The Answer to the Left’s Pink McCarthyism

What is the best defense against Pink McCarthyism? A good offense.

Pink McCarthyism is a political tactic. It is based on a dominant opinion (no matter that it may not be your opinion) that women are an oppressed class in America who are subjected to rampant harassment in the workplace by men in power.

It is similar to McCarthyism, a tactic based on a former dominant opinion that America, torchbearer for individual liberty and locked in struggle with international communism, was threatened by communists lurking in the shadows of American power.

McCarthyism brought forth accusations of communist collaboration against public persons. Some of the accused, like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss, turned out to be actual communist spies. This gave the tactic credibility. Attacking political opponents, McCarthyites trotted out the charge of communism, and forced the accused to deny it. The McCarthyites chose the ground upon which their opponents would fight.

Pink McCarthyism employs accusations against men, public figures, of sexual misconduct. Some of them have admitted guilt, like Matt Lauer, and some of them are alleged to be monstrous perverts and abusers, like Harvey Weinstein. There is even a crass gag artist, who also happens to be a (now former?) United States Senator.

The exposed abusers lend credibility to Pink McCarthyism. But that is the beginning not the end of Pink McCarthyism. The Pinks attack a political opponent by charging him with sexual misconduct (or, barring that, then with complicity or association with sexual misconduct) and then force him to deny it. The Pinks thus choose the field of conflict and you, the accused,  fight in the valley where Misconduct’s tributaries, Harasser, Abuser, and Molester, meet.

Pink McCarthyism won in Alabama, destroying Roy Moore (a fantastically flawed candidate on many levels, but all of that is beside this point). It has won elections in local Republican strongholds. It is now and will continue to be (so long as it works for the Left) the playbook.

Pink charges—combined with a sophisticated ground-game—drive the Left’s turnout in an otherwise unengaging election. Many on the Right, who still hold decency as their guide with regards to sexual matters, shrink from the accused. Others join the attack, and still others (the ones the Left loves best) simply do not turn out to vote.

McCarthyism sought to drive Leftists from public life. Nailing a few communist spies in the process was a collateral benefit.

Pink McCarthyism seeks to win elections, and scalping a politically friendly abuser or two is likewise merely collateral damage to the Left.

If successful, the tactic will culminate in the impeachment of Trump on the basis of sexual misconduct (Russian collusion and obstruction being by all appearances now lost for the Left). This may or may not result in a Senate conviction of Trump in 2019 (brace yourselves, because the republic is finished if that foolish precedent is set). But whatever the outcome, in 2020 Democrats intend to campaign on Pink McCarthyism.

For the Right to defeat Pink McCarthyism, the Right must not meet Pink McCarthyism on the field where Pink seeks to join battle. The accused should not answer Pink charges. The accused should accuse the accusers, forcing battle elsewhere.

Coleman Young, the disastrous Detroit mayor who brought that great city to its knees with slashing identity politics, was no dummy. Young had connections to communists and was a rising leftwing union leader. The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) desired to hobble Young, and called him to testify in 1952.

But Young wisely made the decision that he was not going to “take any shit” from HUAC. Young took the Fifth on the question of communism—a risky move—and turned the tables on the representatives arrayed before him, addressing committee chairman John Wood of Georgia directly:

“I happen to know, in Georgia Negro people are prevented from voting by virtue of terror, intimidation, and lynchings. It is my contention you would not be in Congress today if it were not for the legal restrictions on voting on the part of my people.”

An embarrassed Wood quickly shut down inquiries into Young.

The Right needs to take a page from Coleman Young’s story. The accusations are coming from quarters that have no moral authority, from parties who, if they continue to have their way, will destroy your (and their own) individual liberty.

Point a finger and say “J’accuse.”

