Weaponized Rhetoric and Political Repression: Anticommunism and the Language of the Cold War

Friday, January 3, 2020: 4:10 PM
New York Ballroom West (Sheraton New York)
Joshua Morris, Wayne State University
In the 1930s and 1940s, American Communists young and old went from estranged political outsiders, to passionate proponents of a radical tradition, to anti-fascist crusaders, to anti-American spies. Weaponized, anticommunist rhetoric was not only used at the highest political levels to criticize the leaders of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA); it was also used locally to disparage individuals from attending political clubs, meeting with union organizers, and marching with minorities against racism. This rhetoric culminated into hysteria after the 1945 CPUSA reformation. By 1953, thousands of Americans faced arrest, job loss, and societal rejection as the Rosenberg trial dictated the limits of tolerance in the early stages of the Cold War. Politically-charged weaponized rhetoric found use in anticommunist activities from 1930-1957, helping powerful political idealists curb the interests of the public away from a philosophy most knew very little about.

This paper examines the nature of rhetoric used against communists from the 1930s and through the Smith Act trials of the 1950s. This rhetoric had the power to bring down Americans of all classes, including union leaders, academics, film producers, and everyday citizens. During this time politicians in centrist positions found ways to alter their rhetoric to attract the maximum amount of response by the public and to bring them personal electoral success in the process. By 1951 the House of Un-American Activities Committee had over three times the amount of people applying for a seat knowing that it could spearhead one’s career into American politics. This paper examines anticommunist rhetoric at the local, state, and national level, utilizing sources inside and outside the CPUSA as a means to unpack how anticommunism affected communists directly, how it altered the direction of their political movement, and ultimately how rhetoric alone became the ideal weapon of choice for politicians.