ReclaimPublicSpace
2008-12-16, 03:02
In the beginning of the year, my class was asked to write an essay on Arthur Miller's The Crucible and assert whether or not the ideas expressed in the play were still valid today. This is the paper I wrote, which I recieved an "A" on. Enjoy, fellow nerds.
The struggle to maintain a balance between the forces of order and freedom in America is one that has been raging since the inception of this country and will continue without impediment until the demise of the human race. Mr. Miller correctly notes this in The Crucible, a play that chronicles the anti-Communist “Red Scare” of the 1950s under the guise of the 1692 Salem witch trials. He convinces his audience that McCarthyism was an era spearheaded by fear, political persecution, and a blatant disregard of the Constitution—all gleefully performed in the name of freedom, justice, and all things American. Arthur Miller succeeded in making his point that as much as the American people would like to believe that we are immune to such flagrancies today, that the scale of freedom is very sensitive and can be tipped in an instant. The Crucible is not a topical play. It is very much relevant to America’s political and social atmosphere today.
Throughout the annals of time, the question of freedom and authority is one that has always been at the forefront of the minds of philosophers, politicians, and the common man. It is a recurring theme in the writings of every philosopher from Plato to Aristotle, Locke to Hobbes, and Marx to Hegel. This paper will focus on political persecution and McCarthyism as it still exists in modern America than on answering the tricky question of counterpoising the two extremes of anarchy and authoritarianism.
To better understand the events of today, let us first look to those of the past; specifically those that have helped foster the mentality of the safety of the state over the freedom of the individual and have favored the loss of personal privacy to “national security”. A prime expositor of these ideas in the 1960’s was the FBI’s notorious COINTELPRO and their often illegal and subversive operations aimed at “militant radicals” intent on overthrowing the government. Usually, these “radicals” were no more than regular working-class men and women who voiced support for the civil rights movement or opposition to the Vietnam War. Because of their political affiliation, they found themselves victim to wiretaps, smear campaigns, harassment, assault, tax extortion, false indictment, and even assassination. The extent to which COINTELPRO was willing to silence opposition to the ruling social order makes McCarthyism seem like a minor offense. COINTELPRO was, when stripped to the bone, government-sponsored terrorism. Although the FBI claims to have disbanded COINTELPRO in 1971, an argument can be made police still utilize many of the program’s tactics when targeting today’s anti-globalization, anarchist, and anti-war movements.
More recently, in 2001, George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act into order. Among other criticisms, many feel that the Patriot Act is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. The bill makes it much easier for the federal government and the FBI to spy on American citizens’ phone records, internet accounts, banking transactions, consumer goods bought, even books taken out of the library. Most of the time, all of this can be done without a warrant or without knowledge of the citizen. Harmless civilians have been accused of terrorist activities under the Patriot Act, and some, like Professor Steven Kurtz, are convinced that they are targeted because of their political beliefs. The Patriot Act is a direct threat to freedom of speech and privacy rights ensured by the Constitution. Along with other bills like the Protect America Act and the Authorization for Use of Force Against Terrorists have enabled the National Security Agency to tap into millions of citizens’ phone conversations and e-mails for use in collecting information in the War on Terror. Privacy concerns have been raised by many Americans and advocacy groups, and a number of lawsuits against the federal government are pending.
Meanwhile, dissidents who voiced opposition to the Bush administration’s infractions and distortions of the law found themselves victim of many a Fox News anchor chanting “Terrorist sympathizer”, interspersed with flag-waving graphics and choruses of “God bless America.” Immediately after September 11th, a wave of nationalism swept through the country and anyone who was against invading Iraq was labeled as “un-American.” So sure were the American people that Saddam Hussein held chemical weapons that they took pride in crushing loaves of French bread and buying “freedom fries” when France refused to support US presence in Iraq. They rejoiced over the burning of Dixie Chicks albums when Natalie Maines announced that she was “ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.” They quelled at the thought of giving pacifists and opponents of the war airtime on major television and radio networks. Those who spoke of the current administration in opposition were sometimes greeted by a knock at the door and police officers wanting to ask them “a few simple questions.” Even the media was caught up in the terrorist witch hunt, loyally reminding us that the next terrorist attack could happen anywhere, anytime. Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary for the Bush administration, asserted that Fox News was taking talking points directly from the White House. While national hysteria has greatly subsided, the repression of contrary views still exists. For example, at the 2008 Democratic National Conventions, police set up a separate detention center in Denver for protestors that “got out of hand.” The center, which some have called a prison camp, is composed of fenced-off squares of cement surrounded by barbed-wire and a sign warning that stun guns are in the facility. Bystanders have compared the detention facility to both the gulags implemented by Joseph Stalin and Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp with a blackened record of misconduct and gigantic blunders.
