What do you think?
Rate this book
Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
A re-interpretation of one of the most hated figures in American history shows that many of McCarthy's general suspicions about security risks and communist infiltration did have a basis in truth.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published December 2, 1999
About the author
Arthur Herman
17 books279 followersArthur L. Herman (born 1956) is an American popular historian, currently serving as a senior fellow at Hudson Institute. He generally employs the Great Man perspective in his work, which is 19th Century historical methodology attributing human events and their outcomes to the singular efforts of great men that has been refined and qualified by such modern thinkers as Sidney Hook.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
February 7, 2017
Arthur Herman is a professor of history at George Mason University. Herman’s definition of the McCarthy era is “A battle pitting atheist commie liberals against church going moral conservatives”.
Herman states he used archival material from former USSR and declassified U.S. materials as his main areas of research. Most interesting is the author’s discussion of the Senate hearings. Herman provides a revisionist view of the American people and McCarthyism. I was interested in Herman’s information about the situation between National China, Communist China, USSR and the State Department. One of the few events escaping revision is McCarthy’s physical attack on adversarial columnist Drew Pearson.
The book is well written and researched. Herman does a good job in summarizing complex subjects. Herman points out that McCarthy’s sloppiness in making allegations, alcoholism and his other flaws caused his downfall which covered over his success in hunting down communist spies in government. The author also made a case that McCarthy was bipolar.
Sean Pratt does a good job narrating the book. Pratt is an actor, voice-over artist and multi-award winning audiobook narrator.
Herman states he used archival material from former USSR and declassified U.S. materials as his main areas of research. Most interesting is the author’s discussion of the Senate hearings. Herman provides a revisionist view of the American people and McCarthyism. I was interested in Herman’s information about the situation between National China, Communist China, USSR and the State Department. One of the few events escaping revision is McCarthy’s physical attack on adversarial columnist Drew Pearson.
The book is well written and researched. Herman does a good job in summarizing complex subjects. Herman points out that McCarthy’s sloppiness in making allegations, alcoholism and his other flaws caused his downfall which covered over his success in hunting down communist spies in government. The author also made a case that McCarthy was bipolar.
Sean Pratt does a good job narrating the book. Pratt is an actor, voice-over artist and multi-award winning audiobook narrator.
April 14, 2018
The fairest thing one can say about Arthur Herman's effort to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy is that it tries to be a serious work of history, unlike the blatant ideological revisionism of M. Stanton Evans or (shudder) Ann Coulter. Herman makes the case that McCarthy was an extremely flawed, often boorish individual who nonetheless was basically right about the Communist threat to America. This is a needle recent conservatives love trying to thread, assuming that the Venona archives revealed in the '90s somehow vindicate McCarthy, despite detailing Soviet espionage in America before McCarthy burst onto the political scene. Thus, while Herman offers interesting insights into McCarthy's personality, his schizophrenic relationship with the press, and how his popular support wasn't an aberration but an extension of traditional American conservatism (admittedly, not necessarily making the point he thinks!), he belches familiar canards about the Cold War. He revisits the tired, discredited assertion that FDR "sold" Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta (hint: it was Churchill). He claims that the era's Democrats were uniformly Communist dupes, ignoring that Truman instituted a harsh, restrictive government loyalty program and urged the prosecution of spies like the Rosenbergs at the same time his aides defended Alger Hiss. Most mendacious of all, he tries convincing us that McCarthy was a victim of slander and partisan politics as much as his own failings. Herman offers a scholarly sheen to tired, familiar arguments that will only convince a highly partisan readership.
January 14, 2015
As early as the book’s introduction, the author makes it known that this book would be a positive report on Senator McCarthy’s activities, beliefs and practices. This made it difficult for the reader to expect what might be a fair and balanced perspective on this important time in American history.
I realize background information about philosophies, issues and personages is needed to understand, appreciate and assess McCarthy’s work. However, in most of the book’s early chapters, the author examines communism, liberalism, progressivism, Democratics vs. Republicans, inner workings of the U.S. Senate and the federal government – information that did not appear to connect directly to Senator McCarthy and his activities; the background information did provide sometimes interesting but not critical information and perspectives.
