Hoover’s Vigilant Utopia
Nathaniel Pope
June 2004
Senator Joseph McCarthy has become infamous among
historians for his demagoguery in relation to the anti-Communist trials
in America during the 1940s and 50s. His political use of
anti-Communist sentiment to strengthen his image has made “McCarthyism”
the definition of a political witch-hunt. Many historians contend that
McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) gave
birth to America’s anti-Communist fervor during this time period.
However, many historians of “McCarthy’s era” continue to overlook the
FBI’s defining role in these trials. At the same time McCarthy was
overtly leading a fight against communism for political gain, the FBI
was covertly manipulating HUAC to promote their own political cause as
well, using various media to spread their anti-Communist propaganda.
Historians such as Alan Theoharis and Kenneth O’Reilly have begun to
uncover previously ignored reasons behind this dark period in American
history. According to Theoharis the FBI, under the auspices of John
Edgar Hoover, used their self-obtained power to acquire the ability to
investigate “subversive” acts of communism. The FBI used the results of
these investigations to influence HUAC and in effect further tighten
their grip on public opinion. The FBI, as much as McCarthy and HUAC,
participated in the witch-hunt, “creating and disseminating”
anti-Communist ideology founded on the principle belief that Communists
were hidden among ordinary citizens to promote the “violent overthrow
of the United States government” (Schrecker 28). The hidden
nature of the Communist movement yielded Hoover the opportunity to call
for the “public disclosure” of the criminal “forces that menace
America” (127). Hoover sought to use surveillance to expose Communist
membership as a subversive activity and annihilate it by defining it as
a “criminal” behavior, detrimental to “workable democracy.” To promote
this idea of a society free of communism, he appeared before HUAC on
March 26, 1947. In this “unprecedented” (126) testimony Hoover commends
the “aims and responsibilities” (127) of HUAC: the committee’s ability
to provide ordinary citizens with the investigative information
supplied by the FBI about Communist “infiltration” (130) in America.
This complement was not without purpose and lends insight as to
Hoover’s testimonial objectives. His appearance can best be explained
by his political desire to extend a “vison of a better society”
(O’Reilly x). Hoover and the FBI used HUAC to shape political and
social ideas of surveillance in America. Hoover’s testimony
demonstrates his effort to protect America’s “internal” security to the
best of his ability by effectively teaching “vigorous, intelligent,
old-fashioned Americanism, with eternal vigilance” (132) to its
citizens, using the rhetoric of laws and regulations to his advantage
when necessary. In effect, Hoover creates an additional branch of
government within the American populace with each citizen doing their
part to protect the country.
Throughout his 48-year career as FBI Director
(1924-1972), Hoover implemented the use of various types of
surveillance and espionage, under the pretext of monitoring suspected
criminals. In an elaborate study of these practices, Alan Theoharis
reports that Hoover “independently defined the scope of the bureau’s
authority” (“Stretching” 649). Despite strict restrictions to the
Freedom of Information Act that limited which FBI documents Theoharis
could review, he nonetheless manages to assemble a comprehensive
account of the FBI’s exploitation of power. He discerns that Hoover
deceived both Congress and presidential administrations; he
purposefully “stretched” presidential directives of 1936, 1939, 1943
1950, and 1953 to effectively justify the active investigation of
“subversive activities and related maters” (649) in America. This
“flagrant abuse of power” (672) is characterized by Hoover’s “illegal”
(“Wiretapping” 102) use of various wiretaps, break-ins, buggings, and
mail openings to monitor “dissident political activities” (“Dissent”
43) rather than criminal proceedings, especially during the McCarthy
era. In 1952, this abuse reached “unprecedented” (“Wiretapping”
101) heights. As the FBI grew in bureaucratic
autonomy, so did its number of agents from 4,886 in 1944 to
7,029 in 1952 (101). In order to continue to provide seemingly legal
justification for “ambitious unilateral actions” (“Dissent” 43) Hoover
relied on the rhetoric of a 1950 presidential directive, based on
misconceptions of earlier directives, to “erroneously” grant the
FBI power to investigate and report on “all information pertaining to
espionage, sabotage, subversive activities and related matters
(“Stretching” 667-668). Theoharis astutely notes that FBI jurisdiction
to use these types of investigative techniques was originally
predicated on several wartime statutes such as the Sedition Acts of
1917 and 1918, the Conscription Act of 1917 and the Immigration Act of
1918. As Hoover’s power expanded, so did his apprehension that such
jurisdiction had expired.
