The modern "Red Scare"?

So do we now see the strategy that will be used to take down opposition candidates, regardless of party, in the months and years to come?

When I started wondering if this might be the new "Red Scare" I was shocked to see that on History.com that they had to explain why it was called "Red"; "Communists were often referred to as “Reds” for their allegiance to the red Soviet flag."  Am I that old?  "Doesn't anyone know history anymore?" It was really before my time, as well (not by much), but I still knew what it was and wrote papers on it several times. But who cares for history – reading it might mean we have lessons to learn from it.  That’s absurd – everyone knows only today’s people know anything worth knowing. History is for old farts, romanticizing about days gone by.

Anyway, accusations of connections to communists were a major political tool in those days, used both to bolster the accuser and to denigrate the accused.  There may have been some reality to it, but it did not matter whether there was evidence or not - the simple matter of being accused was sufficient to "black list" a person. There was no burden of proof. It cost many good people their future.

So, the question:  Is this déjà vu all over again?  Two ongoing situations mirror this phenomenon wherein accusation is sufficient to assume guilt.

1.  The ongoing Trump-Russia accusations (those damned reds again!).  To date, a year later, there is no evidence of "collusion", only an accusation.  Still, via politically-motivated incessant repetition and insinuation, the story lives on and via mere exposure, gains a modicum of truth in the minds of some. Fortunately, the curtain is being pulled back a little on some of this manipulation – although you would not know it reading most news sources.

2.  Accusations of sexual assault. First, the obligatory disclaimer so that I am not “accused” of insensitivity or worse:  Sexual assault, harassment, abuse or any other misbehavior is unacceptable and perpetrators deserve their consequences. But, it appears that this has become the new weapon in the battle of politics and the sexes. Its use in this way diminishes it.

Because of the unacceptable nature of such behavior, coupled with the ubiquitous outrage over “male privilege” (with an apparent acceptance of female powerlessness) any accusation of “sexual misconduct” is reflexively accepted as true.  “Accusers deserve to be believed” is a popular sentiment while the idea that accusations can be false is not only ignored, but actively made taboo.  Denial is more evidence of both the truth of the accusation and of “male privilege.”  The reality is that there can be no defense of one’s self other than denial when proof is not required –when proof of innocence supersedes “innocent until proven guilty”.  This death by accusation can quickly become a weapon of mass destruction.

Current events also diminish the truly heinous behavior that has sometimes been revealed.  There is a drastic difference between “He sent me suggestive sexual texts”, “I was subjected to unwanted advances”, “He put his arm around me a grabbed a handful of flesh”, “He fondled my breasts”, and “He bent me over a desk and forcefully penetrated me.” Yes, all unacceptable, but equating forcible penetration to he sent me texts I did not want about things I did not like to read takes this in an insane direction.

But, I digress:  The point is that if accusations are to be accepted as true simply because they are made, then they will become the new weapon of choice for taking down people we do not like, for getting revenge. There will come a point when accusations are no longer taken seriously because of this.

The common element between the Red Scare, the Russia scandal and the “Me, too” movement is the absence of a burden of proof and the weaponization of accusation. In the end, in all instances, at best the answer seems to be “Of course he did it, we just need to find the proof.”  At worst, the idea of proof is simply discarded.