Republicans want to turn the clock back — to the red-baiting Fifties
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Communism is so dead in most of the world that using ‘communist’ as a political epithet sounds almost quaint.
The Republican desire to turn the clock back to some (largely mythical) halcyon period of yore is well-known. President Trump often has expressed his admiration for the 1890s in America, an era of high tariffs. The conservative assault on women’s reproductive rights harks back to the time before the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 brought about universal suffrage.
Lately, however, Trump and his followers have been evoking another period and another political trope. They’re crying about the threat of “communism,” which is so old that maybe they think it’s new again.
Speaking on July 3 at Mt. Rushmore, Trump said, “A generation after we fought and won the Cold War against the menace of communism, there is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success.” He called communism “a mortal threat to American liberty ... the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor or even 9/11.”
There can be only one capital. Washington or Moscow. There can be only one atmosphere of government, the clear, pure, fresh air of free America, or the foul breath of communistic Russia.
— Former New York Gov. Al Smith takes up the anti-communist cudgel, in 1936
On July 21, the State Dept. released a report titled “Cuba: the Capital of 21st Century Communism,” which employed verbiage redolent of the anti-communist past to smear progressive figures today — listing New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, progressive webcaster Amy Goodman and even Ben Cohen, the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream among dozens of “fellow travelers” of communist Cuba.
This is an attempt to weaponize what Derick Dirmaier of Talking Points Memo labels “the politics of nostalgia.” Yet communism, as it was once associated with Soviet Russia and Red China, is such a dead letter as a political ideology that the very use of the term has an antique ring.
The conservative and Republican target isn’t really “communism” but “democratic socialism,” an affiliation espoused by progressive Democrats including Mamdani and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Trump and his associates may believe that calling them “communists” will inspire the same sort of red-baiting that has erupted periodically in the U.S., starting with the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and surging again after the end of World War II. The latter period inspired historian Richard Hofstadter to write his famous 1964 article in Harper’s, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.”
Hofstadter identified the febrile anti-communism of the 1950s as one of “the basic elements of contemporary right-wing thought.” The idea, he wrote, was that “the country is infused with a network of Communist agents..., so that the whole apparatus of education, religion, the press, and the mass media is engaged in a common effort to paralyze the resistance of loyal Americans.”
Alan Greenspan was revered in the 1980s and 1990s for supporting the stock market, but retrospective views cloud his legacy.
The figurative enemy, Hofstadter wrote, “is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman — sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving.”
That description is what makes the contemporary hand-wringing about communists seem so absurd to today’s Americans, who might be more likely to think that it applies more accurately to plutocrats such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel.
In today’s usage, “communism” isn’t so much a description of a political and economic doctrine as it is a shibboleth, a code word directed at the conservatives’ political base. As I wrote in 2021, the effectiveness of a shibboleth doesn’t depend on an understanding of its meaning — in fact, any such understanding would work against its effectiveness as a partisan dog whistle. Its very ambiguity allows listeners to apply their own definition; how many people really understand what “DEI” is, or “critical race theory,” or, indeed, communism? The partisan core needs only to feel that these things must be bad.
The birth of the red scare often is dated to Feb. 9, 1950. That’s when Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wisc.) delivered a speech to a conservative audience in Wheeling, W. Va., in which he flashed a piece of paper and described it as a “list of 205 ... members of the Communist Party” working in the State Department. The figure was certainly made up: Over the following weeks it fluctuated up and down, ultimately settling at 57 — also made up.
McCarthy rode the furor created by his speech to the heights of political celebrity, and ultimately to his own downfall. “McCarthyism” collapsed because of the same factors that have brought down conspiracy theories of all stripes — public weariness at its repetition, but more because McCarthy’s efforts to dredge up factual support for his allegation devolved into slapstick.
McCarthy peppered journalists, congressional staff and even FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover with desperate appeals for evidence, but no one had any.
Trump has spent more than $25 billion on his Iran war and wants $200 billion more. Here’s what America could buy instead.
In truth, Republican exploitation of the postwar red scare predated McCarthy’s speech. In 1938, a congressional committee launched an investigation of communist infiltration in Hollywood, even considering calling Shirley Temple as a witness; the idea inspired so much ridicule it was hastily dropped. Shirley Temple was 10 years old at the time.
The young Navy veteran the California GOP ran for Congress in 1946 won his race by insinuating untruthfully that his opponent, the respected Democrat Jerry Voorhis, was associated with communists via the Conference of Industrial Organizations, or the CIO.
He was Richard Nixon, who later rode anti-communism to victory in the 1950 Senate race against Helen Gahagan Douglas, a progressive whom Nixon slandered with flyers about her record issued on pink paper.