There was a generous number of endnotes provided. However, many of the critical pieces of information and comments came from secondary sources. I understand the need to use secondary material but in several places, primary or original sources (if available) would have been more credible and acceptable. If available, McCarthy’s own writings (other than his books) in diaries, letters, etc. would have provided excellent, direct information from which to make informed opinions. Some personal interviews did add credibility to some of the information offered.
The author developed interesting views about McCarthy’s legacy (in the chapter “Beyond McCarthy”). The early announced effort for a positive report on McCarthy caused this reader some concern about the objectivity and balanced perspective the author provided in this concluding section and throughout the book.
I realize background information about philosophies, issues and personages is needed to understand, appreciate and assess McCarthy’s work. However, in most of the book’s early chapters, the author examines communism, liberalism, progressivism, Democratics vs. Republicans, inner workings of the U.S. Senate and the federal government – information that did not appear to connect directly to Senator McCarthy and his activities; the background information did provide sometimes interesting but not critical information and perspectives.
There was a generous number of endnotes provided. However, many of the critical pieces of information and comments came from secondary sources. I understand the need to use secondary material but in several places, primary or original sources (if available) would have been more credible and acceptable. If available, McCarthy’s own writings (other than his books) in diaries, letters, etc. would have provided excellent, direct information from which to make informed opinions. Some personal interviews did add credibility to some of the information offered.
The author developed interesting views about McCarthy’s legacy (in the chapter “Beyond McCarthy”). The early announced effort for a positive report on McCarthy caused this reader some concern about the objectivity and balanced perspective the author provided in this concluding section and throughout the book.
August 3, 2022
More of a 3.8 than a 4-star. From my viewpoint, this was an incredible perspective on one of the most controversial Americans in the 20th century. The fact that it was so interesting is because it does reexamine whether the charge of "most controversial Americans" is even warranted. As an aspiring criminal defense lawyer, I have no other option except to respect this author bantam. I could be speaking out of my ass here but I genuinely believe reading books from a "conservative" viewpoint is necessary for being a good American, at the end of the day we are still living in a democracy, one that depends on every citizen to have a rational understanding of other sides point of view; so we are not all tilting at windmills or something like that. I think that what makes this book and author so commendable he took an honest look at "America's greatest villain" and he did not come out smelling like roses, and at the same time, his looming inhuman shadow has faded in my mind. Understanding that Mccarthy was a rational thinking human being (whatever that really means) and not some raving lunatic who is foaming at the mouth that I had pictured in my head whenever I heard "McCarthyism". The worst I can say about this author is that he sometimes gives Mccarthy too much benefit from the doubt because of his not-so-subtle political bias. However, this never became too outrageous so much as to make someone of my sensibilities put down the book. The author does an admirable job of weaving together stories and information, and I came away not only knowing more about McCarthy but the cold war developments during McCarthy's reign.
September 18, 2021
For few of us interested in conservative movement in 20th century America, there are not many places you can go for information that is not saturated with liberal condensation. Expectedly you might come across the book with questionable interpretation of US history. Slightly longer than it should be, more like 3.5 stars.
July 16, 2023
This book piqued my curiosity. However, in delving deeper into some of the stories from other sources, it became obvious that the author has grouped things that McCarthy couldn't have known (e.g. the Venona project) as evidence to justify his uncivilized behavior. I feel duped.
I still want to learn more and will find a better summary source.
Also, there are typos.
I still want to learn more and will find a better summary source.
Also, there are typos.
February 15, 2020
Utter trash. Totally pathetic. Must have been sponsored by the John Birch Society if not written by a member. It’s like rewriting the near universally accepted history of the federal government putting Japanese-Americans in essentially concentration camps during the war was a wonderful humanitarian gesture on the part of the feds. Forgive me, I’m not a PC nut; I generally despise PC extremists. Even worse, to me, are those who try to rewrite history due to a particular agenda on their part, the most famous being Holocaust deniers. But the state of Texas entered my Disgust list when they excised Thomas Jefferson and others from American history textbooks only to replace such with “Real” historical American Founding Fathers such as ... MOSES!!!???!!! WTF? How can that even be fucking allowed??? That’s the definition of a christian theocracy as the government of Texas. Which means I’ll never spend a dime in that shithole again. No more flights to Dallas or Houston, trips to San Antonio, no conferences in Texas. So yeah, if you like totally rewriting history, this is the book for you. Shit, for all I can remember the author is probably a U Texas alum! Not ever recommended.
