Cluster criticism can also be applied here, wherein, after listing the many dangers the unity of the nation faces, as well as the faults of both parties which had led to them, she calls upon all Americans mentions many key "American" terms, such as "think patriotically", "the American way of life", "individual freedom", "elections", "national security," which contrast with more anti-American terms in this section such as "totalitarian", "tools," "victims," "unchecked".

As mentioned, one of the questions Aristotelian criticism is concerned with asking is "Did the rhetor invoke the intended response from the audience?" While Smith was able to obtain some support from fellow Senators, Eric R. Crouse states in his book An American Stand : Senator Margaret Chase Smith and the Communist Menace, 1948-1972 (http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/huntercollege-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1126465) , "Although six moderate Republicans signed their support for the declaration, they took no part in its development." However, as stated by Finneman, Smith's popularity gained a boost for her actions, and her stance is noteworthy for being the first among her peers to publicly condemn McCarthyism.

Pentadic Criticism is concerned with the five elements of drama, otherwise known as the pentad: act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose. In a pentadic reading of Smith’s speech, it can be said that: - Act: violation of constitutional rights - Agent: (without naming him) Joseph McCarthy and many other Republicans - Agency: mass blacklistings, fear-mongering and other Red Scare tactics - Purpose: to fight communism - Scene: the U.S.

In reading the text as such, Smith’s sentiment here that the actions of McCarthy and his supporters, are counterproductive to combating the spread of communism is further reinforced by the disunity and corrosion of civil liberties encouraged by them.

As stated by Teri Finneman in her book Press Portrayals of Women Politicians, 1870s–2000s (http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/huntercollege-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4388726) , "A United Press story noted that 'not many of Mrs. Smith’s sister Republicans gave her much chance of getting the nomination, not in 1952 at least' (Meiner 1952, 6). However, the article also said Smith was 'perhaps the most successful U.S. woman politician of any year.' Smith ultimately was not nominated since supporters withdrew her name after facing party pressure (Sherman 2000)…". A question one may ask when reading this text under a critically feminist lens is, "What does this text reveal about power dynamics between men and women?"

Boissoneault quotes historian Mary Brennan, author of Wives, Mothers, and the Red Menace, in her article, stating, "'I don’t know that she would’ve felt a lot of loyalty to the Republican Party the way some others did. There was a sense that they didn’t like what McCarthy was doing, but he was attacking the Democrats and that was good. And she came along and said, that’s true, but he’s undermining our cause and that’s bad.'" This divisive "us vs them" tactic, as displayed by the Republican party as per Smith, has been used as a rhetorical strategy by many historically. As stated by Erin Ryan in his Young Scholars in Writing article "Telling it from the Mountain: A Rhetorical Analysis of Fannie Lou Hamer’s Speech before the Democratic National Convention," "President Johnson, attempting to retain the southern white vote, … did not want a fight over the issue of race at the convention. Moreover, many local officials, such as Senator James O.Eastland, were aligning … [integration] ideals with Communism. Extreme scare tactics were used, such as warning citizens to brace themselves for an invasion of integrationists and inculcating in their supporters a siege mentality against activists."

Sen. Smith also makes use of logos, defined by Aristotle as the logical argument for one's stance, in her speech as seen here, where, after speaking to the audience’s concerns by also denouncing the opposing Democratic Party party as harmful and “ineffective”, she blames said opposition for the state of the nation, and concludes by stating that any hope for national security now rests in the hands of her party. This reading further gives the speech a somewhat 'partisan' edge to it.

As stated by Foss in chapter 6 of Rhetorical Criticism, the purpose of generic criticism is "to understand rhetorical practices, sometimes in different time periods and in different places, by identifying the similarities in rhetorical situations and the rhetoric constructed in response to them." Here, Smith makes reference to the century prior as a similar situation from a different time period, and as such, one can look to Lincoln's iconic speech "A House Divided," also given to the Republican party, before both the Civil War and even his Presidency but nonetheless regarding the issue of slavery, famously stating, "A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South." While Smith's speech is less "prophetic" in nature, and focuses moreso on the faults of the GOP, both texts nonetheless serve a similar purpose as a rallying cry to Americans, namely Republicans, in combating the division within the nation.

