Deja Vu: A House Divided

“I believe there is something out there watching us. Unfortunately, it’s the government.”

-Woody Allen

Sixty one years ago this week, The House Un-American Activities Committee began its now well-known Hollywood investigation. The search resulted in nine day hearings and the historic “blacklist” of ten, and later more than 300, Communist sympathizers or perceived Communist sympathizers in the industry. Its “witch hunt”-like nature led Arthur Miller to write The Crucible, a play that uses the Salem witch trials as an allegory for Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s actions.

HUAAC folded in on itself in 1975 (the same year the Vietnam War ended, Franco died and Mitchell, Haldeman and Ehrlichman were found guilty of covering up Watergate…seems like a year for being fed up).

Has the government, however, made “butting out” progress since then?

I guess, being the government, “butting out” isn’t really in its job description. Apart from its “regular” obligations, it’s responsible for checking those things menacing to national, and thus presumably each individual’s personal, security.

Cold War bound McCarthy wanted to eliminate the Communist threat. Bush and Congress passed the USA Patriot Act in 2001 to defend the country against terrorism. The perils both Communism and Terrorism presented to the country at each time were, in a way, legitimate. Turns out the Rosenbergs were spies after all. September 11th really did happen.

But where do we draw the line?

Benjamin Franklin’s quote “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” pretty much encapsulates the fact that the end doesn’t always justify the means, especially when it encroaches on civil right (one of the reasons The House of Reps called their counter Patriot Act the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act, a Kucinich/Paul sponsored document about which I can comment little for or against as I my knowledge extends not far).

Then again, I don’t know. Detectives obtain search warrants to look through private property and personal correspondences all the time. The law permits them the right to do so should they have “reason” to believe that search will yield proof that a felony, for example, has been committed.

So what’s the difference?

Every time I try to figure out where one differs from the other, justify both or neither, I stonewall myself with counterarguments (it’s very tiring).

But as long as dangerous name calling, rife with implication, isn’t dead (and it isn’t), don’t we have to try to figure that out? The House of Representatives has had its own kerfuffles lately. House Republicans have accused House Democrats and such institutions as Columbia University of being “anti-American” for not supporting certain energy obtaining measures.

I don’t want to make this a Republican v. Democrat issue. I hate hearing the “Republicans are evil. Democrats are Saints” litany. It’s tantamount to childishly painting the political arena black and white (where black is “bad,” “white” good) rather than red and blue. I have to say both sides do a disgusting amount of tomato throwing.

The point, though, is that I think our government still breathes down our necks too much for comfort. Frankly, what with the Pellicano, MySpace and Facebook voyeurism feverishly (and often dangerously) making its way to computer screens and phones around the globe, everyone does and perhaps far more than the government really does.

While the whole “McCarthyism” description used as a symbol for American Totalitarianism has gotten pretty stale, and we’re a lot better off than many countries have ever been, we shouldn’t abide by moral relativism. Just because we’re freer by comparison doesn’t mean we’re free enough.

Personally, I’m not a fan of big government. In an ideal world, there wouldn’t be a government at all. We wouldn’t need one. But I think that one thing most people can probably agree on is that we don’t live in an ideal world, and Sir Thomas More’s dreams, or at least what have been retroactively interpreted as those dreams, aren’t likely to come true.

That being the case, let’s not let this 61st anniversary be a deja vu moment.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Deja Vu: A House Divided”

  1. PG says:

    Great reflections….would be better to have Small Brother than Big Brother watching us!!!