March 12, 2024
Arthur Herman is a brilliant historian and writer who happens to be center-right politically, so he often presents a different perspective from the mainstream. Case in point, he contextualizes the junior senator from Wisconsin and his anti-Communist crusade in a way I had never read before. He doesn’t pull any punches when chronicling McCarthy’s abuses and lies, but neither does he handle Truman, Adlai Stevenson, and various members of the State Department with kid gloves. There really was a threat from Soviet spying, although McCarthy obviously made serious errors in his crusade and needlessly ruined many careers. But there was some substance to the Red Scare. It is naive to suggest otherwise.
In addition to being a thoroughly considered documentation of McCarthy’s life and times, the book also features many jaw-dropping (dare I say juicy) pieces of Beltway gossip and political intrigue, such as when a malicious newspaper columnist needles McCarthy at a dinner party until McCarthy slapped him in a coat closet and had to be pulled off by Richard Nixon. Or the two closeted gay men on McCarthy’s committee, who lived in fear of being exposed. Or the fact that Robert “Bobby” Kennedy was not only McCarthy’s friend but openly worked for him until having a major falling out with Roy Cohn, the man who would one day become Donald Trump’s personal attorney. (BTW, Cohn was one of the gay men on the committee, although he remained closeted his whole life until he died of AIDS in 1986).
My gripes with the book:
1. Herman continually minimizes the real damage done by McCarthy. He argues that yes, some people lost their jobs, but in Soviet Russia people were killed for having the wrong views. I don’t find this a compelling argument. Obviously it is a difference of degrees, but I think you have to concede that the fear stoked by McCarthyism certainly shrank the Overton Window, and that similar movements since 1954 have repeated the attempt by various institutions at various times to shrink the spectrum of acceptable opinion. That is always a bad thing.
2. He doesn’t do nearly enough to discuss how the John Birch Society and other far-right groups fed into the hellscape that is the modern Republican Party and its obsession with conspiracy theories, anti intellectual cranks, and racism that grew directly out of the Red Scare.
In addition to being a thoroughly considered documentation of McCarthy’s life and times, the book also features many jaw-dropping (dare I say juicy) pieces of Beltway gossip and political intrigue, such as when a malicious newspaper columnist needles McCarthy at a dinner party until McCarthy slapped him in a coat closet and had to be pulled off by Richard Nixon. Or the two closeted gay men on McCarthy’s committee, who lived in fear of being exposed. Or the fact that Robert “Bobby” Kennedy was not only McCarthy’s friend but openly worked for him until having a major falling out with Roy Cohn, the man who would one day become Donald Trump’s personal attorney. (BTW, Cohn was one of the gay men on the committee, although he remained closeted his whole life until he died of AIDS in 1986).
My gripes with the book:
1. Herman continually minimizes the real damage done by McCarthy. He argues that yes, some people lost their jobs, but in Soviet Russia people were killed for having the wrong views. I don’t find this a compelling argument. Obviously it is a difference of degrees, but I think you have to concede that the fear stoked by McCarthyism certainly shrank the Overton Window, and that similar movements since 1954 have repeated the attempt by various institutions at various times to shrink the spectrum of acceptable opinion. That is always a bad thing.
2. He doesn’t do nearly enough to discuss how the John Birch Society and other far-right groups fed into the hellscape that is the modern Republican Party and its obsession with conspiracy theories, anti intellectual cranks, and racism that grew directly out of the Red Scare.
January 4, 2024
Even today, there are those who fling out the word “McCarthyism” to describe the behavior of someone they oppose. But was the former Wisconsin senator as truly horrific as the Democratic party and the press have portrayed him? This author takes a slightly right-of-center reexamination of McCarthy’s life, his conduct, his investigations, and he determines that while McCarthy was a badly flawed individual on a variety of levels, he was less wrong than everyone claims regarding his investigations. Based on recently declassified documents, Herman asserts that there really was a tangible communist threat to American security and governance.
I enjoyed greatly the idea that Herman doesn’t try to paper over McCarthy’s flaws. He makes a convincing case that the man was bipolar, and his self-destructive behavior isn’t something you can shrug off or blink away.