Guantanamo Bay, located in Cuba, has been home to almost 800 prisoners accused of terrorism since the War in Afghanistan. However, only one prisoner has been successfully convicted of any crime and over 400 have been released and freed of charges. The detainees are not guaranteed a right to a fair and speedy trial and many have not been told why they are being detained. In fact, US military officials themselves are not sure why some of the inmates in Guantanamo have been accused of terroristic activities. Often, US military forces rely on questionable or outright false information from outside sources about suspected terrorists in the Middle Eastern region, and so a large number of innocents have been wrongly incarcerated with a small number of threatening wrongdoers in vicious detention centers like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. They are subject to abuse and torture methods designed to extract information about terrorist activities—the problem is, most of the detainees have no relation to terrorists and are there because of misleading information. The information received from the prisoners is considered unreliable because some prisoners have given false testimony in order to escape torture. A similarity is seen in the “crying out” of witches in Salem and Communists in Wisconsin. The detainment camps can be compared to the Japanese American internment camps authorized by Franklin Roosevelt during the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Over 100,000 Japanese American citizens were forcibly relocated to these concentration camps in the Western United States, simply because their ethnicity was distorted through propaganda that caused the public to perceive enemy ties with Japan.
All of these cases hold some kind of similarity to both the Salem witch trials of 1692 and the Red Scare of the 1950s, because all of these cases follow a certain equation, an order of operations. In all of these cases, the common people think highly of the prevailing social order, be it Puritanism or capitalism. When a threatening force presents itself in the face of these systems, a massive PR campaign is mounted to associate these systems with all that is deemed “good”—Christianity, capitalism, democracy, or freedom. It is important that the state succeeds in this task, because once they are seen as a force of good, it is a small step to becoming a force of the divine. The state takes on the role of God. Once this connection has been established, any opposition to the ruling social order must be seen as “evil”—witchcraft, Communism, radicalism, or terrorism. An “us versus them” mentality is carefully sculpted, in which there is no middle ground to stand upon: one is either for or against the state’s interest. Any dissidence is seen as a nuisance and an obstruction to justice and swift action is taken to make sure that political opposition is equated with treason. Persecution ensues, and because holding a particular belief is an “invisible crime”, as Mr. Miller asserts, anyone can be targeted. The most infuriating aspect of all of this is that these acts are trumpeted as being in the people’s best interest, while, in fact, they are not. Tactics like these were appearing long before McCarthy’s time and they appear long after McCarthy. The Bush presidency is proof that Miller’s argument about man’s inability to balance order and freedom is still valid.
TL/DR? Fuck you: The Crucible's message is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago. Cited COINTELPRO, FBI, USA PATRIOT ACT, Guantanamo Bay, Japanese Reinternment camps, 2008 DNC, etc. George Bush is a douche bag, etc. etc. Propaganda sucks, dissent is patriotic.
The struggle to maintain a balance between the forces of order and freedom in America is one that has been raging since the inception of this country and will continue without impediment until the demise of the human race. Mr. Miller correctly notes this in The Crucible, a play that chronicles the anti-Communist “Red Scare” of the 1950s under the guise of the 1692 Salem witch trials. He convinces his audience that McCarthyism was an era spearheaded by fear, political persecution, and a blatant disregard of the Constitution—all gleefully performed in the name of freedom, justice, and all things American. Arthur Miller succeeded in making his point that as much as the American people would like to believe that we are immune to such flagrancies today, that the scale of freedom is very sensitive and can be tipped in an instant. The Crucible is not a topical play. It is very much relevant to America’s political and social atmosphere today.
Throughout the annals of time, the question of freedom and authority is one that has always been at the forefront of the minds of philosophers, politicians, and the common man. It is a recurring theme in the writings of every philosopher from Plato to Aristotle, Locke to Hobbes, and Marx to Hegel. This paper will focus on political persecution and McCarthyism as it still exists in modern America than on answering the tricky question of counterpoising the two extremes of anarchy and authoritarianism.
To better understand the events of today, let us first look to those of the past; specifically those that have helped foster the mentality of the safety of the state over the freedom of the individual and have favored the loss of personal privacy to “national security”. A prime expositor of these ideas in the 1960’s was the FBI’s notorious COINTELPRO and their often illegal and subversive operations aimed at “militant radicals” intent on overthrowing the government. Usually, these “radicals” were no more than regular working-class men and women who voiced support for the civil rights movement or opposition to the Vietnam War. Because of their political affiliation, they found themselves victim to wiretaps, smear campaigns, harassment, assault, tax extortion, false indictment, and even assassination. The extent to which COINTELPRO was willing to silence opposition to the ruling social order makes McCarthyism seem like a minor offense. COINTELPRO was, when stripped to the bone, government-sponsored terrorism. Although the FBI claims to have disbanded COINTELPRO in 1971, an argument can be made police still utilize many of the program’s tactics when targeting today’s anti-globalization, anarchist, and anti-war movements.
