Themes in Remarks to the Senate in Support of a Declaration of Conscience

With this remark, Smith establishes her primary identity as a patriot. Though she is a Republican, she refuses to put the needs of her party over the needs of the American people. Though she is anti-Communist, she refuses to allow fear-mongering and “the Four Horsemen of Calumny” to erode the country under the guise of guardianship. By emphasizing patriotism and the good of the United States above all else, Smith enhances her own ethos and also protects herself from accusations of holding Communist sympathies. She grounds her arguments in the Constitution and the “basic principles of Americanism,” associating herself with the values of “Americanism” while painting McCarthy as a reckless and dangerous influence.

The noun “prudence” refers to the quality of being cautious or careful. It is often associated with conservatism, since both outlooks take a cautious approach to change. For the Republican Party to be the “champion of unity and prudence” would further align them with the reputation of Abraham Lincoln, who fought to keep the United States together during the Civil War. By emphasizing the connection between the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln, Smith appeals to the sense of pride that her fellow conservatives draw from the highest achievements of their party’s history. They are not the party of division and recklessness that McCarthy is trying to make them, but rather the party of “unity and prudence” that Lincoln established.

Freedom of speech is often considered one of the defining features of American Democracy. Smith states as much herself when she lists out the “basic principles of Americanism.” For freedom of speech to “not [be] what it used to be” implies that McCarthyism is eroding the values and structures that the country is built on. The “abuse” of both congressional immunity and freedom of speech infringes on the rights of US citizens, restricting their freedoms rather than keeping them free from Communism.

Smith uses a rhetorical question to remind her audience that everyone is connected to someone with “unpopular beliefs” in some way. Rather than establishing this reality as something to change or fear, she emphasizes the importance of diverse thoughts and beliefs, framing them as natural. She includes herself in the question by using the pronoun “us,” universalizing the sentiment and challenging anyone to imply that they don’t know someone with controversial beliefs.

All four of these “rights” are protected by the Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment, which reads: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The right to political disagreement and the right to support “unpopular beliefs”—such as Communism—are supposed to be protected by the US Constitution. Smith once again invokes legal precedent in order to remind the Senate of their duties to the American people. She also positions McCarthy’s tactics as un-American, since they publicly punish and humiliate people for activities she establishes as protected by “basic principles of Americanism.”

Smith uses anaphora—or the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses—to build an appeal to ethos and pathos. Through the use of repetition, Smith emphasizes the different identities and expertises she carries. Smith presents herself as not only a politician, but also as a citizen and woman. Her status as a Republican emphasizes that she is not criticizing McCarthy as a partisan issue, and her status as a US Senator and American emphasize that her criticism comes from a place of patriotism and national concern. Her identity as a woman makes her a unique voice within the Senate, as she was the only female Senator for much of her career.

The words “irresponsible,” “bitterness,” “selfish,” and “opportunism” all paint a negative picture of the political landscape. Though Smith was adamantly anti-Communist, she does not give in to the rhetoric of safety and security at any cost espoused by McCarthy and his supporters. Instead, she frames their actions as “irresponsible” and “selfish,” emphasizing the collateral damage left by their attempts to weed Communists out of the government. Rather than upholding the partisan rhetoric that glorified McCarthy and his supporters as patriotic anti-Communists, Smith essentially calls them selfish children, seditionists who are doing more harm than good.