In order to further warrant his “indifference to
legal and constitutional prohibitions” (672) regarding surveillance,
Hoover employed HUAC by means of his testimony to effectively
disseminate pro-surveillance ideology to the mass public though various
media. Kenneth O’Reilly contends that such “channels” of information
provided Hoover the necessary resources to “challenge traditional
American values in virtually every home in the nation” by
simultaneously promoting the “political belief that radical political
and economic reforms were ‘subversive’” in nature (x). For
example, the HUAC proceedings and inherent anti-Communist
indoctrinations were televised, broadcast over the radio, written about
in newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, and books, adapted for
films and plays, talked about through various legislation in the Senate
and used by black-listers to exclude communist criminals from
professional ranks. Ellen Schrecker concurs with O’Reilly. Shrecker
explains that one of Hoover’s most ambitious use of channels can be
seen in his persuasive attempts to convince the “liberal and
progressive who has been hoodwinked and duped into joining hands with
the communists” (130) to believe that the bureau actually “guarded
people’s rights” (32) through the “unrelenting prosecution” (130) that
only surveillance provides. Liberals, who would characteristically
challenge the legality of the FBI’s actions were affected by Hoover’s
questioning of their patriotism. By accusing liberals of being “soft”
on communism, Hoover weakened these individuals’ ability to freely
contest the constitutionality of government surveillance. McAuliffe
brings the affects of this phenomena to light, reporting that liberal
Democrat senators such as Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, not only
tolerated, but created the Communist Control Act of 1954. He became
“tired of reading headlines about being ‘soft’ on communism” (361).
This proposed anti-Communist legislation had one purpose: “to outlaw
the Communist Party” (356). It was never passed. However, by supporting
this bill, Humphrey was able to take a firm stance against communism,
supporting Hoover’s mass propaganda campaign. In this way, Hoover
ensured that the FBI could reach all political, racial and economic
sectors of American citizens. The committee thus provided a ripe method
for the FBI to send informers to tell not only of communist
infiltration, but to self-promote surveillance on a national
level.
Hoover employs dogmatic political rhetoric in his
testimony in order to covertly and persuasively disseminate these ideas
of surveillance. His speech in affect represents a lesson in civil
vigilance. He accomplishes this with a series of moves designed to
garner him credibility and the subsequent ability to “create an
informed public opinion” (O’Reilly, “FBI” 657), one that supports his
vision of an eternally vigilant society as a result of citizens’
predisposed objections. First of all, Hoover presents a solution to the
threat of communism. He emphatically assures his listeners that
“Victory will be assured once Communists are identified and exposed,
because the public will take the first step in quarantining them so
they can do no harm” (Hoover, “Testimony”133). By explicitly assuring
citizens that their efforts to eradicate communism will not fail,
Hoover invites them to use his methods of surveillance.
Next, Hoover demonstrates how to effectively use
vigilant techniques to recognize and expose Communists as manifested by
the 1948 publication of 100 Things
You Should Know About Communism in the USA. Although HUAC
published this pamphlet, Hoover’s mark is irrevokable. Many of
Hoover’s ideas about how to identify Communists appeared in this
publication. Both Hoover and HUAC identify skills of identification:
what to look for and how to tell communism apart from other criminal
acts. Hoover defines the typical Communist as a deceptive individual
who “stands for the destruction of American democracy” (129). In the
pamphlet, HUAC similarly classifies Communist individuals as
common “teachers, preachers, actors, writers, union officials,
doctors, lawyers, editors, businessmen and even millionaires” who
advocate the “opposite” (5) of the American way of life. HUAC contends
that these “Communists will denounce the President of the United
States, but they will never denounce Stalin” (11). This promotion of
patriotism parallels that of Hoover’s testimony. Hoover elaborates that
such individuals use “double talk,” a “propaganda technique of
confusion” to “penetrate and infiltrate many respectable and reputable
opinion mediums” (129). Hoover garners credibility by charitably
stressing that patriotic Americanism is the key to overcome the
hardships of Communists’ deception. HUAC follows with the same. Hoover
gives average Americans credit for being able to “identify” Communists
and in effect help fight the war against communism. HUAC similarly
instructs the American citizen to “know the facts,” to “stay on the
alert,” and to “work as hard against the Communists as they work
against you” (17). Here, the main weapon against communism is exposure:
part of the process of surveillance in that one uses the information
acquire to help prevent further crimes by revealing criminals.
