Was Oppenheimer A Communist?
Was J. Robert Oppenheimer a communist or at least a
sympathizer? It hardly matters now, but reading the
recent New York Times review of this question reminded me of the
anti-communist hysteria of the late 1940s and early 50s. I grew up in that
period, and one of my early political memories is of watching the Army-McCarthy
hearings on TV. As I read the article, it dawned on me that in some ways today's political
atmosphere is similar to the political atmosphere of that
time as I remember it.
Both periods may be characterized by extreme political divisions and by political views that are held with almost religious fervor. In those days, the supporters of the anti-communist crusade thought that their opponents were deluded, and the opponents of the crusade believed the same about the crusade’s supporters. People on both sides felt that their opponents were a danger to the survival of democracy in our country. Then as now, the political right used lies and inuendo to make their case to the public, and the left was ill-prepared to counter that strategy effectively.
People's Views Harden
The anti-communist investigations conducted by HUAC and by Joe McCarthy were political circuses designed mainly to further the political careers of the politicians who conducted them. The investigations ruined the careers of many people who were no danger to the security of the United States. Many people knew that, and the result was that all of the investigations' findings were thrown into doubt. Oppenheimer may have been a communist. I don't know, and it hardly matters now, but at the time, it was easy to dismiss the accusation because so many such accusations were known to be false. Attitudes toward HUAC and Sen. Joseph McCarthy hardened into quasi-religious beliefs that have endured until today. Hardly anyone who is old enough to remember the anti-communist hysteria of the 1940s and 50s is likely to change his/her views based on new evidence.
The Same Thing Has Happened Today
We can see a similar dynamic at play in the current controversy over the 2020 election. Trump and his supporters have repeatedly claimed that the elections of 2020 were rigged. Numerous investigations have found no evidence of such rigging, but to the believers, that merely proves that the evidence is being covered up by elites or by the deep state. To the rest of us, Trump’s supporters seem either deluded or dishonest. Attitudes toward the question of whether the elections of 2020 were rigged have hardened into quasi-religious beliefs, and hardly anyone is open to changing his/her views. People who are still alive 60 years from now will probably believe just as they do today.We Cannot Sove Big Problems Because of Ideological Divisions
None of this would matter if it were not for the fact that today
as in the early 1950s, intense, ideological conflict has made it hard for us to
deal sensibly with real problems. In the 1950s, the anti-communist hysteria
made it impossible for us to deal sensibly with crucial issues in foreign policy like the communists’ victory in
China or the defeat of the French in Vietnam. We undertook diplomatic
and military commitments that led us ultimately into the war in Vietnam and
that may soon lead us into another war in the South China Sea.
Today, the intense ideological conflict makes it impossible
for us to deal sensibly with a warming world, with our immigration crisis or
with the high and rising cost of health care. What is worse is that both sides
have interests in maintaining and intensifying the conflict. On immigration,
the right mobilizes its troops with visions of rapists and murderers crossing
our border, while the left accuses their opponents of racism. Neither side
talks about the elephant in the room, which is the millions of
undocumented immigrants who have been here for decades. Our discussion of
climate change and healthcare are similarly emotional and unproductive.
We Need New Framing To Move Ahead
We will be able to break out of this trap only if we do
something that the left did not do in the 1950s. We will have to find new ways
to frame our discussions. New frames would provide new perspectives on the key
issues that we face. Such new perspectives could be important because while it
is rarely possible to change people’s views of an issue through direct argument,
it is sometimes possible to get them to see the issue in a new way, and that can
cause them to change their positions on the issue. New frames can shake up the
electorate and cause it to divide in new ways, and if we can accomplish that,
we may be able to find a way around our current ideological impasse. I
have suggested that some of our big issues can be framed in terms of equality
of opportunity, but that will not do for everything. I invite my readers to
think about suitable frames for the big issues that confront us. The only
requirement for a frame is that it must draw on a widely shared moral principle
that can be used to drive the discussion in a new direction.
