It was 1939 and HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) was holding a hearing into communist activities of the American Student Union and the American Youth Congress. One of those subpoenaed was Christopher Lash who had recently met Eleanor Roosevelt on a train.
Eleanor Roosevelt chose to lend support to her new friend by attending the hearing (Franklin didn't object). As a card-carrying union member of the press, she took full advantage of her status by moving to the press table when the questioning became tense. Her action was enough to remind the Congressmen to be civil to the witnesses. According to the Eleanor Roosevelt Encyclopedia,
Her actions caused mixed reactions among liberals. Some praised her for championing free speech while others expressed concern about her choice of causes.
Who were those"liberals" of 1939 that failed to see the dangerousness of HbbUAC at the beginning of its reign of terror?
Whoever they were, they would likely have been further dismayed to have known that Mrs. Roosevelt invited Mr. Lash and his friends to the White House to dine with her and the President. And she didn't stop there. On learning later that they had no place to stay, she arranged rooms for them in the White House for the remainder of their time in Washington.
It would be easy to say that the world was simpler in 1939 than it is today. But was it?
It would be easy to dismiss Mrs. Roosevelt's actions as "no big deal." If so, can anybody cite a similarly principled and prescient "no big deal" by any of the successor First Ladies? And yet, for Mrs. Roosevelt it may have been "no big deal." Getting on the right side of history isn't that difficult for those rooted in the principles of liberalism, democracy, honesty, fairness, etc. (Seeing through GWB's WMD propaganda was really fucking easy for liberals.)
True liberalism that Chris Hedges is so searingly pointing out is absent from most liberals and institutions today. Without liberals there is no debate; just a time-line on how soon we end the insane wars and we dismantle Social Security and the remaining pieces of the social safety net.
Mrs. Roosevelt let her actions speak that day in 1939. It was enough for then and many years after. However, when collective madness, a periodic event in this country, began to set in, she spoke uponce again:
Hollywood and HUAC
by Eleanor Roosevelt
My Day column, New York, October 29, 1947
I have waited a while before saying anything about the Un-American Activities Committee's current investigation of the Hollywood film industry. I would not be very much surprised if some writers or actors or stagehands, or what not, were found to have Communist leanings, but I was surprised to find that, at the start of the inquiry, some of the big producers were so chicken-hearted about speaking up for the freedom of their industry.
One thing is sure--none of the arts flourishes on censorship and repression. And by this time it should be evident that the American public is capable of doing its own censoring. Certainly, the Thomas Committee is growing more ludicrous daily. The picture of six officers ejecting a writer from the witness stand because he refused to say whether he was a Communist or not is pretty funny, and I think before long we are all going to see how hysterical and foolish we have become.
The film industry is a great industry with infinite possibilities for good and bad. Its primary purpose is to entertain people. On the side, it can do many other things. It can popularize certain ideals, it can make education palatable. But in the long run, the judge who decides whether what it does is good or bad is the man or woman who attends the movies. In a democratic country I do not think the public will tolerate a removal of its right to decide what it thinks of the ideas and performances of those who make the movie industry work.
I have never liked the idea of an Un-American Activities Committee. I have always thought that a strong democracy should stand by its fundamental beliefs and that a citizen of the United States should be considered innocent until he is proved guilty.
If he is employed in a government position where he has access to secret and important papers, then for the sake of security he must undergo some special tests. However, I doubt whether the loyalty test really adds much to our safety, since no Communist would hesitate to sign it and he would be in good standing until he was proved guilty. So it seems to me that we might as well do away with a test which is almost an insult to any loyal American citizen.
What is going on in the Un-American Activities Committee worries me primarily because little people have become frightened and we find ourselves living in the atmosphere of a police state, where people close doors before they state what they think or look over their shoulders apprehensively before they express an opinion.
I have been one of those who have carried the fight for complete freedom of information in the United Nations. And while accepting the fact that some of our press, our radio commentators, our prominent citizens and our movies may at times be blamed legitimately for things they have said and done, still I feel that the fundamental right of freedom of thought and expression is essential. If you curtail what the other fellow says and does, you curtail what you yourself may say and do.
In our country we must trust the people to hear and see both the good and the bad and to choose the good. The Un-American Activities Committee seems to me to be better for a police state than for the USA.
What a great lady and liberal!