Conspiracy Theories Then and Now: From McCarthy to MESA

One common attribute of conspiracy theories is the belief that powerful forces, operating behind the scenes, are responsible for otherwise inexplicable misfortunes and adverse events.  No matter what goes wrong, it can be explained by reference to the unseen antagonists, whose reach extends into realms such as government, finance, culture, and education. In conspiracy thinking, the absence of actual evidence is simply proof that the hidden adversaries are able to cover their tracks, thus demonstrating the extent of their power.

Some conspiracy theories are based on religion ("The Jews"), some are based on politics ("The Commies"), and some are simply mystical ("The Illuminati"). But they all share the conviction that a sinister  hidden hand is manipulating events for the benefit of the conspirators and to the detriment of everyone else. In contemporary America, we need look no further than the internet to read about the presumed “crisis actors,” who allegedly travel from locale to locale pretending to be the victims of mass shootings, as part of a "Deep State" conspiracy to “take away our guns.” Although no actual “crisis actor” has ever been discovered, that simply proves the sneaky effectiveness of the conspiracy itself.

Unfortunately, not all conspiracy theorists are marginal kooks. Sometimes they occupy positions of legitimacy in government, commerce, education, and other institutions.  The late Sen. Joe McCarthy provides a well-recognized case in point.

In the early 1950s, Irving Peress was an unassuming dentist with a successful practice in New York City. In 1952, during the Korean War, he was drafted into the U.S. Army with the rank of captain.  When required to submit a loyalty oath, Peress asserted the Fifth Amendment and refused to say whether he had ever been a member of the Communist Party. This naturally triggered an investigation by the Army.  Nonetheless, and while the investigation was pending, Peress was promoted to major.

These events came to the attention of Sen. McCarthy and his top assistant, Roy Cohn, who saw the promotion as proof of Communist infiltration in the Army. McCarthy and Cohn launched an investigation under the slogan, “Who promoted Peress?”  They claimed that Peress was "the key to the deliberate Communist infiltration of our Armed Forces" and that the promotion had been authorized by a "silent master who decreed special treatment for Communists.”

In fact, Peress’s promotion had been effected pursuant to a federal statute, the Doctors’ Draft Act, which required physicians’ ranks to reflect the level of their pre-induction experience. Peress’s promotion could still have been delayed due to the investigation, but it had slipped through the bureaucratic cracks, as the investigating and promoting authorities had not communicated with one another.

The perfectly reasonable explanation – a typical military SNAFU – was not acceptable to McCarthy, who famously saw Communists “under every bed.” The Army admitted committing “blunders” regarding Peress, but McCarthy pressed the case, telling Brigadier General Ralph Zwicker, who had been Peress’s commanding officer, that he was “not fit to wear that uniform.”

All of this was a prelude to the Army-McCarthy hearings, which eventually led to McCarthy’s censure.  The Peress case is now mostly forgotten, but it is still a good example of a conspiracy theory at work.  McCarthy was convinced that Communists were at large in the Army, and he inflated an understandable administrative misstep into proof of a wide-ranging conspiracy.

McCarthy is a punch line today, but his approach to conspiracy theorizing lives on in the claims of Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, and others who believe that secret enemies are in control of government and other institutions.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) seems to have accepted a more contemporary conspiracy theory, blaming outside influence – not Communists under the bed, but rather Zionists behind the bookcase – for the temporary suspension of the Edward Said Professorship search at Fresno State University. The perfectly simple explanation of the event – administrative complications – was rejected in favor of a story about “caving to racism” due to unspecified external pressure, for which there is no actual proof.

Everyone makes mistakes, of course, so MESA’s initial impulse might be understandable, but the unfounded accusation against Fresno State is still on the organization’s website, many weeks after I apprised MESA officials of their error.  My multiple offers to provide them with the Fresno State documentation have gotten no response.

As a “learned society,” one would expect MESA to be open to new data, but its officials seem impervious to additional information.  In contrast, several adamantly anti-Israel advocacy organizations have proven themselves far more responsible than MESA.  Both Electronic Intifada and Palestine Legal requested the Fresno State documentation pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (I did too, the complete file is posted here.) After receiving the materials, neither Electronic Intifada nor Palestine Legal made any public charges of outside pressure against the university.  Having taken the time to learn the facts, both groups put aside their suspicions and admirably refrained from leveling false accusations.

MESA members will no doubt bridle at the comparison to McCarthy, who had neither redeeming qualities nor scholarly accomplishments. But in this one instance the symmetry is nonetheless evident: In both the Peress and Fresno cases there was an unsupported accusation of malign influence on an institutional decision, followed by a stubborn refusal to consider any alternative explanations.

Fresno State’s suspension of the Said Professorship search may have been ill-advised and unnecessary, or due to a misapplication of its own rules, just as the promotion of Peress was apparently an administrative mistake. But the assumption of conspiratorial manipulation – by Communists or Zionists – was baseless in both cases.

It is a sad day when a respected academic organization pays so little attention to facts, and sadder still when it declines even to look at disconfirming information. Conspiracy theories, alas, will do that to you.