Upon defining communism in his testimony, Hoover
encourages his audience to report “facts” (131) of Communist infiltration in motion pictures,
labor unions, and the government to the FBI, a “fact gathering” agency.
Hoover promotes his own ability to gather such information through
methods of surveillance by requesting that citizens do the same. This
cunning tactic is hypocritical and requires a closer look. Hoover uses
the same “deceptiveness” that he accused communists of using. He uses
subtle double talk and the propaganda technique of confusion
to convince Americans about the validity of surveillance. He
simultaneously requests that these methods be employed in order to
comply with his vision of an observant society. He supports this
request with statistical evidence of his success using surveillance to
enforce the Hatch Act, systematically ridding government agencies of
communist employment. For example, Hoover contends that the FBI
investigated 6,193 cases between July 1, 1941 and the time of his
speech. This number speaks volumes to the extent to which Hoover used
the FBI’s power to investigate subversive government employment.
Inasmuch, he is able to effectively numb his audience’s awareness of
his hidden intention to promote surveillance.
Hoover uses similar deceptive methods to promote
surveillance through his anti-crime campaign. For example, in a 1951
year-end statement Hoover exploits American citizens’ “gigantic effort
to make themselves strong against outside [Communist] attack” to
instill a fear in them that in doing so “they are allowing the criminal
to wreak untold damages to [their] internal defenses” (“Crime
Prevention Urged” 18). This is a critical point in Hoover’s attempt to
garner timely support for his security measures. He makes the
international crisis a local problem. Once again Hoover promotes a
vigilant community as the only solution. According to Richard Blum, the
FBI relies heavily on a “wide variety of ‘established sources’ in the
community” such as local law enforcement officials and civic leaders
who are willing “to help the bureau on a continuing basis” (28). Hoover
does this by defining “the crime problem” in “any community” as
“essentially a local problem” (“Crime Prevention” 18). Hoover explains
that methods of intelligence gathering provide citizens the necessary
“power to insist and demand that they have good law enforcement by
lending their support and cooperation to the development of law and
order” (18). Hoover elaborates that by providing local law enforcement
agencies with intelligence data, they indirectly help the FBI
accumulate similar data. In order to facilitate the effectiveness of
this method, Hoover demands “high standards of ethics and efficient
discharge of duties for law enforcement agencies” that are “dedicated
to teaching good citizenship” (Hoover, “Citizens” A-100). Hoover
implicitly defines “good citizenship” as vigilant citizenship. To do
this he advocates the police’s responsibility to report information
provided to them to the FBI. He encourages his audience to accept these
ideas by claiming that “despite the exigencies of the day” citizens can
“successfully” combat communism. To Hoover, there is no struggle that
Americans cannot overcome through the use of surveillance.
Concurrently, Hoover wanted citizens to form the
ability to combat crime through vigilance. In effect, Hoover sought to
lessen the amount of resources the FBI needed to investigate subversive activities because the
national populace would be doing this work as an extension of the FBI.
This system parallels Hoover’s desire for police agencies to provide
the FBI with similar information. By finding such information, citizens
would unknowingly become a sub-entity of the greater vigilant society:
Hoover’s little agents doing their part to protect internal security.
Henceforth, Hoover advocated an eternally vigilant community as an
investigative branch of the government that the FBI would use to fight
domestic dissent from within.