I loved the accounts of the senate hearings that brought McCarthy down. Again, Herman doesn’t attempt to apologize for him. But he quietly reaffirms throughout the book that McCarthy was less wrong, less crazed, and more worthy of consideration as a serious source than he currently gets credit for. Arthur Herman’s writing style is magnificent in that he turns dense names, dates, and places into living, breathing components. When I started this, I wasn’t sure I really wanted to tackle a 200-hour book. When it ended, I remember thinking So soon? Why must this be over so soon?
If you are among those who is beyond dead certain that McCarthy was every bit the Satan incarnate the Democratic party and the press made him out to be, you’ll skip this anyway. If, on the other hand, you’re a bit like me who can confess I knew little about that era in our history except the conventional wisdom I’d garnered from movies and the like, you’ll benefit from this. In no way does this whitewash and rehabilitate McCarthy. But it gives you insights authors with less talent won’t be able to deliver on.
I enjoyed greatly the idea that Herman doesn’t try to paper over McCarthy’s flaws. He makes a convincing case that the man was bipolar, and his self-destructive behavior isn’t something you can shrug off or blink away.
I loved the accounts of the senate hearings that brought McCarthy down. Again, Herman doesn’t attempt to apologize for him. But he quietly reaffirms throughout the book that McCarthy was less wrong, less crazed, and more worthy of consideration as a serious source than he currently gets credit for. Arthur Herman’s writing style is magnificent in that he turns dense names, dates, and places into living, breathing components. When I started this, I wasn’t sure I really wanted to tackle a 200-hour book. When it ended, I remember thinking So soon? Why must this be over so soon?
If you are among those who is beyond dead certain that McCarthy was every bit the Satan incarnate the Democratic party and the press made him out to be, you’ll skip this anyway. If, on the other hand, you’re a bit like me who can confess I knew little about that era in our history except the conventional wisdom I’d garnered from movies and the like, you’ll benefit from this. In no way does this whitewash and rehabilitate McCarthy. But it gives you insights authors with less talent won’t be able to deliver on.
January 16, 2018
In a review entitled "The Other Shoe Remains Aloft," Richard M. Fried reviews Herman's biography and finds that Herman fails to rehabilitate McCarthy. Despite the fact that the declassification of records from Project VENONA (intercepted Soviet cable traffic from the war) revealed that many people accused of having spied for the Russians actually had done so, McCarthy still stands as the boorish political hack we always knew him as. The logic of the book, so Balogh, is that since there were indeed communists in government and the liberals were too weak to do anything about it, McCarthy did a valuable service. Balogh proposes instead that the attacks of McCarthy were largely welcomed as a welcome addition to the partisan political attempts of the Republicans to roll back the last decades of New Deal (and then Square Deal) Liberalism. If VENONA proved that Harry Dexter White and Laughlin Currie were indeed on the Soviet payroll, then why did McCarthy stumble about for so long without offering the equivalent of Nixon's case against Alger Hiss? In some ways, it may be time to reassess the legacy of the Cold War but recasting McCarthy as something of a tragic figure (as Herman wants us to believe) stretches our conceptual flexibility just a little too far. None of this anti-liberal animus which Balogh faults the book for comes out in the BookNotes interview. If Herman is giving us a Neo-Conservative revisionist view of Tail Gunner Joe, it is unlikely that many will be convinced.
October 11, 2023
A case study of why Republics are terrible systems. It’s basically impossible to keep a liberal democracy that respects free speech and difference of political opinion without being taken over by an authoritarian ideology. The left is right about this and their fear of fascism, though fascism has been crushed and there is no real threat there. But the threat of communism is very real.
Imagine if the situation was reversed. Hitler won WWII and fascism spread to 1/3rd the world’s population. Nazi Germany is paying a network of spies to infiltrate American government. And there are plenty who aren’t on the payroll but believe in the ideology so do what they can do help. A brave democrat sticks his neck out to go after these fascists. He’s popular with the public, but the fascists in the media go after him so hard for so long the character assassination finally takes. After correctly pointing out that someone had a young man in his employ who had been a member of a fascist organization in his youth, his reputation is finished because he came off as so aggressive on TV. He is censured by his colleagues including the Democrats and is shunned and dies an alcoholic. And now years later after the fall of Nazi Germany we know that he was right the entire time.
