A tale of three lists: Mccarthy’s, Nixon’s, and Trump’s

My father-in-law, Charles Dyson, was No. 5 on Richard Nixon’s enemies list. He always thought of his place on the list as a badge of honor, as did those of us close to him.

So, too, will “enemies” on Donald Trump’s list. Of course, those who voluntarily joined the list of officials with revoked security clearances will be even more highly regarded when the history of this time is written.

We have suffered through a

Roger H. Hull is a former Union College president and president of the Schenectady-based Help Yourself Foundation. number of difficult periods in our relatively short history. After all, when compared to countries whose history goes back millennia, our 242-year history is short, indeed.

Of the challenges to the Founding Fathers’ “grand experiment in democracy,” three have occurred in the past 68 years. All have involved lists — Joe Mccarthy’s, Richard Nixon’s and Donald Trump’s.

Mccarthy’s infamous 1950 list supposedly consisted of 57 communists in the State Department. As phony as his professed World War II feats, the list resulted in blacklists, governmental hearings, and wrecked lives. Not until the Army hearings of 1954 did the tide turn against Mccarthy.

Rhetorically asked in those hearings by Army counsel Joseph Welch, “Have you no decency, sir?” Mccarthy simply gazed at his notes. Instantaneously, with that simple question, the back of Mccarthyism was broken.

Nixon’s list was very differ-

ent. Without his apparent demons, Nixon would have been very favorably viewed by presidential historians. Instead, his presidency was destroyed.

Nixon’s demons overwhelmed him and forced his resignation. They also overwhelmed his many positive actions like the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, and the opening of China.

Many will undoubtedly be writing for a very long time about Trump’s list of those with revoked security clearances. An argument, a good argument, can be made that security clearances for former officials are not necessary.

Withdrawing security clearances from those who disagree with Trump, or, far more importantly, those investigating him, is a very different matter. Of all the names on the list, a list that presumably will grow until Trump is no longer president, Bruce Ohr’s therefore stands out.

Ohr, a Justice Department official who had been involved in the Russia probe, has become a subject of Trump’s ire. His “crime”: conversations with Christopher Steele about Trump campaign collusion with Russia and marriage to a woman working for Fusion GPS, the firm first used by conservatives to investigate Trump and then, after Trump won the nomination, by Hillary Clinton’s campaign

and the Democratic National Committee.

Of course there are major differences in the way Mccarthy, Nixon and Trump operated. In the case of Mccarthy, for instance, his lists were, for the most part, fake. A compilation of what he had heard or others had written, they were a way to attract attention at a time when the fear of communism was rampant. In the process, lives were shattered.

Nixon’s list was real. The people on it were, like my father-in-law, leaders in their fields, whose powerful voices Nixon wanted to “screw” (his word) through tax audits because he could not silence them.

Despite wanting to get back at his critics, Nixon apparently realized it was wrong to do so. He tried to keep his list secret.

Not so Trump. He has made no secret of striking back at those who dare challenge him.

Trump’s actions potentially undermine national security. They also have the potential of silencing those who might otherwise question the president’s actions.

Ironically, there is a link between two of the three names. Roy Cohn, who worked for Mccarthy, later became Trump’s personal lawyer and fixer until he died.

Mccarthy ended up on the ash heap of history. Nixon’s otherwise strong presidency ended in disgrace. And Trump? A partial verdict should be available in November.