The White House Is Reading Old Play Books

Those were dark times. Everyone was under suspicion: the teacher, the butcher, the mail carrier, even the new young preacher in town. People wondered who could be trusted. Sure, they’d grown up with this same group of people; folks in their small town rarely moved away, and those that did would come back in a few years. But maybe they were acting too normal.

Slim Hardman, the foreman at the factory, never made it home before midnight. Where did he go after work every day? Old widow Tuftman spoke with a funny accent. Where was she from? And what was up with that group of men who met in that old building with no windows once a week? They called themselves masons, but there wasn’t any brickwork being done.

At least once a week, the school had a duck-and-cover drill just to stay prepared. No one thought their small town was really a target, but who could be sure? Neighbors looked carefully out of their windows, watching what was happening in and around the houses on their street. The Nagels had company for dinner every Friday night, but they never invited anyone but the Solomons. What was up with that? What was in that briefcase Ed Winston carried with him all the time?

Welcome to the United States circa 1950. Welcome to the ‘Red Scare.’ Communism was presented as the antithesis of American values – democracy, capitalism, individual liberty, and religious freedom. It was feared as totalitarian, atheistic, and oppressive. Russia and China were the enemies. Both superpowers amassed vast nuclear arsenals capable of destroying each other, and potentially human civilization, many times over. The knowledge that global catastrophe could be triggered intentionally, or even accidentally, within minutes hung over society.

This fear manifested in tangible ways: “duck and cover” drills practiced by schoolchildren under their desks, public service announcements about surviving nuclear fallout, the construction of public and private fallout shelters, and the eerie tests of the Emergency Broadcast System. While often inadequate, these measures constantly reminded people of the threat.

Even popular media fed the fear. In movies and television shows, the ‘Ruskies’ were always the bad guys, and Chinese spies were lurking behind every box of fried rice. Communism was presented as the antithesis of American values – democracy, capitalism, individual liberty, and religious freedom. It was feared as totalitarian, atheistic, and oppressive. Churches hosted missionaries who had allegedly risked their lives to teach children in Communist China. Everyone thought they understood the threat.

There was widespread fear, fanned by politicians like Senator Joseph McCarthy, that Communist spies and sympathizers had infiltrated the US government, Hollywood, academia, and other institutions, working to undermine the country from within. Popular people were being called to testify before Congress; names like Charlie Chaplin and Lucille Ball.

This led to loyalty oaths for government employees, investigations by bodies like the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), blacklisting of individuals (especially in entertainment), and a general climate of suspicion where people feared being accused of disloyalty or having “un-American” views. Association with certain groups or ideas could ruin careers and lives. In the name of national security, freedom of speech and association were sometimes curtailed.

This pervasive fear influenced everything from foreign policy decisions and massive military spending to popular culture (e.g., science fiction films about alien invasions often seen as Cold War allegories, spy thrillers) and the anxieties of ordinary citizens here in places like Indianapolis, trying to live normal lives under the shadow of potential global catastrophe and internal suspicion.

We might like to think that the fear of the Cold War is behind us. 1991 saw the Iron Curtain fall and the dissolution of the USSR. Russia’s Mikail Gorbachev seemed like a nice enough guy. Relations between the two countries normalized to some degree. Boris Yeltsin came to US baseball games and smoked cigars with Bill Clinton. When a young Vladimir Putin succeeded Yeltsin in 2000, the assumption was that relationships would continue to grow.

Another type of cold war is looming now, but as much of a threat as Russia might want to be, the greater threat comes from within. In a bold move this week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that it was investigating the Disney Corporation, specifically its holding of ABC broadcasting.

Specifically, the letter from FCC chairman Brandon Carr said he wants to ensure that “Disney and ABC have not been violating FCC equal employment opportunity regulations by promoting invidious forms of DEI discrimination.” No specific details were given.

This comes at the end of a week where organizations from the Smithsonian Institute, NPR, and PBS were publicly condemned by the President and Republican members of Congress for being too ‘woke’ and continuing DEI principals that are ‘un-American.”

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs have been a major target of President Punk from the moment he took office.  53% of executives surveyed said that his anti-DEI policies will likely lead organizations in general to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. This means hiring fewer women, fewer people of color, and practically no one who is disabled in any way.

In many ways, DEI has become the new Cold War within the US. It’s been called ‘communist,’ racist, and ‘unfair’ to white people. Some people within the administration have even brought up the concept of bringing back segregated spaces.