The Left is anti-semitic, with their BDS initiatives and their hatred of Israel. The Left still smells of the cologne of the Venezuelan Chavistas, who have starved a nation, which is becoming a joint client state with Russia and China in the Caribbean basin. The Left destroyed the Middle East, bringing—my God—genocide to Syria and Iraq and chattel slavery to North Africa. The libertine world of Leftist dreams requires some kind of gestapo to enforce its claims. It’s not liberty but a prison, guarded by a hidden praetorian made up of the likes of FBI Agent Strzok.

So in the spirit of Coleman Young, don’t “take any shit.” Don’t just fight. Choose the battlefield.

About Jay Whig

J. Whig is an attorney practicing in New York and a resident of Connecticut specializing in insolvency and restructuring. Opinions are his own.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

23 responses to “The Answer to the Left’s Pink McCarthyism

  • ” (a fantastically flawed candidate on many levels, but all of that is beside this point)”

    It always seems to be.

  • It’s a shame more people don’t see this. Far too many “Republicans” are content to lose (if not openly celebrating it) because they’ve bought into the Pink McCarthyist lie.

    • What’s fun about this piece is the assumption that charges of sexual misconduct are *always* political smears, to be defeated with distractions.

      With this president, I guess there’s not much choice for a Republican who wants to avoid cognitive dissonance. But it’s interesting how actual truth or falsehood isn’t even a consideration in this piece. The people I know who embrace moral relativism most thoroughly these days all seem to write for American Greatness.

      • No, the point here is that Pink McCarthyism is worse than the problem it purports to cure.

      • Al franken (and I oppose his perspective)

        Interestingly enough the accuser does more to illustrate how a woman’s perceptions are emotionally tainted than she makes franken seem like a sexual deviant.

      • Wrong question. Try this one: Which of the accusations have been proven? The short answer is: only a very few. Or maybe this one: Which of the accused is guilty of an actual crime, one that would warrant public vilification and/or prosecution?

        A clumsy or unwanted sexual or romantic advance is not a crime. It’s the stuff of adolescence and it’s the plague of the socially inept, but it’s not a crime. The very purpose of a sexual advance is to find out if it might be welcomed. The risk taken by anyone who makes such an advance is supposed to be the chance that it may be rejected, not that it may end up killing his career.

        Just as no one has the “right” to not be offended by another’s speech or behavior in general, no one has the “right” to be immune to unwanted sexual or romantic advances.

      • “Wrong question. Try this one: Which of the accusations have been proven?”

        Fair question. Folks are entitled to a presumption of innocence in court – but not the court of public opinion, of course. “Pink McCarthyism” isn’t agnostic on whether the accusations are true or false,though – that term actively suggests harassment allegations are false. In so doing, it smears the women (and men, in some cases) who make the allegations, without any proof whatsoever.

        If you’re going to play it fair, you’ve got to be fair.

      • That’s your idea of fairness?

        Smearing the accusers because they have no proof — who you admit don’t have “any proof whatsoever” — is unfair? Really?

        Unless and until a sexual harassment accuser PROVES what he/she ACCUSES, I’ll treat him/her exactly as I do now — with a heaping helping of doubt and disbelief. “Pink McCarthyism” isn’t “agnostic,” as you say, and it should not be. It is a frank and truthful recognition that most of these accusers have NOTHING to back up their accusations. It is a recognition that most of these allegations are very likely false. It is a declaration that we’re just about sick to death of putting up with this shit.

        You’re right — fair is fair. But you don’t want to be fair because you want the presumption that the allegations are true. That is bullshit. Your concept of fairness is happily confined to the little space between your ears.

      • I don’t dispute that fairness requires accusers to offer evidence of their allegation for us to believe that they’re right.

        I do dispute that fairness requires believing an accuser *to be a liar* and acting accordingly, unless she offers sufficient evidence to support it beyond a reasonable doubt. I think fairness requires understanding that in many of these “he said, she said” cases, proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be elusive.

        When your neighbor tells you his house has been robbed, do you respond with “Liar! You’re just trying to take advantage of the insurance company!” Not if you’re a decent neighbor.

