Chambers, McCarthy, & Trump

An interesting question was posed to me yesterday by a former student, wanting to know what Whittaker Chambers might think of Donald Trump. I gave him my short answer but then decided it would be perhaps insightful to provide a fuller one here today.

For those of you unfamiliar with Chambers, here’s a short synopsis of his life.

Chambers at DeskWhittaker Chambers, in the 1920s, became a member of the Communist party because he saw it as the hope of a world filled with destruction after WWI. At one point, he was ushered into the communist underground movement where he helped place communists in government positions to influence policy; he also served as a liaison between those officials and underground leaders, to whom he passed on information stolen from the government.

He soured on communism in the late 1930s as he saw the fruit of Stalinism: the purges of faithful party members, in particular. He had to go into hiding to protect his family, emerging later as a writer for Time magazine, eventually becoming one of its senior editors.

After WWII, Chambers appeared before a congressional committee and told all he knew about the underground subversion taking place. One of the men he fingered in the underground was Alger Hiss, a top State Dept. official. When Hiss denied the accusation, it became front-page news.

To shorten the story considerably, all I’ll say is that Chambers was proven correct, Hiss went to prison, and Chambers then wrote a masterful autobiography entitled Witness, which came out in 1952. It is one of my all-time favorite books.

Joe McCarthy 2Sen. Joe McCarthy is infamous for trying to root out the communist conspiracy in the early 1950s. Nothing wrong with that, except McCarthy seems to have been motivated more by personal glory than principle. He also was not a man of towering intellect like Chambers. Neither did he have the inside knowledge Chambers did.

Naturally, McCarthy sought to have Chambers on his side publicly. Yet Chambers declined to join in his crusade. Why? It had to do with the character of the man.

In letters Chambers wrote to William F. Buckley, the dean of the modern conservative movement in America, he laid out his concerns—even fears—of what McCarthy might do inadvertently to undermine genuine anti-communism.

Odyssey of a FriendIn one of those letters, responding to Buckley’s queries as to why he wouldn’t come out in support of McCarthy, Chambers replied,

One way whereby I can most easily help Communism is to associate myself publicly with Senator McCarthy; to give the enemy even a minor pretext for confusing the Hiss Case with his activities, and rolling it all in a snarl with which to baffle, bedevil, and divide opinion.

That is why I told Senator McCarthy, when he asked me to keynote his last Wisconsin campaign, that we were fighting in the same war, but in wholly  different battles, and that the nature of the struggle at this time enjoins that we should not wage war together.

I do not think that the Senator really grasps this necessity. For it is more and more my reluctant opinion that he is a tactician, rather than a strategist; that he continually, by reflex rather than calculation, sacrifices the long view for the short pull.

While Chambers obviously wanted much of what McCarthy wanted—the exposure of the communist threat—he didn’t see McCarthy as the man to accomplish this.

In that same letter to Buckley, Chambers expressed his deepest fear:

All of us, to one degree or another, have slowly come to question his judgment and to fear acutely that his flair for the sensational, his inaccuracies and distortions, his tendency to sacrifice the greater objective for the momentary effect, will lead him and us into trouble.

In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that we live in terror that Senator McCarthy will one day make some irreparable blunder which will play directly into the hands of our common enemy and discredit the whole anti-Communist effort for a long while to come.

Chambers was prophetic. That’s precisely what happened. McCarthy ultimately went too far with his accusations and fell from his lofty perch politically. Ever since then, anytime a conservative sounds a warning about socialism/communism, critics on the Left have been able to sound the alarm of “McCarthyism.” The senator dealt a deadly blow to intelligent concerns about subversion.

So what about Trump? What would Chambers think if he were here today? Of course, we are dealing with a hypothetical, but we do have Chambers’s own words and feelings about someone who could be disastrous to a good cause. That’s how I see Trump.

Looking again at Chambers’s comments, I can see Trump in many ways. Just as McCarthy was not a principled person, but rather someone out for his own notoriety, so is Trump, in my view. He has no solid principles; he is no conservative; he has little knowledge of constitutional government.

Then there are the tactics. Chambers criticized McCarthy for being merely a tactician, not a strategist, someone who went for the short-term advantage rather than having a long-term goal. Trump again.

Chambers questioned McCarthy’s judgment, his flair for the sensational, and the inaccuracies and distortions in his comments. I see Trump there as well.

Finally, there was Chambers’s biggest fear, that McCarthy would do more damage to the cause in the long run and discredit real anti-communism that knew what it was talking about. I believe Trump will cause great damage to conservatism in our day. People will associate him with that ideology, despite the fact that he is a man of no particular ideology himself. He is merely a narcissist looking for a way to advance himself.

