Interpreting the past

To the Editor:

In his review of my book “Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America” [Nov. 23], Sam Tanenhaus objects to the epilogue as having “little to do with McCarthyism, which originated not in an excess of federal power but oppositely, in an attack on the federal bureaucracy and its policymakers.” McCarthyism, however, is inseparable from political power, whether federal, congressional or judicial. Had McCarthy not been a senator, with access to the press and immunity from libel on the Senate floor in order to fire his defective ammunition, he would not have been able to win a national audience and lead his troops into battle.

McCarthyism shows up in all branches of government, and in charting its outbreaks before and after McCarthy, I have used a single standard: the politics of fear, the politics of insult, and the politics of deceit, regardless of party affiliation. The book opens with President Woodrow Wilson using forged documents to win popular support for the invasion of Russia, and closes with President George W. Bush using forged documents to win popular support for the invasion of Iraq. Tanenhaus seems to be using a double standard, since he writes uncritically of the Wilson episode and censoriously of the Bush episode. Is it possible that Tanenhaus, who has spent years on a book about William F. Buckley, has succumbed to the biographer’s version of the Stockholm syndrome and is identifying with his subject?

Ted Morgan

New York City