Foss states fantasy-theme criticism is "designed to provide insights into the shared worldview of groups." As such, one reading this from such a lens would perhaps question if Smith's statement here is indeed shared by many Americans by looking into how people responded. As mentioned in Eric R. Crouse's book An American Stand : Senator Margaret Chase Smith and the Communist Menace, 1948-1972(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/huntercollege-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1126465) , "In their assessments of her stand, some editors used unhealthy air as a metaphor for McCarthyism. A Hartford, Connecticut, editor wrote of a 'cool breeze of honesty from Maine'; a Huntsville, Alabama, editorial welcomed the 'draft of clean, wholesome air, turned upon the national capital'; the Lewiston Daily Sun spoke of the speech as 'a fresh breeze in the fear-ridden atmosphere' of McCarthyism; and the Washington Star echoed that Smith’s words came 'as a much-needed breath of fresh air in the fetid and essentially un-American atmosphere' caused 'by irresponsible people galloping around in the Senate.' There had been a hunger to see a politician take action against McCarthyites polluting the nation with a brand of anticommunism which many people found deplorable. Newspapers found the Declaration of Conscience good copy and liberal editors apprehensive about the rise of right-wing anticommunism were eager to embrace a Republican critique of McCarthy."

In her book Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, Sonia K. Foss defines an ideology in Chapter 7 "Ideological Criticism" as "a system of ideas or a pattern of beliefs that determines a group’s interpretations of some aspect(s) of the world … [which] highlight particular positions on social issues … not ones that express personal desires or that focus on personal issues … [but] likely to communicate group beliefs." Here, if one were to ask what the ideology being developed/emphasized is, it would be that of "Americanism." The implication of the ideology in this context, however, is that those who champion it the most are hypocritically fighting against American freedom of speech and press.

Aristotelian criticism is largely concerned with wondering how effective an artifact is in reaching its intended audience. In this case, Senator Smith never mentions Sen. McCarthy by name, but given the historical context, it is obvious she refers to him and his supporters in condemning "the Senate and its members". If one were to measure her success in doing so, as mentioned in Lorraine Boissoneault's Smithsonian article, stating , "The one person who didn’t forget Smith’s speech was McCarthy himself. 'Her support for the United Nations, New Deal programs, support for federal housing and social programs placed her high on the list of those against whom McCarthy and his supporters on local levels sought revenge,' writes Gregory Gallant in Hope and Fear in Margaret Chase Smith’s America. When McCarthy gained control of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (which monitored government affairs), he took advantage of the position to remove Smith from the group, replacing her with acolyte Richard Nixon, then a senator from California." This may not have been an intended effect, but shows nonetheless the significance and degree to which Smith's speech was able to reach her audience. Unfortunately however, it's hard to say how effective entirely her speech would have been, as popularity of her speech waned as the Korean War broke out later the same month, inclining many to take a more right-wing, anti-communist approach favored by McCarthy and many other Republicans.

For context, Senator Smith delivered her speech on June 1, 1950, wherein she addressed both the American government and people to call for action and attention to the ongoing Red Scare, the widespread paranoia being spread - namely by those of the Republican Party - that Soviet communist spies have infiltrated the US government and media in an attempt to subvert the masses in favor of communist ideals through ‘leftist propaganda’. Fellow Senator Joseph McCarthy infamously called for investigations of many individuals, namely actors, writers, and others in the media and office suspected of communism for holding unpopular, "anti-American" beliefs. McCarthy himself would become synonymous with the Red Scare panic, employing similar smear tactics to further the movement and paint any leftist sentiment as an attack on American values. Smith, a Republican Senator, like McCarthy, was also vocal against communism, but disagreed with his increasingly unconstitutional tactics. As mentioned in Lorraine Boissoneault's Smithsonian Magazine article "The Senator Who Stood Up to Joseph McCarthy When No One Else Would," "According to journalist Marvin Kalb, the senators’ interaction that morning was a prelude of what was to come. McCarthy regarded Smith and noted, 'Margaret, you look very serious. Are you going to make a speech?' … [she responded,] “Yes, and you will not like it.”

In opening her speech, Senator Margaret C. Smith makes effective use of pathos, described by Aristotle as the way in which one speaks to or sways the emotions of their audience. Here, her desire to "speak briefly about a serious national condition" not only serves as an opening to her speech, but also speaks to the importance of the "condition", as she follows up by describing it as one of "fear and frustration," and remarking on the danger to everything "we Americans hold dear." In doing so, Smith not only speaks to her audience's feelings of "fear and frustration" with the growing McCarthyism, but also places a sense of urgency with regards to the danger being placed on "everything we Americans hold dear." She further underscores this urgency in stating "too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism."

