“Something uniquely sinister in U.S. history”: New evidence on the Truman administration's 1951 investigation of the China Lobby

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Stephen J. Hartnett
{"title":"“Something uniquely sinister in U.S. history”: New evidence on the Truman administration's 1951 investigation of the China Lobby","authors":"Stephen J. Hartnett","doi":"10.1111/psq.12852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Archival evidence sheds new light on the Truman administration's 1951 investigation into the “China Lobby” and its links to McCarthyism. Truman's advisors suspected connections among illicit funding streams generated by Chiang Kai‐shek's Nationalist regime in Formosa, illegal lobbying by unregistered agents, and a barrage of anti‐Communist propaganda from activists connected to McCarthy and the “China Lobby.” The White House worried that by flooding America's public discourse with charges of treason, the alleged conspirators were destabilizing the nation's ability to engage in reasoned deliberation about foreign policy. However, the White House could not persuade any congressional committees to manage an investigation, so it instead ran an executive operation that produced tantalizing clues but no prosecutable conclusions. Rather than proving its suspicions, the investigation created confusion and sowed doubts about Truman's judgment. Analyzing the administration's investigation provides new insights into the confusions and contradictions besetting America's grappling with the early Cold War and offers lessons on how not to defend democracy in a time of crisis.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12852","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Archival evidence sheds new light on the Truman administration's 1951 investigation into the “China Lobby” and its links to McCarthyism. Truman's advisors suspected connections among illicit funding streams generated by Chiang Kai‐shek's Nationalist regime in Formosa, illegal lobbying by unregistered agents, and a barrage of anti‐Communist propaganda from activists connected to McCarthy and the “China Lobby.” The White House worried that by flooding America's public discourse with charges of treason, the alleged conspirators were destabilizing the nation's ability to engage in reasoned deliberation about foreign policy. However, the White House could not persuade any congressional committees to manage an investigation, so it instead ran an executive operation that produced tantalizing clues but no prosecutable conclusions. Rather than proving its suspicions, the investigation created confusion and sowed doubts about Truman's judgment. Analyzing the administration's investigation provides new insights into the confusions and contradictions besetting America's grappling with the early Cold War and offers lessons on how not to defend democracy in a time of crisis.
“美国历史上独特的邪恶”:杜鲁门政府1951年对中国游说团调查的新证据
档案证据揭示了杜鲁门政府1951年对“中国游说团”及其与麦卡锡主义联系的调查。杜鲁门的顾问们怀疑蒋介石在台湾的国民党政权所产生的非法资金流、未注册代理人的非法游说,以及与麦卡锡和“中国游说团”有关的积极分子的反共宣传弹幕之间存在联系。白宫担心,叛国罪的指控充斥着美国的公共话语,这些所谓的阴谋者正在破坏美国就外交政策进行理性审议的能力。然而,白宫无法说服任何国会委员会进行调查,所以它转而采取了一项行政行动,得出了诱人的线索,但没有可起诉的结论。调查非但没有证明自己的怀疑,反而制造了混乱,让人们对杜鲁门的判断产生了怀疑。分析奥巴马政府的调查,可以让我们对困扰美国应对早期冷战的困惑和矛盾有新的认识,并为在危机时期如何不捍卫民主提供教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Presidential Studies Quarterly
Presidential Studies Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
47
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信