McCarthy’s Smile, Trump’s Echo: Press Complicity from Red Scare to Retribution

✍️Author’s Note

This essay compares the McCarthy era’s politics of suspicion with the MAGA movement’s politics of retribution, focusing on the media’s enabling role in both. What was once a televised spectacle of accusations has become a digital echo chamber of grievance and loyalty tests. The question remains as urgent as ever: can democratic institutions still rediscover their sense of decency?

Prologue

When Joseph Welch asked Senator McCarthy in 1954, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” I was still young. I did not grasp all the implications, but later in my fathers study I was made aware that something ugly had been brought into the open — and that it mattered that someone finally spoke with moral clarity.

Not long after, one of the first books on American politics I read was John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage. Its portraits of senators who risked reputation and career for principle left a lasting impression on me. I never imagined that, decades later, I would again see the same theatre of accusation, fear, and loyalty tests return on American soil. McCarthy’s smile behind the curtains has turned out to be less a ghost of history than a reminder that courage and decency are never permanently secured — they must be rediscovered in every generation.

1. The McCarthy Playbook—and the Camera

McCarthyism grew in the slipstream of early Cold War panic. Its central move was not argument but accusation: collapse the space between dissent and treason. The moral turn came only when institutions and journalists finally stiffened. On June 9, 1954, Welch’s rebuke punctured the spell during the Army–McCarthy hearings, a televised moment that helped the public see the tactics for what they were.

Television also carried the first high-profile media counter-attack. Edward R. Murrow’s See It Now broadcast dissected McCarthy’s methods, warning that his logic made mere criticism a mark of subversion. The press, for a moment, remembered its vocation.

2. Trumpism’s Innovation: A Movement with a Media Engine

Trumpism reframes the enemy: not Moscow-backed infiltrators but elite institutions and “the media.” Within a month of taking office, Trump branded mainstream outlets “the enemy of the American people”—a phrase with a long, illiberal pedigree. His campaign mantra became retribution: “I am your warrior… your justice… your retribution.”

Even before his election, Newt Gingrich floated a revival of a House Un-American Activities–style committee—explicitly reaching back to McCarthy’s architecture of suspicion. This wasn’t nostalgia; it was a blueprint for permanent investigation as partisan theatre.

3. Press Complicity, Then and Now

Then. The 1950s press initially treated McCarthy’s charges as news by default—publish first, verify later—granting oxygen to innuendo. Only after the Army hearings and Murrow’s broadcast did gatekeepers recalibrate.

Now. Trump’s rise exploited a ratings-driven ecosystem. Leading media executives admitted the perverse incentives—“It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS”—while cable networks showered his rallies with live, unfiltered airtime. Social platforms turbocharged virality, rewarding outrage over verification. Many outlets did correct course, but only after the spectacle had reset the terms of discourse.

The result is the same pathology by different means: what should be filtered as propaganda is framed as novelty; what should be contextualized as anti-democratic is treated as just another side in a two-sided “debate.”

4. From Loyalty Tests to Purges

McCarthyism sought loyalty oaths; Trumpism seeks loyalty performances. Republicans who resist are cast out as apostates; critics are “traitors” or “RINOs.” The performative threat of punishment—legal or extra-legal—becomes a governing principle. Trump now leans into the identity of the persecuted strongman, calling himself a “proud political dissident” to justify a promised cycle of retribution.

5. What’s New (and More Dangerous) Today

  • Scale and speed: Social media and partisan cable knit together a real-time outrage machine McCarthy never had.
  • Executive precedent: A former president commands a movement and has tested the levers of state power; McCarthy never held the executive.
  • Paramilitary aesthetics: Militias, “poll watchers,” and talk of deploying state forces for partisan ends update the “loyalty culture” into something with street muscle.

6. What Broke McCarthy—and What Might Break the Spell Now

McCarthy finally met a limit when institutions asserted boundaries—courageous lawyers, journalists who slowed down and verified, senators who refused to be bullied. Today the test is similar but harder: a press that refuses to launder propaganda as “just politics,” platforms that de-amplify coordinated deception, parties that prize civic norms above short-term wins, and citizens who can tell the difference between accountability and vengeance.

Welch’s words remain our measure: “Have you no sense of decency?” The question is not only whether leaders will rediscover that decency, but whether the press and public will demand it. Without such courage, McCarthy’s smile will not remain in the shadows—it will return to centre stage.

WJJH, September 2025

📌Blog Excerpt

What if McCarthyism did not end so much as change costumes? In the 1950s, televised hearings and breathless headlines turned accusation into a governing method—until a lawyer’s quiet fury and a journalist’s plain speech broke the spell. Today’s rebrand swaps communists for “enemies of the people,” loyalty oaths for loyalty performances, and multiplies everything through cable news and social media. The result is the same corrosion by different means: a politics that treats disagreement as treason and journalism as a prop. Breaking the spell again will require the unglamorous virtues Murrow praised—facts, context, proportion—and a press willing to say, without euphemism, when power asks for obedience instead of consent.

Leave a comment