Gordon, live on in pop culture. However, in the 1930s after the Great Depression, many disillusioned people joined political organizations, wrote for publications, or participated in assemblies to protest the financial and social havoc caused by unbridled capitalism. The analog today would be the tens of thousands of young people who protested the Vietnam War back in the 1970s. All of the Depression-era organizations were predictably left-leaning and some were blatantly communist with a small "c," though Moscow was suspected of giving financial support to a few.
By the time the 1950s rolled around, the country was in the icy grip of the Red Scare. Communism was on the march. Some rumored that communists had infiltrated almost every aspect of our society, from the military to show business. "Pinko" operatives supposedly lurked in the shadows, weakening our resolve with thinly veiled propaganda in the mass media and waiting for their cue to take over. Self-appointed and paranoid accusers destroyed reputations through whispered innuendo or blatant claims that this or that person was a communist sympathizer or "fellow traveler." Some, like Sen. Joe McCarthy, manipulated this fear to further their political ambitions. McCarthy even went so far as to accuse President Eisenhower of being a communist.
I see a similar phenomenon today with Islamophobia. Some unprincipled politicians accuse our president of being a secret Muslim or Muslim sympathizer without a scintilla of hard evidence. If challenged, they lamely point to the Iran nuclear deal as a giveaway to our Islamic enemy. When Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress in March, he warned Iran "could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons ... ." Yet the new agreement ensures that Iran won't have a nuclear capability for 10 to 15 years. Some giveaway. If you combine this nuclear muzzle with Obama's seemingly endless drone strikes on Islamists and his support for insurgents fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, you have to scratch your head. Is this any way for a secret Muslim to act? I guess his Manchurian Candidate brainwashing while a student in Indonesia didn't stick.
Recent claims on this page that Obama has an affinity for Islam or has betrayed an "adoration for Islam" in his speeches are simply unsubstantiated lies meant to appeal to a constituency that revels in conspiracy theories. The purpose of such disinformation is not to build a better and more tolerant society — or county — but to fabricate a straw dog that requires a wise and brave leader to vanquish. As in the 1950s, it is all about political posturing and paving the way for the next stage in a political career.
Lastly, it is essential to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. The first is a religion practiced by close to a billion people and the second is a political movement, like communism and fascism. A believer in Islam is not an Islamist; just like a Catholic in 1940s Italy wasn't necessarily a fascist. Islamism wishes to substitute Sharia law for civil law. Islam doesn't. The vast majority of American Muslims see Sharia as a personal code of morality covering such obligations as prayer, fasting and charitable donations. They don't believe that it should supplant our laws under the U.S. Constitution. To say otherwise is either poor scholarship or hate mongering that echoes the worst of McCarthyism.
Frank Batavick writes from Westminster. His column appears Fridays. Email him at fjbatavick@gmail.com.
