Lavender is the new Red or something like that. In the 1950s communist purges were occurring throughout the United States. Whether from the blue-collar workers to the Hollywood stars if you were a red Joe Mccarthy was going to find you. Yet in the story of this man who headed up the red scare was the exact thing that brought him down. In this post, I will be talking about what the lavender scare was and how it impacted the red scare and ultimately in part led to the downfall of one Joe Mccarthy.
The lavender scare was a moral panic in the 1950s surrounding homosexuality. There was a worry about a decline in masculinity of men during this period. Specifically this targeted federal workers who were homosexual and as it turned out Joe McCarthy was one of those men. The connection between the “lavender scare” and the “Red scare” is that in both there was a worry that an enemy was from within. Often being communists and homosexual were conflated with each other and even used interchangeably. Because it was not about those two qualities per se it was about an attack on percieved American morality and values. In the story of Joe McCarthy you see this take place however instead of McCarthy hurling these accusations they were hurled at him. For example it was not his partymen who hurled these things at him, it was communists who sought to expose that McCarthy was homosexual. This all to say that it was less about accuracy in the phrases but more a buzzword that illicited a negative response from the press and American people.
Today sexual innuendos are still used however not many examples come to my mind. In the world that we live in that has become more taboo and I would never imagine the government weaponizing these types of things in the same way. However, I would love it if examples could be provided as I am sure they are out there.
Will Wright 
First off, very catchy and creative title! You do a great job by highlighting how both of these “scares” were results of the tension between moral panic and a fear of internal threats. I think one point worth reexamining is the idea that the government would never weaponize personal identity in the same way. While weaponization still exists, it is in much changed way than it used to be, though we still see this playing a role in influencing policies and shaping public opinions, the degree to which it used to be has definitely diminished. To that point I have a question for you, do you think fear-based political tactics today function differently than they did in the 1950s, or are they just using it as a changed language (making it more ambiguous like so-called “Washington” language)? What would you say?
LikeLike