In What Ways, and to What Extent, Did Mccarthyism Impact upon American Society in the Early 1950s - Research Paper Example

HERE HERE YOUR HERE HERE In what ways, and to what extent, did McCarthyism impact upon American society in the early 1950's? PLAN OF INVESTIGATION The term McCarthyism was derived from the by-product of national experiences involving Senator Joseph McCarthy who, during the early 1950s, became an advocate and campaigner for removing the alleged threat of Communism from within the United States. To determine how McCarthyism impacted American society, investigation involved consultation with primary studies conducted during this period to reflect the real-time, historical attitudes of those in society influenced by McCarthyism. Consultation with a variety of secondary sources, including lecture materials produced by respected university educators and governmental publications, created a research-supported portrait of the social attitudes, beliefs and principles borne of McCarthyism that assist in determining how, and to what extent, McCarthyism left an impression on American society. The investigation involved conducting analyses on human behavior induced by McCarthy’s anti-Communist rhetoric as well as examination of the victims of McCarthyism whose involvement helped shaped societal ideologies supportive or opposed to McCarthy’s paranoia. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE Joseph McCarthy was expertly versed in utilizing rhetorical arguments to foster support for the agenda of removing legitimate or perceived Communist threats from within the United States and that stemming from international society. After emerging from World War II, nations torn apart by war began to polarize, creating centralized authorities from fractious ruling regimes torn apart by warfare. This centralization ultimately led to the development of The United States and The Soviet Union as superpowers, based on militaristic and economic growth. Coupled with ongoing threats of atomic warfare, now posing a risk from nations that had managed to procure atomic resources, Communism became a very negative connotation sparking fear from members of government. It was believed by many in the early 1950s that Communism represented a moral threat to the fabric of society and an antagonistic ideology. “You the American people could hope…even at this late date, how rapidly the sands in the hourglass of time are running out -- realize that, as of tonight, we are winning a war, winning it – I beg your pardon – losing a war, losing it deliberately and disgracefully, losing it at the tune of American blood which will continue over the weeks and months ahead” (McCarthy 2). The aforesaid quotation from McCarthy in 1952 illustrates the methodology by which McCarthy was able to foster support for his agenda, appealing with pathos, the ability to create an emotional response from an audience by appealing to suffering and experiences endured by a national population fatigued from years of difficult warfare. McCarthy established a sense of urgency through his rhetorical arguments, indicating that there must be a community-wide effort, involving all patriotic Americans, to identify and remove the threats of Communism to the United States. The McCarthy movement gained national prominence in the early 1950s, enhanced by growing support from the Catholic community in the U.S., support from the Kennedy family which was gaining notoriety and influence in government, and such organizations as the American Legion and anti-Communist women’s groups such as The Minute Women of the USA (Nickerson 2). Under social learning theory, society will often imitate the behaviors of others when they are considered credible and attractive role models. Under this theory, society will continue to model such behaviors when they witness these actions being reinforced and applauded by the social environment (Bandura 47). Groups such as the American Legion and The Minute Women of the USA regularly published anti-Communist sentiment in the form of leaflets and posters that publicized support for McCarthy’s agenda, thus becoming a credible reference group. EVALUATION OF SOURCES The quotation from McCarthy assists in determining how the Senator was able to foster support from many different stakeholders in society, utilizing language and symbolism that created emotional and psychological responses from those in society that trusted in the rhetoric. McCarthy’s statement came directly from the 1952 Republican National Convention, publicized in a variety of media sources ranging from radio to newspaper, thus giving the Senator a new type of visibility not found in previous society before the advent of modern broadcasting technology. Utilizing real-time sentiment from McCarthy illustrates the legitimate, insidious methodology by which the Senator was able to change attitudes and beliefs in a variety of diverse citizenry. Nickerson’s recognition of the variety of social groups and government membership assisted in analysis, illustrating that the social environment continued to reinforce the laurels and integrity of this anti-Communist agenda. It was not just government that was saturating society with all-encompassing anti-Communist values and rhetoric, continuous reinforcement of the reliability and honor of McCarthy’s agenda created an operant conditioning response from members of society who were, at the time, easily influenced by publicized rhetorical arguments. This secondary source acknowledgement of the concentrated influence of multiple social and militaristic groups provided the appropriate linkage between psychological theory and its impact on human behavior and decision-making to fully understand how McCarthyism managed to gain such strong social support and stave off criticism of this rather insipid agenda. ANALYSIS A study conducted in 1955 involved a randomized sample of 4,933 diverse citizens in the United States, a research effort designed to determine the extent to which members of society would tolerate threatening political ideologies. Only 2.3 percent of all respondents, which represented distinctly unique socio-economic characteristics, indicated that they would not restrict the personal rights of individuals who were admitted Communists (Stouffer 26). What this illustrates is that McCarthy was successful in promoting fear and concern regarding the validity of Communism, thus becoming