It’s kind of depressing really because the communists won and they took over our government and still have control over it.
Imagine if the situation was reversed. Hitler won WWII and fascism spread to 1/3rd the world’s population. Nazi Germany is paying a network of spies to infiltrate American government. And there are plenty who aren’t on the payroll but believe in the ideology so do what they can do help. A brave democrat sticks his neck out to go after these fascists. He’s popular with the public, but the fascists in the media go after him so hard for so long the character assassination finally takes. After correctly pointing out that someone had a young man in his employ who had been a member of a fascist organization in his youth, his reputation is finished because he came off as so aggressive on TV. He is censured by his colleagues including the Democrats and is shunned and dies an alcoholic. And now years later after the fall of Nazi Germany we know that he was right the entire time.
It’s kind of depressing really because the communists won and they took over our government and still have control over it.
December 4, 2019
This book is, to my surprise, very sympathetic to McCarthy and he is almost a victim in the final chapters when the senators, state department, president seemingly united to destroy him. As a reader, I can't help feeling sympathetic to McCarthy. Anybody who derives historical information from this book will think so. It's true that hardly anybody was thrown in prison because of McCarthy and many well-connected people were protected from being harmed by him through their connections. However what about those poor artists, writers, low level clerks who were blacklisted, fired because of him? They couldn't find jobs in the industry and many writers had to write using a fake front. How about these livelihoods that McCarthy destroyed? The book never mentions these little people who deserve the most sympathy.
August 4, 2022
The deck was certainly stacked against Joseph McCarthy. He was a man with seemingly infinite energy, enthusiasm and likability; however, he was a Catholic from Wisconsin who had grown up on a farm.
And then there was Eisenhower who hated him for his lack of conformity to certain ideas and behavior which included laying hands on the military.
And then, especially then, there was television. It was still in its newness, its glimmer, and glamour.
And if anything, McCarthy was not glamorous.
McCarthy took on COMMUNISM which had been fashionable throughout the 30s and 40s amongst the intellectuals of the time.
Reading this book clarifies much of the schism that we see in our society today. Its birthing has been going on a long time.
And then there was Eisenhower who hated him for his lack of conformity to certain ideas and behavior which included laying hands on the military.
And then, especially then, there was television. It was still in its newness, its glimmer, and glamour.
And if anything, McCarthy was not glamorous.
McCarthy took on COMMUNISM which had been fashionable throughout the 30s and 40s amongst the intellectuals of the time.
Reading this book clarifies much of the schism that we see in our society today. Its birthing has been going on a long time.
December 13, 2019
This book is not an introduction to the McCarthy era. If I hadn't already read a dozen or so books about Presidents Truman and Eisenhower I would have been lost. The author throws hundreds of names at the reader, sometimes just once, as if they were household names.
The author diligently examines McCarthy's targets, friends, enemies. In the end, the junior Senator from Wisconsin seems to have been right about some but wrong about nearly as many of his targets. His political foes were wrong about as often as Joe. But they "won" and he "lost." History is written by the winner and the winners decided Joe McCarthy was a monster.
The author diligently examines McCarthy's targets, friends, enemies. In the end, the junior Senator from Wisconsin seems to have been right about some but wrong about nearly as many of his targets. His political foes were wrong about as often as Joe. But they "won" and he "lost." History is written by the winner and the winners decided Joe McCarthy was a monster.
January 10, 2023
This was an intriguing book, persuasively arguing that McCarthy's personality and methods have masked the question whether there were genuine security risks in the Trueman and Eisenhower administrations from Soviet sympathizers or spies. Herman demonstrates that McCarthy was, in fact, accurate in his charges (at least more than his critics give him credit for), while also not seeking to whitewash him or present an idealized revisionist account.
December 2, 2023
A late vindication of the rare politician that actually worked for the interests of the country. They will tell you McCarthy was bad and use the usual watchwords but like vampires the liberal shrieks in terror from the first daylight of reality.
July 6, 2017
I've always been intrigued by McCarthy. Long but interesting read, helped me to see that history is more complex than we give it credit for.
October 30, 2021
Not Authurs best work
December 7, 2023
Arthur Herman, a writer of tremendous skill, might think he is impartial, but his narration of Joe McCarthy's rise and fall is filled with condemnations of liberal stances in global affairs.