More recently, in 2001, George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act into order. Among other criticisms, many feel that the Patriot Act is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. The bill makes it much easier for the federal government and the FBI to spy on American citizens’ phone records, internet accounts, banking transactions, consumer goods bought, even books taken out of the library. Most of the time, all of this can be done without a warrant or without knowledge of the citizen. Harmless civilians have been accused of terrorist activities under the Patriot Act, and some, like Professor Steven Kurtz, are convinced that they are targeted because of their political beliefs. The Patriot Act is a direct threat to freedom of speech and privacy rights ensured by the Constitution. Along with other bills like the Protect America Act and the Authorization for Use of Force Against Terrorists have enabled the National Security Agency to tap into millions of citizens’ phone conversations and e-mails for use in collecting information in the War on Terror. Privacy concerns have been raised by many Americans and advocacy groups, and a number of lawsuits against the federal government are pending.
Meanwhile, dissidents who voiced opposition to the Bush administration’s infractions and distortions of the law found themselves victim of many a Fox News anchor chanting “Terrorist sympathizer”, interspersed with flag-waving graphics and choruses of “God bless America.” Immediately after September 11th, a wave of nationalism swept through the country and anyone who was against invading Iraq was labeled as “un-American.” So sure were the American people that Saddam Hussein held chemical weapons that they took pride in crushing loaves of French bread and buying “freedom fries” when France refused to support US presence in Iraq. They rejoiced over the burning of Dixie Chicks albums when Natalie Maines announced that she was “ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.” They quelled at the thought of giving pacifists and opponents of the war airtime on major television and radio networks. Those who spoke of the current administration in opposition were sometimes greeted by a knock at the door and police officers wanting to ask them “a few simple questions.” Even the media was caught up in the terrorist witch hunt, loyally reminding us that the next terrorist attack could happen anywhere, anytime. Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary for the Bush administration, asserted that Fox News was taking talking points directly from the White House. While national hysteria has greatly subsided, the repression of contrary views still exists. For example, at the 2008 Democratic National Conventions, police set up a separate detention center in Denver for protestors that “got out of hand.” The center, which some have called a prison camp, is composed of fenced-off squares of cement surrounded by barbed-wire and a sign warning that stun guns are in the facility. Bystanders have compared the detention facility to both the gulags implemented by Joseph Stalin and Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp with a blackened record of misconduct and gigantic blunders.
Guantanamo Bay, located in Cuba, has been home to almost 800 prisoners accused of terrorism since the War in Afghanistan. However, only one prisoner has been successfully convicted of any crime and over 400 have been released and freed of charges. The detainees are not guaranteed a right to a fair and speedy trial and many have not been told why they are being detained. In fact, US military officials themselves are not sure why some of the inmates in Guantanamo have been accused of terroristic activities. Often, US military forces rely on questionable or outright false information from outside sources about suspected terrorists in the Middle Eastern region, and so a large number of innocents have been wrongly incarcerated with a small number of threatening wrongdoers in vicious detention centers like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. They are subject to abuse and torture methods designed to extract information about terrorist activities—the problem is, most of the detainees have no relation to terrorists and are there because of misleading information. The information received from the prisoners is considered unreliable because some prisoners have given false testimony in order to escape torture. A similarity is seen in the “crying out” of witches in Salem and Communists in Wisconsin. The detainment camps can be compared to the Japanese American internment camps authorized by Franklin Roosevelt during the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Over 100,000 Japanese American citizens were forcibly relocated to these concentration camps in the Western United States, simply because their ethnicity was distorted through propaganda that caused the public to perceive enemy ties with Japan.
All of these cases hold some kind of similarity to both the Salem witch trials of 1692 and the Red Scare of the 1950s, because all of these cases follow a certain equation, an order of operations. In all of these cases, the common people think highly of the prevailing social order, be it Puritanism or capitalism. When a threatening force presents itself in the face of these systems, a massive PR campaign is mounted to associate these systems with all that is deemed “good”—Christianity, capitalism, democracy, or freedom. It is important that the state succeeds in this task, because once they are seen as a force of good, it is a small step to becoming a force of the divine. The state takes on the role of God. Once this connection has been established, any opposition to the ruling social order must be seen as “evil”—witchcraft, Communism, radicalism, or terrorism. An “us versus them” mentality is carefully sculpted, in which there is no middle ground to stand upon: one is either for or against the state’s interest. Any dissidence is seen as a nuisance and an obstruction to justice and swift action is taken to make sure that political opposition is equated with treason. Persecution ensues, and because holding a particular belief is an “invisible crime”, as Mr. Miller asserts, anyone can be targeted. The most infuriating aspect of all of this is that these acts are trumpeted as being in the people’s best interest, while, in fact, they are not. Tactics like these were appearing long before McCarthy’s time and they appear long after McCarthy. The Bush presidency is proof that Miller’s argument about man’s inability to balance order and freedom is still valid.
TL/DR? Fuck you: The Crucible's message is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago. Cited COINTELPRO, FBI, USA PATRIOT ACT, Guantanamo Bay, Japanese Reinternment camps, 2008 DNC, etc. George Bush is a douche bag, etc. etc. Propaganda sucks, dissent is patriotic.