The Double Standard

[quade 3]

I’m trying to reconcile how history has treated two men and the following is absolutely true.

The first man served in the Navy during WWII and was assigned to the Office of Strategic Services, OSS. Following VE Day, he was among the first American servicemen to liberate the Nazi-run concentration camps. He was involved in gathering evidence against war criminals for the Nuremberg Trials. The assignment included arresting documentary film maker Leni Riefenstahl, to have her identify the faces of Nazi war criminals in German film footage captured by the Allied troops.

The second man was a well known Hollywood actor. During WWII, due to his “nearsightedness,” he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas. He was assigned to Army Air Force Public Relations in Culver City, California. He was eventually promoted to Captain. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.

Following the war, both men found themselves in Hollywood. One returned to become a novelist and screenplay writer. The other resumed his acting career and became a leading man in numerous films.

During the Army-McCarthy hearings, the second man, the actor, was a friendly witness and named names. During the House Un-American Activities Committee, HUAC, hearings in Hollywood, both men testified as “friendly” witnesses and gave up names.

In doing so, the first man, the one that had worked with the OSS, helped free Nazi-run concentration camps and helped the efforts of the Nuremberg Trials was shunned by his friends. Although he did manage to write one of the best known films of all time, he worked very little after the HUAC trails with only a handful of individuals willing to work with him. In fact, in many of his obituaries, a very strong sentiment of betrayal and anger was still demonstrated by people writing they were glad he was dead.

The second man, the motion picture star, not only wasn’t shunned, but was held up as a beacon of anti-communism even though he was a union boss. He became a famous and well paid spokesman. His funeral was attended by about 4,000 people including the President of the United States as well as leaders from from around the globe.

Take two men, one great and the other unremarkable except for a small bit of fame. Give them both an essentially identical inciting incident and the great man becomes shunned by his peers and obscure, while the slightly famous man becomes one of the most respected in the world.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Erroll 49]

Paul, are you talking about Budd Schulberg by any chance?

[quade 3]

Quote

Paul, are you talking about Budd Schulberg by any chance?

Wow. And here I thought if anybody recognized anyone it would be the second man. Yes, the first man is Budd Schulberg, writer of; "On the Waterfront" and "A Face in the Crowd."

Google his obit and see the hate people carried for him for over 50 years.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Erroll 49]

Quote

Quote

Paul, are you talking about Budd Schulberg by any chance?

Wow. And here I thought if anybody recognized anyone it would be the second man. Yes, the first man is Budd Schulberg, writer of; "On the Waterfront" and "A Face in the Crowd."

Google his obit and see the hate people carried for him for over 50 years.

The second man is a bit obvious.

I just happen to know about Schulberg in terms of boxing. He was a correspondent for SI and he was even inducted into the Boxing Hall of Fame, so I was surprised to read about him being shunned etc.

[lawrocket 3]

Should both men have been treated the same? Double standards are a way of life. And these often happen because different people have different charisma.

So different acts and accomplishments were mentioned. How about personalities. Like it or not, Reagan had nearly unparalled charisma. This other guy?

Reagan was the union head. This other guy?
Reagan was a lead actor - a face of a leading man.

The same reason why so many more people love Reagan than the other guy is the same reason why so many more people hate Reagan than the other guy - because Reagan was known by so many more people.

Paul: more people will attend Bill Clinton's funeral than attended Audie Murphy's. More people will have mourned Michael Jackson's death than will mourn the death of Quincy Jones. More attended the memorial services for Sinatra than Paul Anka.

It's not a double standard, Paul. You're comparing a non-combat leading-man, union head, governor and President with a combat veteran Academy Award winning screenwriter.

Double standard? Nope. Different fellas.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I’m trying to reconcile how history has treated two men and the following is absolutely true.

The first man served in the Navy during WWII and was assigned to the Office of Strategic Services, OSS. Following VE Day, he was among the first American servicemen to liberate the Nazi-run concentration camps. He was involved in gathering evidence against war criminals for the Nuremberg Trials. The assignment included arresting documentary film maker Leni Riefenstahl, to have her identify the faces of Nazi war criminals in German film footage captured by the Allied troops.

The second man was a well known Hollywood actor. During WWII, due to his “nearsightedness,” he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas. He was assigned to Army Air Force Public Relations in Culver City, California. He was eventually promoted to Captain. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.

Following the war, both men found themselves in Hollywood. One returned to become a novelist and screenplay writer. The other resumed his acting career and became a leading man in numerous films.

During the Army-McCarthy hearings, the second man, the actor, was a friendly witness and named names. During the House Un-American Activities Committee, HUAC, hearings in Hollywood, both men testified as “friendly” witnesses and gave up names.

In doing so, the first man, the one that had worked with the OSS, helped free Nazi-run concentration camps and helped the efforts of the Nuremberg Trials was shunned by his friends. Although he did manage to write one of the best known films of all time, he worked very little after the HUAC trails with only a handful of individuals willing to work with him. In fact, in many of his obituaries, a very strong sentiment of betrayal and anger was still demonstrated by people writing they were glad he was dead.

