From McCarthyism to Ashcroftism

by Isabel Estrada

In the 1950’s McCarthyism was the government’s way of infusing the United States population with fear so that it would remain silent when its civil rights were being trampled. Now the government is choosing Ashcroftism as their new method to silence the population. Is one of the first victims John Walker Lindh, also known as the "American Taliban"?

Elia Kazan, a Turkish immigrant of Greek descent, directed "On The Waterfront", "A Streetcar Named Desire", "East of Eden", "Viva Zapata" and others. He started out in a very leftist ensemble called the "Group Theatre" and was a member of the communist party in 1934 and ’35. In 1952, at the height of McCarthyism, Kazan was one of many called before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) to be questioned on his subversive (communist) past. At first he refused to "name names", but after realizing that he would never work in Hollywood again if he didn’t, he capitulated. On April 10th he named eight people who had been members of the Communist Party. In doing so he ruined some careers, forced others to "name names", and perpetuated the power of the blacklist. Subsequently Kazan has attempted to justify his actions by stating that he was justly exposing a corrupt party. In his movie "On the Waterfront", Kazan uses a classic scene in which, as a glorification of his own actions, Marlon Brando proclaims that he is justified in exposing the mob to the FBI because of their cruel dealings. It seems a sorry justification, however, to correlate the United States Communist Party with the Mafia.

When I first heard that Kazan was to receive the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Lifetime Achievement Award, I wasn’t sure what to think. On one hand, I have grown up with too much respect for wonderful movies to believe that the director’s personal life should be questioned when determining the merit of his or her movies. On the other hand, the Award is supposed to be for "Lifetime Achievement." Because of the title I think the criteria must encompass more than just his movies. However, what is most important are the implications of allowing a person who, in my opinion, chose his career over his integrity to receive such a prestigious award, and one with so much media coverage. As David Walsh put it in his article "Filmmaker and Informer", "Whatever the board members' conscious motives, their collective decision to honor Kazan is a means of absolving those who collaborated with and assisted HUAC and the McCarthyites. It is likewise an announcement by the film industry establishment that it would do nothing to oppose and resist a new witch-hunt, should it emerge."

Today, we have "Ashcroftism." John Walker Lindh a/k/a Suleyman al-Faris, a/k/a Abdul Hamid is the 20 year-old white male from Marin who converted to Islam at 16, went to Yemen to study Arabic and eventually fought with the Osama bin Laden’s organization, the Al-Qaeda. He is currently being charged by the United States with, (1) engaging in a conspiracy to kill nationals of the United States outside of the United States, namely, United States nationals engaged in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan; (2) providing, attempting to provide, and conspiring to provide material support and resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations, namely, al-Qaeda and Harakat ul-Mujahideen ("HUM"); and (3) engaging in prohibited transactions with the Taliban. However in the Media he is on trial for being a traitor; his parents are on trial for being too lenient, and; Marin County is on trial for being too liberal.

In a December 11th commentary "Kids do the darndest things" from Townhall.com, a collection of Conservative Columns, Bill Murchison writes, "A pity, you say, that someone closely related to him -- a parent, say -- didn't take a hand in teaching him. Of course, that would have required taking a closer interest in the old assumptions most people used to make -- parenthood as maybe the highest of responsibilities; childhood as a school rather than a playground; wisdom to be praised, dumb actions to be rebuked and sometimes prevented. Gee whiz, dad, it sounds almost like the '50s. And doesn't it sound good?" It is frightening that Murchison refers to the 1950’s with nostalgia. This was a time when, out of fear of communism, the extreme civil rights abuses that occurred mirrored those of which the United States government so vehemently accuses totalitarian states of indulging.

In her commentary "American Taliban", Ellen Goodman of The Washington Post Writer’s Group talked about possible causes for Walker actions. She wrote, "We now hear that the culprit is cultural liberalism, permissiveness to the point of no return. The problem is Marin County, that much-lampooned suburb of San Francisco, tolerant to a fare-thee-well." Summing up the instances that lead to a person’s actions is not so easy.

I grew up in a very open-minded household in San Francisco. I was always taught to make my own conjectures rather than blindly accept what I was told. I am going to college in the Fall. I also read The Autobiography of Malcolm X around the time when I was sixteen. The discipline he describes certainly does have a romantic appeal. I was extremely moved by his dedication to his people. But I mostly felt inspired by his later experiences after returning from Mecca where he saw people of every color praising Allah and came to feel that below Allah, he and all other believers were equal.

Suggesting that liberalism breeds terrorism directly contradicts the supposed United States ideal of free thinking. I’m also especially concerned about the constant and flippant use of the word "traitor" as a description for John Walker. It may be true that Walker is a traitor in the sense that he betrayed his country. However, the word traitor connotes amorality and lack of integrity. Walker is certainly no traitor to his beliefs; on the contrary he risked his life for them.

Of course George Bush Sr. made an unhelpful and offensive comment in an ABC interview, "Make him leave his hair the way it is and his face as dirty as it is and let him go wandering around this country and see what kind of sympathy he would get." As a POOR Magazine intern I was personally offended by this insensitive remark. There are people who have no choice but to walk around "dirty" because they are tossed aside by our materialistic society and become members of the poor and houseless. My editors, Dee and Tiny, commented that it seems as though the Media is attempting to make some mistaken connection between Walker and all those "scary poor" people in order to turn public opinion against him.

The other day I was talking to some people at POOR Magazine about the Walker case since it is so odd. I did not exactly know what to make of it. What is very interesting is that in Walker’s case, what usually would be to his advantage in the eyes of the law, the fact that he is middle class and white, is in this case working against him. It seems almost a sly and purposeful move on the part of our government to react harshly to Walker's case. They are showing that they will not be lenient; Ashcroft stated in a rather hypocritical speech, "We in America have a country respected for cherishing freedom and tolerating dissent. We have fought wars in defense of our freedom and our right to criticize our government. And when criticism turns to violence against these very values, we must once again defend our nation. The United States Department of Justice will defend the values reflected in our laws by prosecuting John Walker."

However, Walker is not receiving any of the major support from the left, or from anybody, that would usually accompany a case in which the defendant has not been allowed to get a lawyer or even speak for himself. Every article I have read about Walker makes different conjectures about his behavior, but none has really been able to get information directly from him. He is an easy target for the government. There are no huge masses mobilized to defend white middle class males. If he were a female, a person of color, gay or poor he might get some backing, but as it is activist organizations have basically been silent about his case. I personally wonder why this is?

I’m reminded of the statement by Pastor Niemoeller, a victim of the Nazis.

"First they came for the Jews,

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists,

and I did not speak out

because I was not a communist.

And then they came for the trade unionists,

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

And then they came for me,

and there was no one left

to speak out for me."

--Pastor Niemoeller (a victim of the Nazis)