If Trump doesn’t change (and that’s highly unlikely), and he wins the presidency, we may, in the future, hear the alarm of “Trumpism” just as readily as the Left has used “McCarthyism” for the last six decades.

If Chambers were alive today to see what’s transpiring, there is no way I believe he would be a Trump enthusiast. Rather, he would be on the front lines sounding a proper alarm, fearful that conservatism will be undermined by support for Trump.

As an addendum, Ronald Reagan’s son, Michael, has stated that he doesn’t believe his father would have jumped on the Trump train either. From everything I know about Ronald Reagan, I have to agree. Although Reagan called for unity in the Republican ranks, he always wanted that unity to be based on principles.

I find it kind of ironic that those who are excoriating Ted Cruz for not endorsing Trump forget that Reagan, who lost the nomination to Gerald Ford in 1976, spoke at that convention at Ford’s request. While delivering an impromptu speech about the need for Republican principles to win in the election, Reagan pointedly didn’t specifically endorse Ford in that speech. Neither did he campaign for him prior to the election. If that was acceptable for Reagan, why not for Cruz, who has even far more reason to decline a Trump endorsement?

Book Cover 1I have studied both Reagan and Chambers for many years. That’s why I came out with this book last year, The Witness and the President: Whittaker Chambers, Ronald Reagan, and the Future of Freedom.

If you want greater depth of understanding of both men, I heartily endorse this book (for some reason). As you dig into the thinking of both Reagan and Chambers, I hope you will come away with a greater appreciation of those who stand on principle.

I also hope you will also grasp why I have not been able to endorse Donald Trump. I want men (and women) of principle taking the lead. We have to look beyond the short-term “victory” of one election and concentrate instead on the long-term. Christian faith and conservative governance are my guidelines; I don’t want them to be denigrated by the unprincipled antics of politicians today.

The Game Truly Is On Now

“Game on” was how Rick Santorum described the status of the Republican presidential primary race the night he won Iowa [even though he didn’t know he had won it for another week]. Well, if that win was a signal that the game was on, last night served as an indication this is a serious game for sure. Polls had hinted he might take Missouri, eke out a slight win in Minnesota, and could be encouraged by a strong second-place finish in Colorado. After the votes were counted, he had swamped Romney in Missouri, scored a solid victory in Minnesota, and stunned all pundits by taking Colorado by five points.

Santorum had a perfect three-for-three evening.

Despite the expected caveats—Missouri was just a “beauty contest,” none of those states actually awarded delegates at this point, turnout wasn’t that high—the results have changed the trajectory of this “game.”

What are we witnessing? First, Romney has never nailed down the conservative vote, and it showed in a big way. Second, Gingrich may have already peaked and is now beginning a fade because conservative voters are switching allegiances; when they compare Gingrich with Santorum, they are liking Santorum better. Third, this obviously is no longer a two-man race. Fourth, lots of money and organization may not trump issues after all. And how about this possibility: should Gingrich now leave the race so he won’t drain support from Santorum? How’s that for turnabout?

I’ve always despised the mantra that whoever wins early is the presumptive nominee. I recall another primary battle back in 1976, when an upstart challenger named Ronald Reagan took on the incumbent president Gerald Ford. Reagan lost one primary after another, and the experts were saying he should pull out. Then the tides shifted, and he began winning them all. The race was so close it wasn’t finally settled until the Republican convention that year. Yes, Reagan fell short, but I doubt that anyone today seriously thinks anymore that Ford was the better candidate. So I say, let the race continue.

Santorum is correct when he says that Romney cannot be the Republican spokesman to critique Obamacare, given his background and ongoing defense of Romneycare. Santorum also is someone who can put those midwestern states in the Republican column in November. I’m also convinced he will be the best person to tackle the looming Iranian threat.

Romney last night in his speech said, “This is a time for real change in Washington—fundamental, bold, dramatic change.” I couldn’t agree more. But when has Romney ever been the candidate espousing fundamental, bold, or dramatic change? He’s the mushy middle who will superintend the status quo. I can’t imagine him doing anything bold. He’s always been the “go along to get along” guy. Santorum, on the other hand, has been rock solid on issues dear to my vote—sanctity of life, significance of family, and Biblical morality as the cornerstone of policy.

Santorum has passed one test. Now, can he do the same in Arizona and Michigan at the end of this month? Michigan is another of Romney’s “home” states—he seems to have a number of those. Yet Santorum’s message of reviving manufacturing could play well there. Arizona is quite conservative, and the ongoing battle that state has with Obama over illegal immigration may also be fertile ground for him.

I think he was correct to say “game on” in Iowa. That terminology is even more appropriate now.