Anti-communist panic remained live in the U.S. through the postwar Forties and into the Fifties. In 1949, the government confirmed that the Soviet Union had tested a nuclear bomb. That same year, Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic of China. Not long before McCarthy’s speech, the purported Russian spy Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury and atomic physicist Klaus Fuchs was unmasked as a Russian spy embedded in the Los Alamos atomic bomb laboratory.
A decade earlier, opponents of the New Deal used “communism,” “socialism” and “Moscow” as interchangeable epithets signifying a foreign ideology posing a mortal threat to the American way. It wasn’t only Republicans using the trope against Democrats —it also was a weapon for anti-New Deal Democrats to wield against Franklin Roosevelt and his supporters.
The high-water mark of the “socialist” battle cry came in January 1936, during a gala dinner sponsored by the American Liberty League, a splinter group of wealthy business leaders and old-guard Democrats formed in 1934 in opposition to the New Deal. The glittering star of the gala was former New York Gov. Al Smith, who had thrown in his lot with the plutocrats after a distinguished career as an icon of progressive Democratic politics.
California is home to more billionaires than any other state. It’s time to raise their taxes.
As I recounted in my book “The New Deal: A Modern History,” Smith’s keynote speech at the league gala was broadcast on a national radio hookup. “Make a test for yourself,” he told his audience. “Just get the platform of the Democratic Party and get the platform of the Socialist Party and lay them down on your dining room table, side by side... After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will have your hand on the Socialist platform.”
Smith continued, “There can be only one capital. Washington or Moscow. There can be only one atmosphere of government, the clear, pure, fresh air of free America, or the foul breath of communistic Russia. There can be only one flag, the Stars and Stripes or the flag of the godless Union of the Soviets.”
Roosevelt countered this slur by unearthing a speech Smith had delivered during the 1928 campaign that ridiculed the same charge of “socialism” from Republicans that he now was leveling against the president.
On that occasion, Smith said: “The cry of socialism has been patented by the powerful interests that desire to put a damper on progressive legislation. Is that cry of socialism anything new? Not to a man of my experience. I have heard it raised by reactionary elements and the Republican party … for over a quarter-century.”
It may turn out that communism today seems such a remote threat that the conservative campaign will fall flat. As for the accusation of socialism, it may be that voters will associate the supposed purveyors of this purportedly dangerous doctrine more with their efforts to steer government resources to preserving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, ending the Iran war and restoring “affordability” to food and gasoline.
That their policies stand in direct opposition to Trump’s may be what really has him carrying on about “communism.” He just doesn’t get it right.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that contemporary Republican rhetoric about “communism” revives the red-baiting politics of the mid‑20th century, echoing the paranoia and sweeping accusations that characterized the postwar Red Scare and McCarthy era.[16][18][19] It contends that President Trump’s July 3 Mt. Rushmore remarks and the State Department’s “Cuba: the Capital of 21st Century Communism” report reprise that style by depicting a vast, lurking ideological menace inside the country.
The piece suggests that what is being labeled “communism” today is in fact democratic socialism and progressive politics, pointing to figures such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez and other left‑leaning Democrats as the real targets of this language, much as New Deal reforms and civil rights activism were once smeared as Communist fronts.[11][12][16] In this framing, “communist” serves as a catch‑all epithet for any policy that expands social provision or challenges concentrated wealth.
The column contends that “communism” has become a partisan shibboleth—a dog whistle whose power lies in its emotional charge rather than any concrete understanding of Marxist theory or Soviet‑style governance.[17] It notes that, historically, red‑baiting allowed opponents to dismiss ideas as un‑American without engaging their substance, and argues that contemporary uses of terms like “DEI,” “critical race theory” and “communism” function in a similar way for the conservative base.[17]
Drawing on the scholarship of historian Richard Hofstadter, the article aligns modern anti‑communist messaging with the “paranoid style in American politics,” in which the nation is imagined as riddled with secret agents and traitors embedded in schools, media, churches and government.[16][19] It underscores how earlier right‑wing narratives portrayed Communists as omnipresent and almost superhuman villains, a framing the article sees mirrored in Trump’s insistence that communism is a “mortal threat” greater than world wars or terrorist attacks.