Hoover’s unrelenting quest for credibility during
all public appearances exemplifies this attempt to establish an
additional branch of government. He presents himself as the epitome
of vigilant American citizenship to provide citizens with an
example of what he sought to achieve. Hoover used his benevolent
reputation and humanitarian ideals, to recall his various successes
combating communism, crime and corruption in society to gain audience
support. For example, he appeals to this ethos through the opening of
his testimony, “my feelings concerning the Communist party are well
known” (127). Hoover implicitly reminds his audiences that he is
also well known for his work improving the crime problem of juvenile
delinquency within the American community through such organizations as
Big Brothers of America. In fact, in 1951, he was designated “Big
Brother of the Year,” culminating years of successful work within the
organization “molding healthy human personalities, to inculcating
the principles of democratic living” (“F.B.I. Director Honored,” 18).
Hoover implicitly evokes sentiments of his character to garner
credibility and support his vision of collective life in America.
At this point, it is important to note that Hoover
continued to use HUAC to promote the creation of a vigilant utopia by
using investigative intelligence long after his testimony. During
subsequent years, the FBI sent many informers to testify before the
committee’s “colossal stage” (O’Reily, “HUAC” 20). Many of these
individuals were handpicked by Hoover to promote ideals of watchful
local communities by presenting the investigative results of vigilance
in the form of information about communism and party members. According
to O’Reilly, the FBI selected those informers “who would serve their
purposes” (“Un-Americans” 244) based on “their willingness to testify
publically against specific targets” (240). In 1952 The Rotarian
published Hoover’s article entitled, “You Versus Crime.” Herein,
Hoover not only enumerates the intricacies of civilian crime fighting,
but also demonstrates his selection process. According to Hoover, the
average citizen “must begin the fight against [crime and communism] in
his own thinking” (11). “Thinking” can be characterized by the advocacy
and use of observant methods of crime fighting. O’Reilly explicates
that such exploitation of the HUAC trials “served the dual purpose of
publicizing info in FBI files and creating a permanent libel-proof
record” (243). By supporting and extending the fight against communism,
Hoover acquired a benevolent reputation as the purpose of his use of
surveillance was for the betterment of America. Informers permanently
damaged many individuals reputations and careers due in large part to
the FBI’s dissemination of information. However, as O’Reilly
notes, many informers were paid by the FBI for their investigative
services, thus diminishing their credibility. For example, Harold M.
Mikkelson received over $3000 from the Detroit Loyalty Committee for
his investigative work in relation to a Detroit Smith Act trial.
Mikkelson’s credibility was tarnished when the Circuit Court of Appeals
questioned him. The success of Hoover’s underlying motives was not
effected (or went un-absolved). As earlier stated, Hoover forced
HUAC to use methods of surveillance in order to pointedly suggest that
people use vigilance, seen by the committee’s dissemination of FBI
files. However, he also used the committee as a means to self promote
and perpetuate this investigative cycle.
This cycle allowed Hoover to instill his vision of
surveillance as a crime fighting mechanism into society by teaching
citizens to be vigilant. Hoover created acceptance for his own use of
surveillance by disseminating an acceptance for the observant practice
in general. By instilling these skills
of identification in society, Hoover caused society to
participate in similar acts of surveillance to those that the FBI
itself was using to provide HUAC with information about communists.
This began with Hoover’s use of the media and filtered down into
various programs of surveillance such as primitive neighborhood watch
programs, seen by Hoover’s request to report information to local
police agencies and in turn FBI offices. Hoover wanted to do this
because once society accepted surveillance the FBI could justifiably
use extreme acts of vigilance. Before this could happen Hoover had to
define communism as a crime so that people would both support his means
of crime control and participate in it themselves by watching for
communists and reporting their findings to the local authorities. To do
this Hoover made the “fight” against communism a local problem by defining
individuals’ roles, challenging them to work within their communities
to “successfully” combat the problem through surveillance. Hoover’s
advocacy of surveillance represents his desire to obtain law and order
in society.