If it feels as though we’re traveling through a time-warp, there’s a reason. The similarities between Punk’s anti-DEI campaign and McCarthy’s anti-communism campaign are frightening. One might get the impression that Punk’s administration is reading straight from Senator McCarthy’s playbook.

How are they similar? Please allow us to break it down for you.

Ideological Crusade: Both movements frame themselves as fighting a dangerous, pervasive ideology perceived as undermining core American values and institutions. In both cases, the actual threat was largely non-existent. In fact, one might want to ask what is to be gained by positioning DEI in a negative light. Whose ‘core Americal values’ are being undermined when DEI provides jobs for millions of Americans who might otherwise struggle.

Fostering Fear & Suspicion: Both rely on generating widespread anxiety about hidden threats or agendas operating within major institutions (government, education, corporations). You’ll notice that there are never any specific arguments about how a given policy actually harmed anyone. All you get from the administration is that the threats and agendas are there, but explaining them would be ‘too complicated.’ The fact is those threats and agendas don’t exist.

Broad/Vague Accusations: Both tend to use broad, often poorly defined terms (“Communist,” “un-American,” “CRT,” “woke”) to label and condemn diverse ideas, individuals, and programs, often simplifying complex issues. The ‘woke’ label gets slapped on everything that Republicans don’t like. Electric cars (except for Teslas) are woke. Green energy is woke. Having a person of color reading the evening news on TV is woke. The purpose is to make the label ‘woke’ as damning as Communist was in the 50s.

Targeting Institutions: Both focus significant energy on perceived infiltration or corruption within key societal institutions, particularly education and government. This type of anti-intelligence nonsense has been present for years, coming mostly from people who themselves are under- or miseducated. Lacking the ability to understand complicated concepts of society, those who desire to be seen as ‘in charge’ lash out at anything they perceive as standing in the way of them controlling the rest of society.

Chilling Effect: Both create an environment where individuals may self-censor or fear pursuing certain work, research, or expression due to potential backlash, public condemnation, or professional consequences. Women may change their names to hide from a racial bias. Others have avoided mentioning that they have a handicap that is not immediately obvious. More than anything, though, fully qualified and talented people who are not white and cisgendered male are avoiding applying for jobs at all if a company has made any kind of anti-DEI statement.

Use of Political Power: Both leverage political platforms (congressional hearings then, state legislatures now) to investigate, expose, and attempt to dismantle the influence of the targeted ideology. Universities have become the primary target in this battle, and Punk has threatened to take millions of dollars in grants away from those who do not scrub any hint of DEI from their admissions policies as well as hiring policies, and course offerings. The goal is to present one unified perspective of a whitewashed America where everyone is the same.

“Us vs. Them” Framing: Both tend to create a sharp dichotomy between perceived loyal patriots defending tradition/freedom and those seen as pushing a harmful, divisive agenda. Loyalty is a big deal for Punk. We see him targeting major law offices that once were involved in investigations regarding the President’s former activities. As fewer federal employees remain on the job, those that do stay are, in some cases, being asked to sign a loyalty oath or even take a polygraph test to ensure that they support the President’s agenda.

Sure, there are some differences. McCarthyism targeted an ideology linked to a specific geopolitical adversary (Soviet Union) with real espionage concerns (though often wildly exaggerated). Anti-DEI targets domestically generated concepts and programs related to social justice and identity, framing them as internal cultural threats. McCarthyism heavily relied on federal investigations, blacklisting, and loyalty oaths. Anti-DEI primarily uses state legislation, lawsuits, public/media campaigns, and influencing institutional policy.  

While the specific targets and historical contexts differ significantly, the anti-DEI movement shares striking resemblances with McCarthyism in its tactics of fostering fear, using broad accusations against an ideology perceived as infiltrating key institutions, creating a chilling effect on expression and certain types of work, and leveraging political power to combat the perceived threat. Both represent forms of cultural and political backlash against ideas and groups challenging the status quo of their respective eras.

Fighting back is not easy. Once a concept becomes engrained in a national mindset, it takes years of education and effort to replace it with something more real. Fear doesn’t just walk away on its own. In fact, some would argue that the only way to battle fear is to replace it with another fear. While that philosophy is harsh and problematic, we find that too often that tactic is used, especially at a governmental level.

Still, we must fight. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are foundational to a free society. Those who would seek to abuse or delete it should never be trusted. They should be replaced and possibly placed under fulltime psychiatric care. To deny DEI initiatives is to stand in the way of everyday, freedom loving people and their right to exist and to thrive, enjoying all the benefits prescribed by the Constitution.

This is why we resist.