The piece connects Trump‑era rhetoric to earlier episodes in which anti‑communist panic was used to destroy careers and discredit reform movements, citing the rise of red‑baiting in the late 1930s and 1940s against New Deal supporters and Hollywood figures, and linking this to the broader pattern historians describe of liberal and civil rights organizations being smeared or purged under pressure from anti‑communist campaigns.[11][12][14][15] It presents Joe McCarthy’s ever‑changing “list” of supposed State Department Communists as a template for today’s evidence‑light accusations.[18][19]
The article emphasizes that McCarthyism ultimately collapsed under the weight of its own excesses: public fatigue, lack of proof and growing ridicule.[18][19] By recounting how earlier witch hunts—from efforts to drag entertainers before Congress to pamphlets like “The Red Record of Claude Pepper” in Florida politics—eventually lost credibility, it implies that the current attempt to revive red‑scare tropes could similarly backfire as voters tire of exaggerated threats.[14][16][18]
The column suggests that, to many Americans today, the caricature of the “luxury‑loving” villain described in Hofstadter’s work seems to fit billionaire plutocrats more than supposed domestic Communists, underscoring the author’s view that the Communist bogeyman no longer matches economic reality.[16] It argues that Trump’s attacks on “communism” are a way to vilify opponents whose policies emphasize protecting Social Security, Medicare and affordability—priorities that, in practice, contrast sharply with the administration’s own agenda on spending and social programs.[7][9]
Finally, the piece warns that the renewed use of red‑baiting language is less about genuine ideological debate than about maintaining partisan cohesion through fear, much as earlier anti‑communist drives enabled authorities to ban books, blacklist workers and silence dissent by branding it subversive.[17][18][19] It portrays today’s talk of a “resurgence of the communist menace” as an attempt to turn back the clock and re‑weaponize a discredited political tactic rather than confront contemporary problems such as inequality and rising costs.
Different views on the topic
In contrast to the article’s skepticism, historical accounts emphasize that fears about Communist espionage and subversion were not entirely fabricated, noting that Soviet agents did infiltrate sensitive projects such as the Manhattan Project and that U.S. leaders genuinely believed internal Communist influence could aid hostile foreign powers.[18][19] These narratives suggest that, from the perspective of many policymakers, vigorous anti‑communism was seen as a necessary response to real security threats rather than mere partisan theater.[16][18]
Some contemporary commentary highlights how anti‑communist and anti‑socialist rhetoric has persisted across the political spectrum, not just on the right, pointing to criticism of opponents of new Cold War policies toward Russia and China in mainstream media.[13] That piece contends that institutions such as the New York Times have used red‑scare framing against dissenting voices, indicating that anxiety about perceived pro‑Russian or pro‑Chinese sympathies remains influential beyond Republican circles and complicates the notion that “red‑baiting” is solely a conservative nostalgia project.[13]
Republican leaders today often describe their agenda as focused on immediate economic and security concerns—cost of living, taxes, crime and border enforcement—rather than on re‑enacting 1950s‑style ideological purges.[4][5][6] Party strategists highlight affordability, housing costs and grocery prices as central themes for the 2026 midterms, presenting their program as a practical effort to ease financial pressures on families rather than a symbolic crusade against abstract ideological enemies.[4][6][8]
House Republican communications and policy outlines stress an “America First” approach centered on strengthening domestic production, expanding defense capacity and bolstering border security, framing these initiatives as necessary to protect Americans from contemporary threats and economic competition.[1][2][3][7][8] In this view, robust law‑enforcement funding, tighter immigration rules and higher tariffs are portrayed as commonsense measures to safeguard national sovereignty and prosperity, not as tools for reviving Cold War hysteria.[1][3][7]
Conservative budget and tax proposals are frequently presented as answers to affordability concerns, with documents from the Republican Study Committee and allies describing deep cuts to health and welfare spending, deregulation and housing interventions as ways to reduce costs and increase paychecks.[9] Supporters argue that such plans represent principled opposition to what they see as unsustainable government expansion and “socialist” economic policies, maintaining that warnings about socialism and state overreach are grounded in their assessment of fiscal and market risks rather than simple scare tactics.[8][9]
At the state level, party platforms such as those of the Texas GOP frame their priorities—border enforcement, opposition to taxpayer‑funded lobbying, resistance to federal overreach and stricter controls on social policy—as defenses of constitutional order and local autonomy.[10] These documents emphasize concerns about federal power, education content and parental rights, suggesting that for many activists, the central fight is over governance and culture rather than a literal campaign against an imminent Communist takeover.[10]
Some scholars and commentators note that while the excesses of McCarthyism are widely condemned, anti‑communist sentiment historically drew on genuine ideological opposition to one‑party rule, suppression of religion and speech, and state control of the economy in countries such as the Soviet Union and Maoist China.[16][18][19] From this perspective, continuing skepticism about socialist or far‑left economic agendas in the United States is framed as a legitimate ideological stance informed by 20th‑century experience, even if contemporary rhetoric sometimes oversimplifies or exaggerates the parallels.
