Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bringing McCarthyism to a University Near You

By Kelly Hearn, AlterNet. Posted March 16, 2006.


Is the federal government so concerned about Hugo Chávez that it's questioning college professors about their ties to Venezuela?
Advertisement

Last week, during his office hours at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif., professor Miguel Tinker Salas, a Venezuela-born historian and Bush administration critic, received an odd visit.

It had nothing to do with term papers or syllabi. In fact, the visitors didn't own a student ID card.

Channeling McCarthy-era intimidation, professor Salas greeted two members of the L.A. County Sheriff's Department/FBI Joint Task Force on Terrorism. They had a file on the U.S. academic, complete with a photo. And they had questions: Was he a U.S. citizen? What was his immigration status? Was he in contact with the Venezuelan embassy?

The event spun from blogosphere to mainstream press, prompting apologies from the FBI's Los Angeles office and birthing charges that the Bush administration is resuscitating Red Scare tactics in an effort to stem U.S. grassroots support for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's socialist ideology.

Is the White House that worried about Chávez's power? Recent weeks have brought marked amplification of Washington's Cold War of words. But top U.S. officials have zeroed in on Chávez's international misdeeds. Intelligence Chief John Negroponte, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continue to charge Chávez with strong-arming opposition at home, funding rogue elements in his region and coddling Washington's top enemies abroad, including Iran and North Korea.

Last month in congressional testimony, Rice said a "policy of inoculation" was necessary to diplomatically contain Mr. Chávez's influence in Latin America.

For his part, Chávez has mastered the art of annoying Washington: backing Tehran's nuclear plans, wooing North Korea, extending his hand to Hamas, pushing his own civilian nuclear power plans, all while repeating threats to clamp off oil supplies to the United States.

Meanwhile, the controller of the world's fifth-largest oil exporting country is deftly seeding his image and ideology in Washington's backyard, connecting with U.S. citizens and groups that share his disdain for the Bush administration, for neoliberalism and, more generally, for globalization's myriad failures.

His message is powered by oil. Flush with petrodollars, Chávez has offered free or discounted gas to America's poorest citizens through CITGO, a subsidiary of Venezuela's state oil company. He has floated the idea of offering free eye surgery to poor Americans while his government has helped out on local levels. In Chicago, for instance, a popular street festival Fiesta Boricua, was saved last year by a $100,000 donation from CITGO.

And he's won followers, from Jessie Jackson to Cindy Sheehan to everyday Americans from Tennessee to Utah. The Miami Herald reported in December that fifteen "Bolivarian Circles" -- the grassroots groups that form the basis of Chávez's social revolution in Venezuela -- have sprung up in U.S. cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Boston, Miami, Salt Lake City and Knoxville. Meanwhile, his government is paying a Washington lobbyist for an image buffing on Capitol Hill.

Supporters say Chávez's "grassroots foreign policy" is a taste of Washington's own medicine, a flip side to the congressionally funded National Endowment for Democracy's support of anti-Chávez groups in Venezuela. Washington casts Chávez as the puppeteer of Latin America's so-called "Pink Tide," the recent rise of progressive, anti-U.S. politicians eager to distance themselves from U.S.-backed free market policies. With oil at stake and Bush at 39 percent approval ratings, does the Salas incident mark the beginnings of a Pink Scare?

In this edited transcript, professor Salas talks with Alternet.

Kelly Hearn: What do you think caused the visit? Are you currently active in groups that support Mr. Chávez?

Miguel Salas: The only grassroots I have is my family. I'm a professor and hardly have time for anything but teaching and publishing, and trying to keep my head above water. I have a full load and am not involved in any kind of grassroots activity. I think this happened because I am an outspoken critic of U.S. policy, which has all but failed and is premised on isolating Mr. Chávez. I am a very vociferous critic and have done so publicly in print and broadcast media. In fact, the day before they showed up, I had been on CNN en Espanol talking about the history of U.S. intervention in Latin America.

KH: Mr. Chávez is spreading his Bolivarian revolution on a regional stage and is connecting with marginalized communities who feel ignored by the United States and hurt by neoliberal, U.S.-backed policies. He's now connecting with some Americans in a similar way. How would you characterize the potential political impact his Bolivarian Revolution might have among marginalized communities in the United States?

MS: I don't think social processes are exportable if discontent doesn't exist in the first place, the kind of protests we've seen in countries like Argentina and Bolivia. I don't think Chávez's position will have much of an impact here. But throughout the continent, there is a great level of social discontent that's the product of 20 years of neoliberal policy.


Digg!

Kelly Hearn is a former UPI staff writer who divides his time between the United States and South America. A correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, his work has appeared in The Nation, The American Prospect and other publications. He is a regular contributor to AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Can't stand Bush, but
Posted by: chaoslegs on Mar 16, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the majority of Democrats are no better in their adherence to exporting the neoliberal policies. NAFTA came through under Clinton with Democratic support.

