>What,
>after all, was McCarthyism? In the history books, it is described as a
>method of political intimidation where someone is accused of something
>allegedly shameful, not told who his accusers are, and forced to respond.
>CB: McCarthyism was " after all" anti-Communism. That is it's main
historical significance. If this guy is a >rightwing , anti-communist (?)
,what a ripoff
It was also attacks on a number of folks sexuality as well, since being "pink" had more than one meaning in the Right's mind. And the relationship to McCarthyism (however overblown) is the idea that people's personal lives and their personal associations will be investigated and they be forced to answer for it in public forums, eroding both personal privacy and dignity.
There is a sickness in public debate where investigations into private failings gets more attention and debate than the investigations into concrete public statements and policies. Partly it is a sickness of a "non-ideological" press that can declare a "gotcha" objective truth with a semen-stained dress but has to make "on one hand" muddled declarations on the effects of policy. We also have folks saying "qualified" people should be confirmed in office regardless of ideological, so since ideological attack on public figures is somehow delegitimized, full-out character assassination becomes the tool. So we end up with Ashcroft confirmed but Linda Chavez dropped- a perverse way to approach public appointments.
I was against the trolling in Clinton's personal life for consensual sexual relations and thought they should have been out of bounds for discovery even in court proceedings, since private non-public consensual sex had nothing to do with sexual harassment charges by Paula Jones. (Publicly flaunted sex on the job is another matter that could have legal implications but Clinton, however reckless, did not engage in that.)
Tracking someone's personal ads, in whatever source, is as disgusting as Ken Starr trying to subpeona people's book purchases or folks who sought to track Clarence Thomas's video rentals.
If Sullivan's ideas are reprehensible (and most of them) are, they should be attacked on that basis, as ideas, and countered with evidence, with anecdote, with emotional appeals, whatever. But not with character assassination of the basest source.
In the heat of the impeachment battlem when folks like Salon exposed Henry Hyde's sexual infidelities, there was a certain "fight fire with fire" justification based on the stakes involved and the so overwhelming hypocrisy of the assault involved. But the stakes in attacking Sullivan are far too low to justify such overblown weapons of character assassination and personal privacy invasion.
-- Nathan Newman