August 16, 2016
Like others who have read this book, I was also slightly concerned on how well popular historian Arthur Herman would balance his views on Joseph McCarthy. However, I was not only impressed on the balance of this book, but I was also impressed with the book in general.
Arthur Herman divides his book into four parts: Part I deals with McCarthy's upbringing in Wisconsin, as well as his unremarkable time as a Senator. Part II deals with McCarthy's rise to fame for his accusation of the State Department housing 205 Communist spies (Or was it 57? Or 81?), as well as the infamous Tydings Committee, which sparked his decade of fame. Part III tells us about McCarthy leading the red scare, as well as his multiple failures and poor judgement calls. Part III ends in dramatic fasion with the Army-McCarthy hearings, and later, McCarthy being censured from the Senate. Finally, Part IV examines the legacy of Joseph McCarthy.
For anyone that might be interested in reading the book, I'll let you know that this book is pretty stale. Not saying that's a bad thing, but if you aren't even the slightest bit interested in this time period of US history, then I wouldn't recommend reading this. It's pretty boring in some areas, although that's to be expected from a biography. One thing that I applaud Arthur Herman on was how much research he put into this. Most sentences have some sort of note or source that can be found in the back of the book, and there are a lot of sources that he used. As mentioned, I thought the balancing was fine. Arthur Herman had many things to say about McCarthy, and not all of it is good, but yet not all of it is bad either. In fact, I learned a lot about Joseph McCarthy from this book than I ever had before, such as his early life and how he graduated high school when he was an adult.
What did I not like about this book? The ending. Herman makes a comparison of Senator McCarthy to Oliver Stone's most famous movie, "JFK". It was unnessary, confusing, and just felt out of place. In fact, all of part IV could have used some finetuning, as the entire part felt the most unbalanced in terms of Arthur Herman's views. Thankfully, it's the shortest part out of all four. As mentioned, there are times where the book seems to sort of grind to a halt. I will admit it took me a lot longer to finish it then I intended it to.
Overall, I did enjoy "Joseph McCarthy". It was insightful, well balanced for the most part, and took the courage to have a different viewpoint on McCarthy, McCarthyism, and the introduction to the Cold War. I don't think society and history will ever view McCarthy as someone "well meaning", or anything other than a villain. However, Arthur Herman decided to be a one man army, and try to propose that there was more to McCarthy than just the standard cliches. Besides, isn't pointing out other evidence and coming up with different ideas and viewpoints the point of being a historian?
Arthur Herman divides his book into four parts: Part I deals with McCarthy's upbringing in Wisconsin, as well as his unremarkable time as a Senator. Part II deals with McCarthy's rise to fame for his accusation of the State Department housing 205 Communist spies (Or was it 57? Or 81?), as well as the infamous Tydings Committee, which sparked his decade of fame. Part III tells us about McCarthy leading the red scare, as well as his multiple failures and poor judgement calls. Part III ends in dramatic fasion with the Army-McCarthy hearings, and later, McCarthy being censured from the Senate. Finally, Part IV examines the legacy of Joseph McCarthy.
For anyone that might be interested in reading the book, I'll let you know that this book is pretty stale. Not saying that's a bad thing, but if you aren't even the slightest bit interested in this time period of US history, then I wouldn't recommend reading this. It's pretty boring in some areas, although that's to be expected from a biography. One thing that I applaud Arthur Herman on was how much research he put into this. Most sentences have some sort of note or source that can be found in the back of the book, and there are a lot of sources that he used. As mentioned, I thought the balancing was fine. Arthur Herman had many things to say about McCarthy, and not all of it is good, but yet not all of it is bad either. In fact, I learned a lot about Joseph McCarthy from this book than I ever had before, such as his early life and how he graduated high school when he was an adult.
What did I not like about this book? The ending. Herman makes a comparison of Senator McCarthy to Oliver Stone's most famous movie, "JFK". It was unnessary, confusing, and just felt out of place. In fact, all of part IV could have used some finetuning, as the entire part felt the most unbalanced in terms of Arthur Herman's views. Thankfully, it's the shortest part out of all four. As mentioned, there are times where the book seems to sort of grind to a halt. I will admit it took me a lot longer to finish it then I intended it to.