In conclusion, Hoover abused power through his
attempts to create an observant society. He had a political vision and
successfully implemented it. However, the way he used his power to
“make his vision a reality” constituted an abuse of constitutional
rights and came about because of his intentions to improve society.
Hoover advocated the creation of a utopian society that would monitor
itself with the thought, presence and legality of surveillance. Hoover
believed that his teachings were based on sound principles democracy to
be achieved through a “formula” (Hoover H2) of vigilance, Hoover used
undemocratic practices to achieve these objectives as seen through his
exploitation of HUAC. His testimony and various speeches present
surveillance to Americans in a way to justify the FBI’s ongoing abuses
of power. He wanted to be well protected in case accusations of such
abuses arose. Hoover was not without success and laid the foundation of
modern ideas of surveillance. Hoover led the way to the formation of
today’s “Information Age” by establishing precedence for various
communal programs of vigilance to take hold. In 1972, shortly after his
death, the National Sheriffs Association launched the first
neighborhood watch program (Alton Police Department 2). In addition,
the NSA, created in 1952, took strong hold as an intelligence gathering
agency, “providing and protecting national security through cryptologic
excellence” (nsa.gov 1). Following the cold war, the NSA launched
project “Echelon,” an international program that “captures and analyzes
virtually every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere
in the world” (Poole 1). This program is in the height of its existence
today. The American government, having garnered the ability to monitor
citizens’ activities, both publicly and privately have also taken on
the important responsibility of protecting people’s privacy: something
Hoover failed to do, willingly violating certain checks and balances
that already existed. The extent of today’s invasion of privacy is yet
to be seen. However, it is important to remember that Hoover used
similar principles, leading to such programs today. Vigilant programs
such as these demonstrate Hoover’s affect on today’s society.
Surveillance is omnipresent as a result of Hoover’s persistent attempts
to pound acceptance into our society.
Bibliography
100 Things You Should Know About
Commuinsim In The USA. Washington D.C.: Committee on Un-American
Activities, U.S. House of Representatives, 1948.
Blum Richard H. Surveillance and
Espionage in a Free Society. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972.
“Crime Prevention Urged.” New York Times 1 Jan. 1951:18.
“FBI Director Honored.” New York Times 5 Jan. 1951:18.
Hoover, John E. “Crime Prevention [how citizens can Help].” Journal of
the National Education Assocaition 35 (April 1946), sup 100.
Hoover, John E. “Outlaw the Vigilante!” Los Angeles Times 18 Aug. 1940:
H2.
Hoover, John E. “Testimony before HUAC.” The Age of McCarthyism A Brief
History with Documents. Ellen Schrecker. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2002. 127-133.
Hoover, John E. “You versus Crime.” Rotarian 81 (Nov. 1952), 10-12.
McAuliffe, Mary S. “Liberals and the Communist Control Act of 1954.”
The Journal of American History 63.2 (Sept., 1976): 351-367.
National Security Agency. “Homepage.” 9 June 2004.
http://www.nsa.gov/home.cfm
“Neighborhood Watch.” Internet: Alton Police Department Community
Services Unit. 28 May 2004. Http://www.altonpolice.com/watch.html
O’Reilly, Kenneth. Hoover and the
Un-Americans. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983.
---. “A New Deal for the FBI: The Roosevelt Administration, Crime
Control, and National Security”. The Journal of American History 69.3
(Dec., 1982), 638-658..
Poole, Patrick S. “ECHELON: America's Secret Global Surveillance
Network.” HiWaay Internet Services. 28 May 2004
http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html
Schrecker, Ellen. The Age of
McCarthyism A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2002.
Theoharis, Athan G. “Dissent and the State: Unleashing the FBI,
1917-1985" The History Teacher. 24.1 (Nov.,1990):41-52
---. “The FBI’s Stretching of Presidential Directives, 1936-1953”
Political Science Quarterly 91.4 (Winter, 1976-1977): 649-672.
---. “FBI Wiretapping: A Case Study of Bureaucratic Autonomy” Political
Science Quarterly 107.1 (Spring, 1992): 101-122.
The author would also like to thank Jim Zeigler for his
contributions to this research