In Andrea Friedman’s article, Smearing of Joe McCarthy, we see how homophobia was weaponized during the Cold War era, to disenfranchise figures like Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) leading to his complete downfall from the political sphere. While McCarthy is remembered to this date as one of the faces of political repression, the article does claim that he became the victim of the tactic that he himself helped implant. “Lavender Scare” is used as a parallel to “Red Scare” where anyone suspected of homosexuality would be sweeped out from the government positions in the name of safeguarding the “national security”. McCarthy was one of the leading figures to popularize this tactic. However, we saw that later in the years, he himself would be the victim of this due to his close association with Roy Cohn. As the article discusses, the iconic picture of them whispering into the ears was perceived as homosexual act, and morally unjust that played a role in eroding McCarthy moral and political trustworthiness. While claims about McCarthy’s sexuality were rarely made in the mainstream media, journalists and his political opponents frequently highlighted Cohn’s and McCarthy’s time together to justify their claims, and portray Cohn as the real power behind McCarthy.
The article compellingly argues that McCarthy was not simply the architect of the cold war paranoia but also a casualty, demonstrating how masculinity was intertwined with political legitimacy. At a time when homosexuality was conflated with moral weakness and political vulnerabilities, any perceived intimacy between the two men could be used as a political attack. This was true with both the Conservatives and Liberals. However, I do think that broader hypocrisy is not well addressed in the article. For example, Drew Pearson opposed witch hunts against McCarthy initially while ultimately using the same tactic against him eventually. Many others did the same with McCarthy. This suggests that cold war politics was less of an ideology and more a power struggle between the key figures. Similarly, the media also contributed to spreading sexual gossip while positioning itself without clear evidence as the defender of the truth. This shows the fragility of journalistic objectivity which we even notice today. What I perceived from the article is also that it seems McCarthy was weak enough in controlling his own staff (responding to press, public relations, etc) especially in the context of Washington’s elites which not only made him politically reckless but also vulnerable.
If this same thing were to happen today, I see this unfolding in two different ways. First, social media and rapid spread of information would amplify the personal attacks and misinformation would easily spread. However, we also live in the context where people’s attitudes towards sexuality have evolved since the cold war era (although divisions still exist and are deep rooted). Therefore, I don’t think homophobia would be used as a political tool as today’s politics is more on accusations of extremism, corruption, dishonesty, etc. to discredit the opposition. But even if the tools of accusations have changed, what remains constant is fear-mongering and false accusations. If anything, history teaches us that smear campaigns often rely on such misinformation and are more about power than truth which is used to manipulate public perception and opinion.
Will Wright 