History 6393
19 April 2000
Stephen J. Whitfield. The Culture of the Cold War. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press, 1991. X+261pp.
Paradoxically, during the time in
which the ranks of the American Communist Party dwindled and Socialists endured
lethal political defeats, hysteria shackled the nation’s mentality as
communities across the hinterland envisioned a Communist threat to their
existence. Stephen J. Whitfield’s
monograph, The Culture of the Cold War, exposes a hideous and grimful
chapter on the nation’s ethos in which our democratic heritage reached its
nadir. In the latter part of the 1940s
and the mid-1950s monolithic Communism and totalitarianism unleashed a
“political paranoia”-to borrow Richard Hofstader’s rubric for the era’s
political scenario-that not only demanded a political consensus, but also
politicized America’s cultural institutions.
Whitfield cogently discerns how the nation, in its quest to purge the
“fifth column” succumbed to the very antics of totalitarianism it was trying to
destroy as certain educators, writers, artists, actors, film directors, and
politicians suffered the wrath of an unjust society. The domestic espionage of J. Edgar Hoover’s Federal Bureau of Investigation
conducted on civilians was not unlike its counterpart –the KGB- in the Soviet
Union. Almost five years after the
surrender of Japan, Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms and American’s First Amendment
freedoms were in peril. Whitfield’s
treatise on the Cold War elucidates how subversion of democratic principles and
ideals and the subsequent politicizing of American culture not only tarnished
our history but society as well.
Whitfield writes that “because the perceived threat from international
Communism receded by the beginning of the 1990s, we run the risk of remembering
the nation’s crusade against Communism as an isolated historical happening, one
that affected only diplomatic and military policies of the Cold War. On the contrary that struggle deeply scared
the nation’s social order as well.”( vii )
Very early into his narrative
Whitfield satisfies the reader’s query why hysteria over domestic subversives
engulfed the nation’s mental construct.
Whitfield argues that the unfeasibility of Ike’s draconian scheme of “massive retaliation” to halt the spread of
Communism made the nation search inward to purge the threat. Whitfield writes “Communism was a threat to
the United States … but not a threat in the United States.”( 3) Unfortunately, a political consensus
disagreed with that assessment and unleashed a campaign to silence accused
Communists and raised the wrath of those who defended First Amendment freedoms
and the Supreme Law of the Land as interpreted by the nation’s highest
tribunal. The ignoring of Supreme Court
decisions- such as the clear and present danger test decided in the case Sneck
v. U.S (1919)-, the abridgment of
Constitutional principles which ignored the rule of government of laws and not
men, and the silencing of liberalism cast gloom on the nation’s political institutions
that now impinged civil rights and social progress. The perjury conviction of Alger Hiss and the convictions and
subsequent execution of atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenburg sparked
hearings by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s committee in an attempt to uncover
a Communist plot in the United States.
Much to his chagrin, the hearings only produced accusations but no
subversives.
Whitfield describes how the nation’s
political consensus necessitated the adaptation of “Americanism” to the Cold
War. High school history texts served
more to indoctrinate students (just as their Soviet counterparts) on the
importance of respecting authority and on blind allegiance to the nation. In the late 1940s even the president of the
American Historical Association abandoned “that noble dream” when he lamented
that “the challenge of totalitarianism had invalidated the ideal of
neutrality.” (58) The nation reinforced it super patriotism and its vigil to
stamp out Communism through movies, literature, and television. Hoover’s G-men and the military were ready
to meet any subversive challenges to the country.
In addition to using the medium of
movies, radio, and film to fight domestic Communism, Cold War warriors also
politicized religion. Two of the most
important clergy who fought Communism were Evangelist Billy Graham and Cardinal
Francis Spellman. Graham preached that
all Communism caused evil and he operated within a culture of
self-righteousness. Cardinal Spellman,
the chaplain of the Cold War, vigorously challenged the antichrist and warned
that America was imperiled due to Communism.
Whitfield provides an interesting
and informative account on the dilemmas that accused Communists faced before a
vicious Senate committee or the House Committee on un-American Activities. Some who refused to cooperate or answer
incriminating questions suffered the indignity of tarnished reputations,
punitive damages, or imprisonment. One
Arthur Miller suffered imprisonment for contempt of Congress when he failed to
answer questions on certain individuals in his profession. Ironically, Miller’s, The Crucible, compares the Salem witchhunt to the antics
of the HCUA.
The author devotes an interesting
chapter on dissenters- such as Charles
Chaplin, Dashiell Hammit, and Paul Robeson- who challenged anticommunism and
political consensus,. Chaplin was
harassed for his Communist sympathies and was
indicted for violating the Mann Act.
He had taken a female companion
across state lines for immoral purposes.
Later, Chaplin was refused
reentry into the country due to his alien status. In 1952 Robeson, an African American actor and writer, drew the
congressional committee’s wrath when he received the Stalin Peace Prize. He refused to cooperate with HCUA and was
fined for contempt. The political
consensus of the late 50s tarnished his reputation which severely impacted his earnings. Writer Dashiell Hammett also suffered indignities for harboring
Communist sympathies. His refusal to
discuss his involvement with the Civil Rights Congress led to a contempt of
Congress charge, for which he suffered about twenty-two months of imprisonment.
By the mid-1960s the Cold War
culture began a thaw. Whitfield posits
that Americans perceived a nuclear holocaust that necessitated a thaw
in Cold War hysteria, and the nascent
cultural values that characterized the 60s also impacted the era. Whitfield argues that “the culture of the
Cold War decomposed when the moral distinctions between East and West lost a
bit of its sharpness, when American self-righteousness could more be readily
punctured, when the activities of the two great superpowers assumed greater
symmetry.” (202)
Whitfield’s study of the Cold War in
the United States makes a significant contribution to U. S.
historiography. The work is well
written, engaging, and provocative. An
excellent historiographical essay complements the narrative. Yet the work does possess some minor
shortcomings. First, even though the
author quotes extensively from his sources, he fails to use footnotes. Furthermore, Whitfield failed to elaborate
how the domestic Cold War impacted New Deal liberalism. Finally, even though Whitfield is anticommunist, he conclusions at times on
the fate of Communists in cinema and literature appear to tarnish his objectivity.