Abuse Of Power In The Crucible By Arthur Miller

The stage is set, 1953, the second red scare provoked mass hysteria through the country. Friends turned to enemies, neighbors turned to strangers, and people couldn’t even trust those in their own government. Panic ensued and at the center was Joseph McCarthy with the House of Un-American Activities Committee. Arthur Miller was a popular writer who found himself among the accused during this time. Through his own experience he used The Crucible to connect parallels of the injustice created through the trials, the abuse of power that is created by Joseph McCarthy, and Arthur Miller’s own experience.
A parallel that Arthur Miller conveys between the crucible and McCarthyism is the unfairness of the trials and treatment of the persecuted. Traditionally,

One parallel of figures is Abigail to Joseph McCarthy and how they used the hysteria and crisis that occurred to further their own agendas. Abigail, who sought to win over John Proctor, used the events that ensued after being caught performing in the woods. The tactics that Abigail used followed that of Joseph McCarthy when it came to seeking political gain. Both also wrongfully accused those in the society for such crimes. During Act 1, Abigail uses the events happening with Tituba to cause panic by naming even more accused than originally stated which ressembles such naming as that of the list of people Joseph McCarthy claimed to have in his speech in Wheeling, WV. It is of such panic and hysteria that both Abigail and McCarthy are able to bring about power. Not only do they both share common methods for achieving power, but they share a sense of control by being at the center of the herd. In Act three Abigail is brought in front of the high court and discredits the statements that Proctor and Mary Warren had against the herd. This same herd syndrome is seen with the events during the second red scare inorder to gain fame and

Arthur Miller uses John Proctor as a parallel to his own involvement in the HUAC trials. During these trials Miller states, “ Mr. Chairman, I understand the philosophy behind this question and I want you to understand mine. When I say this I want you to understand that I am not protecting the Communists or the Communist Party. I am trying to and I will protect my sense of myself. I could not use the name of another person and bring trouble on him. These were writers, poets, as far as I could see, and the life of a writer, despite what it sometimes seems, is pretty tough. I wouldn’t make it any tougher for anybody. I ask you not to ask me that question.” In which he describes his view in which he uses to keep a good face and not bring trouble to the others. John Proctor uses such similar language during act four. “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. - I have confessed myself! Is there no good penitence but it be public? God does not need my name nailed upon the church! God sees my name; God knows how black my sins are! It is enough!” (Miller 142) In which Proctor claims that he is of his own and that he cannot give of that of his friends. Not only does Aurthr miller resemble that of proctor with giving up just himself for what he has done but also in the sense of his feeling towards the events that took place and the