The Red Scares (first after World War I and then during the Cold War) were the periods of maximum paranoia and fear of communism within American society. These events led to the different (diversified) steps that the government took when battling the perceived danger of communist infiltration. In “Understanding Homeland Security” by Gus Martin, the author offers some essential lessons to be drawn when considering the policy options that are used in such trying times, encouraging critical thinking on the legitimacy of these measures in relation to national security and civil liberties.
After the first Red Scare, following World War I, the threat of the communist ideology from the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia became so severe that it led to the enactment of certain programs and measures. The actions ordered by Attorney General A.M. Palmer called the Palmer Raids, were a full-fledged response of the time. These raids, commonly called the “Red Scare,” were conducted using mass arrests and deportations of the “Red suspects” who did not get due process and violated civil liberties. Martin (2019) highlights the unevenness of these policy options since they focused on people rather than the criminal acts they committed. Proponents of such measures claimed that such actions were needed to protect national security, while critics argued that, in this way, communal rights could be infringed violently for mere prevention of ideological dangers.
Likewise, the second Red Scare in the Cold War period was marked by the rise of McCarthyism and the surge of activities against the communism threat, which were reminiscent of the previous scare. Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt campaign and loyalty oaths, blacklist, and investigations of possible communist supporters demonstrated the policy reaction at the time. Martin (2019) rejects the policy measures that were employed during this period as driven more by political opportunism and alarmism rather than any real national security concerns. On the one hand, advocates of this approach saw it as the only means to expose real Soviet spies. On the other hand, opponents of this approach highlighted how it interfered with fundamental civil rights, creating an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion within American society.
In evaluating the reasonableness of the policy tools that were used during the Red Scares, one must also seriously consider the long-term results of those actions. However, on the contrary, proponents would plead for this measure to save national security. At the same time, critics would highlight its evil role in destroying civil liberties and sovereign rights of individuals. Martin (2019) recommends a middle ground in homeland security where national interests are valued and the rule of democracy is enforced. Ultimately, the policies employed during the Red Scare may be viewed as not warranted as they were excessively responding to the communist risk and disregarded the civil liberties of Americans.
Conclusion
“Understanding Homeland Security” by Gus Martin serves as an excellent source of information where one is encouraged to critically review the veracity of its justification of the policy options used during the Red Scares. While advocates for the policies regard them as an essential element in ensuring national security, opponents focus on their adverse effect on civil freedoms and democratic norms. Through his analysis, Martin emphasizes the necessity of mending the gaps in homeland security policy with an unbiased perspective that could appropriately and effectively safeguard fundamental freedoms and rights. Hence, the policy approaches applied during the Red scare can be held as undemocratic and unjustifiable because of their unbalanced nature and consequent denials of civil liberties.
References
Martin, G. (2019). Understanding homeland security. Sage Publications
write