an effective role model from those easily influenced by rhetoric indicating potential threat to self-stability. In truth, Communism is an ideology in which securing the social order through fair allocation of resources and removal of the class system are paramount objectives, founded on Marxist values and principles which generally support social welfare through state-owned production systems. McCarthy was able to negate legitimate educational information about the constructs and ideologies of Communist regimes, thus utilizing subversive techniques and communications to gain support for this agenda. The 1955 study by Stouffer robustly illustrates the pervasiveness of the establishment of a fear culture utilizing social propensity to fear the unknown to his personal advantage. This is why during the 1950s, many diverse stakeholders in society stemming from widely-different social and economic backgrounds did not become active participants in criticizing the accuracy and integrity of accusations against many influential members of Hollywood and government for their alleged Communist involvement. McCarthy was able to gain support from many influential and powerful members of government and general society as the volume of advocates for securing this agenda subjugated any potential criticisms from Leftist regimes that represented the minority in criticizing McCarthy’s approach and objectives. Members of society who, during this period, were easily influenced by government-sponsored rhetoric continued to witness Leftist criticisms being trodden by Conservatives who maintained the most prominence in government during the early 1950s. Thus, this too served as an operant conditioning response that promoted fear in many stakeholders in which the general belief was that acting against McCarthy’s agenda could lead to long-term social and professional chastisement. It was not until McCarthy’s own personal assistant was drafted into military service that members of society were finally able to witness the impudence of McCarthyism when television was available to broadcast the hearings in which McCarthy publicly criticized the U.S. Army (U.S. Dept. of State 3). Those, who in the early 1950s had been public supporters of McCarthyism, ultimately turned against this potentially menacing effort to transform the country into an infrastructure of social fear and apprehension which changed the dynamics of operant conditioning responses from American society. By witnessing the breakdown of support for McCarthy’s agenda within the Conservative party, and many other stakeholder groups, it no longer satisfied that McCarthyism maintained sustainability or would produce desired outcomes. Supporting McCarthy’s objectives no longer represented a credible and attractive role model by which to mold behaviors. Thus, by the mid-1950s, sustenance of McCarthyism had lost its value throughout the nation. Understanding the dynamics of human behavior and the fundamentals of psychological response and conditioning are important for understanding the depths by which McCarthyism was able to change beliefs and attitudes in many members of government and society. In truth, an educated individual in society that understands the dynamics and philosophy of Communism would have recognized that fear of the model was unjustified and irrational. McCarthy was an invasive and powerful individual due to deliberate camouflaging of legitimized education on Communist philosophy and values, thus being able to capitalize on the propensity of citizens in society to react impulsively to perceptions of phobias about the potential risks of maintaining Communist ideologies. McCarthy managed, due to the psychological and sociological characteristics of general citizenry during the 1950s, to significantly influence a national culture of apprehension and trepidation that was, genuinely, not founded on reasonable or justifiable conviction about the terrors associated with Communist values. The influential factors of inherent behavior associated with social learning theory and vicarious reinforcement of aspirational reference groups allowed McCarthyism to become a short-term, yet invasive social order. CONCLUSION As illustrated by the research, McCarthy was able to successfully change pre-existing attitudes and beliefs about the danger of Communism in which members of general society continued to reinforce this agenda. The presence of observed positive reinforcements stemming from influential government membership and prominent social groups served as the psychologically-based underpinning for McCarthyism to where collaboration with the agenda became a social imperative. What made McCarthy so powerful and intriguing is that the Senator was able to obscure accuracy and precision about the legitimate constructs of Communist ideology, using pathos in recurrent rhetorical arguments to change the viewpoint of widely-diverse members of general society. McCarthyism, though ultimately chastised for its triviality and insignificance, managed to influence social behavior from 1950 to 1954, with lingering impacts associated with social belief in the revulsion of Communist dogma that pervaded most of society. It is likely that without the support of public figures such as the Kennedy family, the Catholic American Conservatives, and many social groups, society would have been more doubtful or apprehensive about the credibility and integrity of McCarthy’s objectives. Whatever the case, McCarthyism was persistent and could be found in many socio-economic groups, thus reinforcing that McCarthyism radically changed American society during the period in which McCarthy sustained his powerful public position. Works Cited Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. (1977) New York: Prentice Hall. Print. McCarthy, Joseph. “One Communist”. 1952 Republican National Convention Speech, July 7, 1952. Web. January 2, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/script.html Nickerson, Michelle M. “Women, Domesticity and Postwar Conservatism”, OAH Magazine of History. Web. January 2, 2012 http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/conservatism/nickerson.html Stouffer, Samuel C. Communism, Conformity and Civil Liberties. (1955). New York: Doubleday. Print. U.S. Dept. of State. The Cold War in the 1950s. Web. January 3, 2012 http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pdf/the-cold-war-in-the-p6075.pdf Read More