I hope Chavez's populist message does spread throughout the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Can't stand Bush, but Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
not so free press in Venezuela
Posted by: amalgamatedspats on Mar 16, 2006 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It sucks that the US government is harassing him, but it's too bad that he seems to be a Chavez apologist.

He said: I fully support a free press, and I have not seen a muzzled press in Venezuela.

Maybe his eyes are closed:
Reporter arrested

Journalist threatened after reporting tax irregularities

Journalist arrested, allegedly for fraud

Bomb attacks and threats against newspaper

Media censored in murder case

There are some (most, perhaps) of the 2006 incidents so far.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has History Now Proven McCarthy To Be Right On?
Posted by: DaftAida on Mar 16, 2006 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand the author's use of the term 'McCathyism' as we are given to understand it. However, author and readers are invited to review using this man's name as an example of inquisition. The fact is, that the 'victors' always write the history to demonize anyone who poses a serious threat to their agenda. They, of course, present themselves as the 'good guys' or, as in McCarthy's case, 'victims' mercilessly hunted down simply for excercising their right to free speech and expression as enshrined in The Bill of Rights. Thus deceiving people into believing that they uphold and defend these values. This is how the bastards have destroyed USA from the inside out - parasitically nourishing an insidious goals. OK, consider this:-
Senator McCarthy exposed a covert core of communist activists infecting American values and subverting the very principles upon which the USA was founded i.e. committing Treason As a true Patriot he did his duty in actually doing something about it. His reward was to be politically 'executed' and eternally villified as a result of the power that this growing cabal held and exerted - holds and exerts today. Extract from Wikipedia site:
"In a six-hour speech on the Senate floor on February 20, 1950, McCarthy raised the issue of over two-hundred individuals who had worked in the State Department, or wartime agencies such as the Office of War Information (OWI) and the Board of Economic Warfare (BEW). McCarthy began with a half truth, that a large foreign espionage ring existed within the government and the Truman administration was doing nothing about it; the other half truth was that the Truman administration was doing nothing about it because it did not know of the existence of the Venona project." Please check it out and draw your own conclusions.
In the '40s there was a massive influx of nazi scientists and propoganda experts funnelled into America through 'Project Paperclip'. They were all given key positions in science, psychiatry, education, medicine, research and military intelligence. Similarly, covert ops in America were working closely with USSR and the 'Cold War' was erected as a cover to mask the collaboration. By the 50's their influence was maturing and this is what McCarthy confronted. The infiltrated media tore the man apart through false accusations and slurs. McCarthy's campaign was shortlived: 1950-1954 and yet the victors have ensured that his name has gone down in history as an enemy of free choice and liberty when he was doing his best to preserve it, as his duty demanded. I note that one of his targets was Kinsey who did more to pervert American sexual values than anyone can imagine. He was a psychopath with a deeply twisted sexuality and the majority of his 'research' was gained through convicted perverts, prostitutes and sexual deviants which were falsely presented as typically average Americans. No doubt Kinsey found himself in excellent company amongst Senator McCarthy's other targets. So, 50 years on, and the poisonous alien that McCarthy detected in the belly of America, has grown into a voracious behemoth devouring its host and the rest of the World. To his eternal credit, the man did his best to abort it but its' private pro-life lobby proved too strong, even then. I suggest that McCarthy defines Patriotism! As such, I feel compelled to set the record straight on behalf of all those known and unknown heroes who have risked and inevitably sacrificed their careers, reputations and lives against this common and deadly foe. May they not have done so entirely in vain? I would ask that Senator Joseph McCarthy's name not be used as a synonym for repression. His plight is an indication of the same power and force deployed with vigour against true Patriots today. May we give them strength through acknowledgement and support to continue the fight and inspire us to similar courageous endeavour. It is the very least they deserve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

our mess..4 decades in the making
Posted by: anson on Mar 16, 2006 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we in America wonder - oh why do they (virtually all other nations citizens) hate us so?

..the core root to Many of Americas current list of problems are clearly described in the following NY Best Seller (this revalation will undoubtedly become a very large topic throughout convential news outlets before the end of 2006-

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/perkins.html

*(short video link of interview found directly below authors photograph)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCarthyism Kelly???
Posted by: alekboyd on Mar 18, 2006 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After having read your rather soft and vague piece in the Washington Times, today I just found out about this new article.

McCarthyism Kelly? Who are you trying to dupe here? You want to know what McCarthyism with a vengeance truly means? Go check the Maisanta software, conveniently left out in your piece, and only then start using such imprecise nouns to define things.

What's your agenda Kelly? Are you another one of those liberals who have a soft spot for the Venezuelan coupster, just because of his vitriol re Bush, and uses American media to try to convey the message that he represents the second coming of Jesus Christ?

BTW, Chavez is yet to provide conclusive evidence to support his wild claim that the USA is planning to invade.

With your slant you're doing journalism a great disservice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]