        Your conclusion — “most of these allegations are very likely false” — is not based on evidence, but your own bias. You start not with a presumption of innocence, but a presumption that the accusers are malicious. So, yeah, I’ll take my definition of fairness over yours.

      • Nah, nah. You don’t get by with a partial quote taken out of context.

        What I said was, “It is a recognition that most of these allegations are very likely false.” Going back two sentences it is quite clear that by “it” I meant (and said) that “Pink McCarthyism” is a recognition that most of these allegations are very likely false.

        What you call my “presumption that the accusers are malicious” is not separable from my presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. If the accused is truly innocent — that is supposed to be the presumption in the United States of America — then the accuser is necessarily and by definition a liar. It is the accuser’s burden to prove that he/she is not lying, not the other way around.

      • You are dangerously incorrect.

        The presumption of innocence is not a presumption that accusers are liars. It’s only an insistence that accusers meet an evidentiary standard before guilt is proclaimed. It’s possible for an accuser to make an allegation that is correct — but for a variety of reasons is unable to meet that evidentiary standard.

        As far as my quoting you out of context: Your addition of “context” changes nothing.

        I’ll leave this thread now. You get the last word.

      • But Harvey Weinstein masturbating into a plant, and then ruining women’s careers, is not an unwanted romantic advance. It’s an abuse of power.*

        (Assuming you believe the allegations, pre-due process. As a matter for the court of public opinion, with more than 50 women making allegations against him at this point, I’m a “where there’s smoke there’s fire” kind of guy.)

      • Joel is on the homosexual simp sodomy abortion team, his analysis cant be taken seriously, he harbors too many contradictions.

      • Yes, but now you’re trying to swing ANY consideration of sexual misconduct back into the ‘he’s guilty’ category, without due process. And that’s part of the trap of those who are using this tactic to further their own agenda, and believe you-me, many are. You, perhaps?

      • Nope. All in favor of due process. But given that we’re not going through due processes, how is the public to decide? And do you insist on due process considerations for every public controversy? Would you say that we should believe Hillary Clinton is innocent of wrongdoing with her email servers since that process didn’t lead to her conviction?

      • That’s only because she was never brought to justice . . . and in all likelihood never will be.

      • I’m just pointing out: Our standards of guilt tend to vary with the amount we agree with somebody’s politics.

    • And what makes it even more difficult is that we all have mothers, sisters, aunts, girlfriends, etc. and we don’t want to see them harmed, and when such accusations fly, we sometimes use this reality as a starting point. But of course, that is part of the clever trap of PM, as Jay describes it.

  • The new go to strategy for the Dems will backfire stupendously against women. It will be overused to the point where no one will believe most of them and real harassment along with sexual misconduct will go unpunished after the destruction of many lives. Of course destruction is mother’s milk to people filled with resentment and rage for injustices mostly imagined or greatly exaggerated.

  • Thanks, Jay. Well stated. For the benefit of all, however, I’d like you to return to this topic in greater frequency as warrants with specific advice on how targets of Pink McCarthyism can ‘turn the tables’ as you put it. Its not enough at the moment, to merely say, “Look who’s talking”. It needs to be far more pointed; a direct hit to the jugular, as it were. This is the kind of advice needed.
    Thanks again

  • “The Left is anti-semitic, with their BDS initiatives and their hatred of Israel”
    “The Left destroyed the Middle East, bringing—my God—genocide to Syria and Iraq and chattel slavery to North Africa.” -So the left hates Israel and hates the Arab world?
    Then we have “Pink McCartyism” which should translate into the suicidal act of feminism. But it has also exposed the debauchery of Hollywood, which in fact is one of the centers of the Left. – “Pink McCarthyism” against Hollywood is the Left attacking its own ranks.
    Then we have the Left and Communism, an age old relationship.
    If “Pink McCarthyism” succeeds in ousting Congressmen, then blackmail is the new method to gain power and not elections.

Comments are closed.