According to Aristotle, one must appear both knowledgeable about one's subject and benevolent, and Cicero believed the early portion or introduction of a speech was the appropriate place to establish one's position. Here, early on in her speech, Smith makes use of ethos to establish her identity not only as a woman concerned for the state of her country (benevolence) and establishes herself as a US Senator (intelligence). First and foremost, however, she identifies as a Republican.

As stated by Foss in chapter 6 of Rhetorical Criticism, the purpose of generic criticism is "to understand rhetorical practices, sometimes in different time periods and in different places, by identifying the similarities in rhetorical situations and the rhetoric constructed in response to them." Here, Smith makes reference to the century prior as a similar situation from a different time period, and as such, one can look to Lincoln's iconic speech "A House Divided," also given to the Republican party, before both the Civil War and even his Presidency but nonetheless regarding the issue of slavery, famously stating, "A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South." While Smith's speech is less "prophetic" in nature, and focuses moreso on the faults of the GOP, both texts nonetheless serve a similar purpose as a rallying cry to Americans, namely Republicans, in combating the division in the nation

In opening her speech, Senator Margaret C. Smith makes effective use of pathos, described by Aristotle as the way in which one speaks to or sways the emotions of their audience. Here, her desire to "speak briefly about a serious national condition" not only serves as an opening to her speech, but also speaks to the importance of the "condition", as she follows up by describing it as one of "fear and frustration," and remarking on the danger to everything "we Americans hold dear." In doing so, Smith not only speaks to her audience's feelings of "fear and frustration" with the growing McCarthyism, but also places a sense of urgency with regards to the danger being placed on "everything we Americans hold dear." She further underscores this urgency in stating "too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism."

Boissoneault quotes historian Mary Brennan, author of Wives, Mothers, and the Red Menace in her article, stating, "'I don’t know that she would’ve felt a lot of loyalty to the Republican Party the way some others did. There was a sense that they didn’t like what McCarthy was doing, but he was attacking the Democrats and that was good. And she came along and said, that’s true, but he’s undermining our cause and that’s bad.'" This divisive "us vs them" tactic, as displayed by the Republican party as per Smith, has been used as a rhetorical strategy by many historically. As stated by Erin Ryan in his Young Scholars in Writing article "Telling it from the Mountain: A Rhetorical Analysis of Fannie Lou Hamer’s Speech before the Democratic National Convention," "President Johnson, attempting to retain the southern white vote, ... did not want a fight over the issue of race at the convention. Moreover, many local officials, such as Senator James O.Eastland, were aligning ... [integration] ideals with Communism. Extreme scare tactics were used, such as warning citizens to brace themselves for an invasion of integrationists and inculcating in their supporters a siege mentality against activists."

Aristotelian criticism is largely concerned with wondering how effective an artifact is in reaching its intended audience. In this case, Senator Smith never mentions Sen. McCarthy by name, but given the historical context, it is obvious she refers to him and his supporters in condemning "the Senate and its members". If one were to measure her success in doing so, as mentioned in Lorraine Boissoneault's Smithsonian article , "The one person who didn’t forget Smith’s speech was McCarthy himself. 'Her support for the United Nations, New Deal programs, support for federal housing and social programs placed her high on the list of those against whom McCarthy and his supporters on local levels sought revenge,' writes Gregory Gallant in Hope and Fear in Margaret Chase Smith’s America. When McCarthy gained control of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (which monitored government affairs), he took advantage of the position to remove Smith from the group, replacing her with acolyte Richard Nixon, then a senator from California." This may not have been an intended effect, but shows nonetheless the significance and degree to which Smith's speech was able to reach her audience. Unfortunately however, it's hard to say how effective entirely her speech would have been, as popularity of her speech waned as the Korean War broke out later the same month, inclining many to take a more right-wing, anti-communist approach favored by McCarthy and many other Republicans.

Pentadic Criticism is concerned with the five elements of drama, otherwise known as the pentad: act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose. In a pentadic reading of Smith’s speech, it can be said that: - Act: violation of constitutional rights - Agent: (without naming him) Joseph McCarthy and many other Republicans - Agency: mass blacklistings, fear-mongering and other Red Scare tactics - Purpose: to fight communism - Scene: the U.S.

In reading the text as such, Smith’s sentiment here that the actions of McCarthy and his supporters, are counterproductive to combating the spread of communism is further reinforced by the disunity and corrosion of civil liberties encouraged by them.

