The McCarthy Trials – The Red Herring: When Distraction Becomes Destruction
The fallacy of diverting attention from the real issue by introducing an irrelevant topic.
Senator Joseph McCarthy stood before the cameras in 1954, his voice rising with righteous indignation. The Army-McCarthy hearings were supposed to investigate his allegations of communist infiltration in the U.S. military, but something had gone terribly wrong. Instead of presenting evidence of the communist conspiracy he claimed to have uncovered, McCarthy found himself deflecting, redirecting, and grasping at tangential issues.
When Army counsel Joseph Welch pressed him for specifics about his claims, McCarthy would pivot to attacking Welch’s law firm, questioning the loyalty of other senators, or raising completely unrelated concerns about government procedures. The red herring had become McCarthy’s primary weapon, but it was also his downfall.
The Anatomy of a Red Herring
The red herring fallacy takes its name from the practice of dragging a strong-smelling fish across a trail to throw hunting dogs off the scent. In logic and debate, it works the same way—introducing an irrelevant but emotionally compelling topic to derail the original discussion. What makes red herrings particularly insidious is that they often contain elements of truth or legitimate concern, making them difficult to dismiss outright.
McCarthy had perfected this technique throughout his career. When questioned about specific evidence, he would suddenly express concern about America’s moral fiber. When pressed for names and dates, he would launch into patriotic speeches about the threats facing the nation. Each diversion felt important and urgent, but none addressed the fundamental question: where was the proof?
The red herring differs from other logical fallacies in its deliberate nature. Unlike ad hominem attacks, which target the person making an argument, red herrings target the argument itself by replacing it entirely. They’re strategic retreats disguised as advances, allowing the user to appear engaged while actually avoiding engagement.
The Climactic Moment
The climax came when McCarthy, cornered by Welch’s methodical questioning, suddenly launched into an attack on a young lawyer in Welch’s firm who had once belonged to a legal organization that McCarthy deemed suspicious. It was a desperate red herring, completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The attack on Fred Fisher, a junior associate at Welch’s firm who had briefly belonged to the National Lawyers Guild, was particularly cruel because Welch had already voluntarily removed Fisher from the Army’s legal team to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Welch’s response became legendary: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
That moment crystallized what had been building throughout the hearings. McCarthy’s relentless use of red herrings had created a pattern so obvious that even television audiences could see through it. His diversions had become predictable, his deflections transparent. The very technique that had made him powerful—his ability to shift attention away from inconvenient questions—had become his weakness.
The Broader Pattern of Destruction
McCarthy’s career was destroyed not by the communists he claimed to be fighting, but by his own reliance on red herrings. His inability to address direct questions with direct answers revealed the emptiness of his accusations. The man who had terrorized government officials and ordinary citizens alike fell victim to his own logical fallacy.
The pattern was consistent: when asked for evidence, McCarthy would question the questioner’s patriotism. When pressed for specifics, he would raise concerns about communist infiltration in unrelated institutions. When challenged on his methods, he would invoke the urgency of the threat facing America. Each red herring bought him time but cost him credibility.
Beyond Politics: The Personal Cost of Red Herrings
The red herring fallacy doesn’t just destroy political careers—it devastates personal relationships and business ventures. In marriages, one partner’s consistent deflection from relationship issues to unrelated grievances creates a cycle of unresolved conflict. In business, leaders who respond to legitimate concerns about company performance by raising tangential issues about market conditions or competitor behavior lose the trust of employees and stakeholders.
Consider the parent who, when confronted about their child’s declining grades, immediately shifts the conversation to the school’s inadequate resources or the teacher’s supposed incompetence. While these might be valid concerns, using them to avoid addressing the child’s specific needs serves no one. The real issue remains unresolved, the relationship suffers, and the child’s education continues to deteriorate.
The Psychological Appeal of Red Herrings
Red herrings feel satisfying to deploy because they offer the illusion of engagement without the vulnerability of genuine discussion. They allow us to appear responsive while actually being evasive. For McCarthy, launching into passionate speeches about American values felt more comfortable than admitting he lacked concrete evidence of communist infiltration.
This psychological comfort comes at a steep price. Each red herring builds a wall between the person using it and the truth they’re avoiding. Over time, the deflector becomes trapped in their own web of diversions, unable to find their way back to honest communication.
The Modern Relevance
McCarthy’s story resonates today because red herrings have proliferated in our digital age. Social media platforms reward sensational diversions over substantive engagement. Political discourse often consists of competing red herrings rather than genuine policy debates. In corporate communications, press releases addressing scandals frequently bury the relevant information beneath layers of irrelevant context.
The technology that should enable clearer communication often facilitates more sophisticated forms of distraction. We have more ways than ever to change the subject, shift the focus, and avoid the hard questions.
Breaking the Pattern
McCarthy’s downfall offers a blueprint for recognizing and countering red herrings. Welch’s approach was methodical: he stayed focused on the specific questions at hand, refused to be drawn into irrelevant tangents, and ultimately called out the pattern itself. When McCarthy deployed his final, desperate red herring, Welch didn’t engage with the substance of the diversion. Instead, he highlighted the moral bankruptcy of the tactic itself.
The key to breaking free from red herring patterns—whether we’re using them or encountering them—is persistent focus on the original issue. This requires discipline, patience, and often courage. It means saying, “That’s interesting, but let’s return to the question I asked.” It means acknowledging that some diversions might be worthy of separate discussions while insisting that the current discussion stay on track.
The Long-Term Consequences
McCarthy’s story reminds us that what feels like a clever diversion in the moment can become a trap that destroys everything we’ve worked to build. His red herrings didn’t just fail to protect him—they became the very mechanism of his destruction. Each deflection weakened his position, each diversion eroded his credibility, until the technique that had made him feared made him irrelevant.
The lesson extends beyond individual careers to institutions and societies. When red herrings become the dominant mode of discourse, we lose the ability to solve real problems. Issues fester while attention gets diverted to increasingly desperate tangents. Trust breaks down as people recognize the pattern of evasion. Eventually, the very problems that the red herrings were meant to avoid become impossible to ignore.
McCarthy’s legacy serves as a warning: the red herring is not just a logical fallacy—it’s a form of intellectual and moral self-destruction. Those who rely on it may win individual battles, but they inevitably lose the war against truth, credibility, and their own integrity.