Overall, I did enjoy "Joseph McCarthy". It was insightful, well balanced for the most part, and took the courage to have a different viewpoint on McCarthy, McCarthyism, and the introduction to the Cold War. I don't think society and history will ever view McCarthy as someone "well meaning", or anything other than a villain. However, Arthur Herman decided to be a one man army, and try to propose that there was more to McCarthy than just the standard cliches. Besides, isn't pointing out other evidence and coming up with different ideas and viewpoints the point of being a historian?
February 6, 2016
Joe, we hardly knew ya!
I've always been curious about the junior Republican Senator from Wisconsin whose anti-Communist crusade in the 1950's spawned the term "McCarthyism". Terms used to describe him in the book are proud, vain, cranky, heavy, swarthy and sweaty (which would make him an interesting fictional character as well...hmmm.) The book does a good job of referencing all that was happening in the time period to frame McCarthy's actions with Cold War tensions, but in the end McCarthy stumbles blindly and stubbornly to his downfall. When Dwight Eisenhower assumes the presidency, he calls McCarthy a pimple on the face of progress. Richard Nixon, Ike’s vice president, who had befriended McCarthy at first in the senate, now sets out to help destroy him. (To prove he’s not all bad, McCarthy then refers to him as “that prick Nixon”.) The Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954, which were televised, convinced the American people, who had supported McCarthy’s anti-communism efforts to that point, that perhaps Joe was just a little wacky. Never mind that some of McCarthy’s accusations were correct and the army had indeed been negligent, in the end McCarthy was censured. He was never the same after the censure and alcoholism contributed to his death in 1957.
My only problem with the book was it did read a little too much like a textbook so it took me a while to get through it. I guess I’ve been spoiled by David McCullough’s books.
To sum it up, Joe McCarthy did not send one person to jail for communist activities, yet he is reviled as a symbol of an era of terror and suspicion. Poor Joe.
I've always been curious about the junior Republican Senator from Wisconsin whose anti-Communist crusade in the 1950's spawned the term "McCarthyism". Terms used to describe him in the book are proud, vain, cranky, heavy, swarthy and sweaty (which would make him an interesting fictional character as well...hmmm.) The book does a good job of referencing all that was happening in the time period to frame McCarthy's actions with Cold War tensions, but in the end McCarthy stumbles blindly and stubbornly to his downfall. When Dwight Eisenhower assumes the presidency, he calls McCarthy a pimple on the face of progress. Richard Nixon, Ike’s vice president, who had befriended McCarthy at first in the senate, now sets out to help destroy him. (To prove he’s not all bad, McCarthy then refers to him as “that prick Nixon”.) The Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954, which were televised, convinced the American people, who had supported McCarthy’s anti-communism efforts to that point, that perhaps Joe was just a little wacky. Never mind that some of McCarthy’s accusations were correct and the army had indeed been negligent, in the end McCarthy was censured. He was never the same after the censure and alcoholism contributed to his death in 1957.
My only problem with the book was it did read a little too much like a textbook so it took me a while to get through it. I guess I’ve been spoiled by David McCullough’s books.
To sum it up, Joe McCarthy did not send one person to jail for communist activities, yet he is reviled as a symbol of an era of terror and suspicion. Poor Joe.
November 7, 2012
Hmmm, a better book on McCarthy than Mr Griblins's, and very interesting. Mr Herman is no Ann Coulter, but definately gives a better story on the McCarthy era than others. In Herman's opinion, McCarthy has mostly good intenetions but made a lot of mistakes. He was sloppy with facts, but he was right. Oftwn, the author tries to rationalize some of McCarthy's mistakes, like "Oh, he took bribes in his early days, but what politician didn't?", "he was rude to fellow senators, but they were worse than him." "He was a hardcore drinker, but even while he was drunk, he treated his wife (Jean) with kindness". The author also places the blame on Roy Cohn for McCarthy's downfall, with Roy Cohn's infatuation with David Schine. Anyway, this book is a definate read, especially if you do not like Ann Coulter's shock value statements and partisism or M. Stanton Evan's 600 page book and it's slowness. I only gave it four stars becuase I think the Soviet conspiracy was more than Arthur Herman (And even Joe McCarthy) knew.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews