Under the banner of national security and patriotism, the “lavender scare” was an extension of the “red scare” as both sought to purge those seen as “morally corrupt,” “psychologically immature,” and a threat to national security (Friedman). While the Red Scare was a moral panic created by Sen. Joseph McCarthy in response to the perceived rise of left-wing ideologies, mainly communism, the Lavender Scare was a moral panic against LGBTQ+ people. Under this wave of repression, thousands of suspected homosexuals were “investigated, interrogated, and dismissed by government officials and private employers” (Friedman). More fundamentally, the repression against homosexuals was linked through a “trope of enslavement”: gay men (in this example) were slaves to their perceived passions towards men, and communists were slaves to their Soviet masters (Friedman). Both moral panics targeted vulnerable groups in society (communists and LGBTQ+ people), and both scares were advanced in the interests of “national security” as society deemed these groups to be unloyal, unpatriotic, and dependent on some external passion or authority.
During the Army-McCarthy hearings, the tarnishing of Senator Joseph McCarthy exposed the American public’s skepticism toward individuals who, despite portraying themselves as outsiders, self-made figures, or embodiments of aggressive masculinity, were still vulnerable to intrusive reporting on their private lives. The blurred line between private and public life ultimately undermined Sen. McCarthy’s authority, culminating with his censure by the Senate a year after the hearings. Similar to the persecution of alleged communists under the Red Scare (a moral panic ironically initiated and handled by Sen. McCarthy), the aggressive intrusion into Sen. McCarthy’s relationship with the men around him indicated that alleged homosexuals were not to be trusted and posed a security risk to the country. Further evidence shows that Sen. McCarthy, despite presenting himself as a man of the common people, was unable to shield himself from the peering and distrustful eyes of the American public.
Since the moral panics of the 1950s, sexual innuendos have not faded from the American political landscape. Instead, they are a fundamental part of American political life and public gossip. As Friedman argues, sexual McCarthyism is “shorthand for a politics in which every nuance of private sexual behavior becomes fair game for public scrutiny” (Friedman). Sexual innuendos or gossip has become even more pervasive in the era of social media and the 24/7 news cycle. President Trump has often resorted to sexual innuendos in an effort to undermine opponents; for example, Pres. Trump has pushed claims against his opponent in the 2024 election, Kamala Harris, that insinuate Ms. Harris traded sexual favors to advance her political career. Even more examples of sexual gossip or innuendos that attempt to undermine a politician include the “small hands” debacle between Marco Rubio and Donald Trump in 2016 (Rubio is now the U.S. Secretary of State appointed by Pres. Trump) or Barack Obama mocking Trump’s “crowd sizes” with a suggestive hand gesture at the 2024 DNC.
Will Wright 