The second man, the motion picture star, not only wasn’t shunned, but was held up as a beacon of anti-communism even though he was a union boss. He became a famous and well paid spokesman. His funeral was attended by about 4,000 people including the President of the United States as well as leaders from from around the globe.

Take two men, one great and the other unremarkable except for a small bit of fame. Give them both an essentially identical inciting incident and the great man becomes shunned by his peers and obscure, while the slightly famous man becomes one of the most respected in the world.

Reconcile this too Paul, if you're truly interested in such reconciliation: Budd Schulberg traveled to the Soviet Union in 1934, after that trip, he joined the American Communist Party. At the HUAC hearings, he named eight figures in his testimony as well, even though he quit the party years before the hearings. He acknowledged himself that while the fears about the Communist party at that time were probably worse than the actual threat, he named names because he felt the party was a genuine threat to free speech.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 3]

"Different fellas."

Absolutely. Yet when people talk with disdain about Schulberg, there is only one thing they ever mention, HUAC. By all accounts he was a likable enough guy. It's just that he did this one unforgivable thing; the exact same thing Reagan did. Yet look at the differences in outcomes.

I bring the entire thing up as a sort of counter-point to the JohnRich discussions of late. JR has been, it seems, trying to devise some sort of litmus test on a person's worth based upon a single fact of their lives. I think it's more complex than binary.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[captain1976 0]

Well, Its like Charles Lindbergh's great solo flight across the Atlantic;

Imagine if press chastised him for venturing on such a dangerous flight and thus labeled him a kook for such reckless conduct. The interview with his Mother reveals how ashamed she was about what a stupid dangerous stunt he pulled.

On the other hand he had nothing but full press support and his Mother was so proud of him for his accomplishment.

It actually could have gone either way as it does with so many other things.

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[airdvr 200]

The biggest problem I have with the whole thread is it's revisionist history.

It's unfair to take these 60+ years old events and judge them based on today's reality. Kinda like the folks who say we should not have used the bomb to end the war in the Pacific. Horrific for sure but toally understandable in the world that was 1945.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 3]

Quote

The biggest problem I have with the whole thread is it's revisionist history.

Excuse me? What is inaccurate?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

"Different fellas."

Absolutely. Yet when people talk with disdain about Schulberg, there is only one thing they ever mention, HUAC. By all accounts he was a likable enough guy. It's just that he did this one unforgivable thing; the exact same thing Reagan did. Yet look at the differences in outcomes.

I disagree. Reagan was always a committed anti-communist. His testimony in 1947 had to do with the influence of communists and other unions with the film industry. It was brief testimony and pretty philosophical. His only real incident was about his name being misused for an "Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee" event.

http://www.twcnet.edu/cschutz/history-page/Consensus/Reagan-huac-testimony.html

The diffrence is that Schulberg was, at one point, involved with the Commuunist party before being disillusioned by it. Schulberg, it seems, was reviled just as a snitch is reviled today. Schulberg gave names. And his whole life he was proud of it.

Schulberg was named by someone else as a former member. Then he did something that was viewed as the worst - he volunteered to testify. He told all without ever taking the Fifth. It was his somewhat inside knowledge and his willingness to share it and name names that caused blacklisting. Others refused to testify and he volunteered! Those who did not viewed him as a snitch and someone who wanted to eliminate competition.

It's a pretty big difference!

Quote

I bring the entire thing up as a sort of counter-point to the JohnRich discussions of late. JR has been, it seems, trying to devise some sort of litmus test on a person's worth based upon a single fact of their lives. I think it's more complex than binary.

Oh I agree. Things are way more complex. Reagan was despised by a lot of people and loved by a lot. There were ten or twenty people that really personally hated Schulberg's guts.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Quote

There were ten or twenty people that really personally hated Schulberg's guts.

I think you've under estimated that number by several orders of magnitude.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

The biggest problem I have with the whole thread is it's revisionist history.

Excuse me? What is inaccurate?

Not inaccurate. Your assertion that Reagan was wrong and Schulberg was right. By today's standard maybe so. Not 1940's America.

Always easy to look back and draw conclusions.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The biggest problem I have with the whole thread is it's revisionist history.

Excuse me? What is inaccurate?

Not inaccurate. Your assertion that Reagan was wrong and Schulberg was right. By today's standard maybe so. Not 1940's America.
Always easy to look back and draw conclusions.

Where did I say that? I never said either was right or wrong in what they did.

I was specifically talking about the differences of how history has treated them as a result of them participating in a single incident with both men doing essentially the same thing.

A remarkably similar event; markedly different responses. Why? Because one was a short, average looking man with a stutter and the other a tall good looking man that came to be known as "the great communicator"?

Ironically the Schulberg was at least Reagan's equal in communicating, just in a much different way.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver