Helen Gahagan and SHE...

Well, first, you didn't answer my one question, where did you hear about Gahagan's wanting to destroy all copies of SHE? Again, I wasn't challenging it, only wanted to learn more.

Second, you should realize the difference between the word Democrat, used as a noun, and Democratic, an adjective. I had a feeling when I wrote the post you would conflate the two in your reply, and you did indeed rise to the bait, so how DOES it feel to be played on MY line?

Now, such imbecilities aside, things like Democrats Abroad, Young Democrats, etc., use the D word as a noun. The party is called Democratic. That is its official title. This is a matter of fact (and proper grammar), not opinion or of being P.C. Whether you like the term or not, things need to be referred to correctly.

I wasn't arguing the ideological bent of the Democratic Party. Of course it's predominantly liberal. What I said was that you referred to it as the "Democrat (Liberal) Party", as if "Liberal" were part of its title. Otherwise, you should have used a small "l". There used of course be a lot of conservative Democrats, just as there used to be a lot of liberal Republicans, and one of the great problems in American politics today is this ideological schism between the two parties that makes governing more and more impossible and party-oriented.

Almost NO conservative Republicans? I assume you mean presidents, since you mention only presidents. I think there are plenty of conservative Republicans around, but then things like that depend on one's personal opinion. I'm not sure many people would regard TR and Lincoln as conservatives; certainly in their day they were not, they were in fact opposed by the more conservative elements of their party in their lifetimes. But trying to compare ideologies of 100 or 150 years ago with today's isn't an exact science.

But we have some agreement about the "useful idiots" in H'wood of the 30s and 40s. What few liberals like to remember is that most of the people hauled before HUAC in '47 and later in '51-'52 had in fact been Communists or at any rate members of the party, so in that sense they weren't little innocents. What others don't like to know is that in the vast majority of those cases these dopes joined out of misplaced, dreamy ideology or because it was fashionable in certain circles. Eventually most of them left the party, many after having been little more than nominal members for a few months, and had been out of it for years by the time they were investigated. There remained a hard core like Lawson, Maltz, Lardner and some others who remained dedicated Reds all their lives, but the notion that the conservatives were more sinned against than sinning is incorrect. Each side tried to use its advantages but it was the conservatives who controlled the studios (the means of production -- literally) and who tossed the leftists out of work...which makes it pretty clear who dominated.

The central problem of course was that being a Communist was and is not a crime: they weren't "guilty" of anything (the Hollywood Ten went to prison for contempt, not treason or being a Communist). There was absolutely no reason for all these people to be blacklisted. Even John Wayne spoke up for some people accused by HUAC, such as Larry Parks. Lots of careers were ruined simply because the people involved had been stupid enough to have flirted with Communism in the Depression or WWII. They were dopes, useful idiots, but aside from the few hard-core most were just a bunch of saps whose punishment certainly didn't fit their so-called "crime".

I'm familiar with the Rodosh book but prefer more objective works, ones that don't take any side but simply present the truth dispassionately and completely. I find nothing useful in liberals who mindlessly demonize HUAC or the blacklist or conservatives who mindlessly cheer them on. The truth, as it usually is, is far more complex than ideological sloganeering.

I apologize for the length of my reply. You can call it diarrhea of the keyboard if you just want to be insulting, but I find that discussing some things requires more thought beyond name-calling and slogans. As I said, I don't mind a disagreement and rational discussion. It's the gratutious insults and hostility I don't get. You should be able to do better than that.