Liberals and McCarthyism

Norman Podhoretz attempted in his column (Editorial Pages, March 17), “Many Liberals Mirror McCarthy Himself,” to demonstrate that those who dissent from the dogmatic Ronald Reagan-Patrick Buchanan hard line on Nicaragua “have become a mirror image of McCarthy himself.”

Podhoretz states that “. . . they (liberals) are scoundrels because . . . they are trying to interdict the open and honest and free discussion of the main danger facing this nation . . .”

Let us examine the logic here.

“McCarthyism” or “redbaiting” is usually defined as a technique of labeling as “red,” “pink” or “treasonous” anyone who disagrees with any detail of the platform of the far-right wing of the Republican Party. We recall that at the peak of the McCarthy phenomenon in the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the top brass of the U.S. Army were accused of being “Communist dupes.”

McCarthyism is an irritating and basically harmless American attempt to repress free discussion of complicated issues. In totalitarian Communist states, in authoritarian right-wing countries and in fundamentalist religious regimes this “Us vs. Them” dogmatism is the law of the land.

The basic position is this: There is only one way to think and that is my way and if you disagree you are a witting or unwitting heretic-traitor.

The enemy of McCarthyism or Pravda-ism or Khomeini-ism or Marcos-ism or Mao-ism is free discussion, open debate. Podheretz makes it very clear that there is only one way to think about the vexing, disturbing issues of communism in Nicaragua. He says that there is “no alternative” to the Buchanan-Reagan policy of military intervention.

He says Reagan and Buchanan “are telling the plain truth.”For this they are smeared as “McCarthyites.”

Those who seek other solutions--the Contadora nations of Latin America, moderate Republicans and, of course, all Democrats--are passionately denounced. Four times in one brief essay, Podheretz uses the word “scoundrel” to describe those who insist on open debate.

My first reaction to the Podhoretz essay was pompous irritation. How dare The Times insult the intelligence of its readers with such obvious illogic? But when my eye fell on your Conrad cartoon (showing President Reagan dividing the map of the world into “Us and Them”) my piety turned to admiration for your fair-handed presentation.

TIMOTHY LEARY

Los Angeles