As mentioned, one of the questions Aristotelian criticism is concerned with asking is "Did the rhetor invoke the intended response from the audience?" While Smith was able to obtain some support from fellow Senators, Eric R. Crouse states in his book An American Stand : Senator Margaret Chase Smith and the Communist Menace, 1948-1972 (http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/huntercollege-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1126465) , "Although six moderate Republicans signed their support for the declaration, they took no part in its development." However, as stated by Finneman, Smith's popularity gained a boost for her actions, and her stance is noteworthy for being the first among her peers to publicly condemn McCarthyism.

For context, Senator Smith delivered her speech on June 1, 1950, wherein she addressed both the American government and people to call for action and attention to the ongoing Red Scare, the widespread paranoia being spread - namely by those of the Republican Party - that Soviet communist spies have infiltrated the US government and media in an attempt to subvert the masses in favor of communist ideals through ‘leftist propaganda’. Fellow Senator Joseph McCarthy infamously called for investigations of many individuals, namely actors, writers, and others in the media and office suspected of communism for holding unpopular, "anti-American" beliefs. McCarthy himself would become synonymous with the Red Scare panic, employing similar smear tactics to further the movement and paint any leftist sentiment as an attack on American values. Smith, a Republican Senator, like McCarthy, was also vocal against communism, but disagreed with his increasingly unconstitutional tactics. As mentioned in Lorraine Boissoneault's Smithsonian Magazine article "The Senator Who Stood Up to Joseph McCarthy When No One Else Would," "According to journalist Marvin Kalb, the senators’ interaction that morning was a prelude of what was to come. McCarthy regarded Smith and noted, 'Margaret, you look very serious. Are you going to make a speech?' ... [she responded,] “Yes, and you will not like it.”

Cluster criticism can also be applied here, wherein, after listing the many dangers the unity of the nation faces, as well as the faults of both parties which had led to them, she calls upon all Americans mentions many key "American" terms, such as "think patriotically", "the American way of life", "individual freedom", "elections", "national security," which contrast with more anti-American terms in this section such as "totalitarian", "tools," "victims," "unchecked".

Sen. Smith also makes use of logos, defined by Aristotle as the logical argument for one's stance, in her speech as seen here, where, after speaking to the audience’s concerns by also denouncing the opposing Democratic Party party as harmful and “ineffective”, she blames said opposition for the state of the nation, and concludes by stating that any hope for national security now rests in the hands of her party. This reading further gives the speech a somewhat 'partisan' edge to it.

Foss states fantasy-theme criticism is "designed to provide insights into the shared worldview of groups." As such, one reading this from such a lens would perhaps question if Smith's statement here is indeed shared by many Americans by looking into how people responded. As mentioned in Eric R. Crouse's book An American Stand : Senator Margaret Chase Smith and the Communist Menace, 1948-1972 (http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/huntercollege-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1126465) , "In their assessments of her stand, some editors used unhealthy air as a metaphor for McCarthyism. A Hartford, Connecticut, editor wrote of a 'cool breeze of honesty from Maine'; a Huntsville, Alabama, editorial welcomed the 'draft of clean, wholesome air, turned upon the national capital'; the Lewiston Daily Sun spoke of the speech as 'a fresh breeze in the fearridden atmosphere' of McCarthyism; and the Washington Star echoed that Smith’s words came 'as a much-needed breath of fresh air in the fetid and essentially un-American atmosphere' caused 'by irresponsible people galloping around in the Senate.' There had been a hunger to see a politician take action against McCarthyites polluting the nation with a brand of anticommunism which many people found deplorable. Newspapers found the Declaration of Conscience good copy and liberal editors apprehensive about the rise of right-wing anticommunism were eager to embrace a Republican critique of McCarthy."

According to Aristotle, one must appear both knowledgeable about one's subject and benevolent, and Cicero believed the early portion or introduction of a speech was the appropriate place to establish one's position. Here, early on in her speech, Smith makes use of ethos to establish her identity not only as a woman concerned for the state of her country (benevolence) and establishes herself as a US Senator (intelligence). First and foremost, however, she identifies as a Republican.

As stated by Teri Finneman in her book Press Portrayals of Women Politicians, 1870s–2000s (http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/huntercollege-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4388726) , "A United Press story noted that 'not many of Mrs. Smith’s sister Republicans gave her much chance of getting the nomination, not in 1952 at least' (Meiner 1952, 6). However, the article also said Smith was 'perhaps the most successful U.S. woman politician of any year.' Smith ultimately was not nominated since supporters withdrew her name after facing party pressure (Sherman 2000)...". A question one may ask when reading this text under a critically feminist lens is, "What does this text reveal about power dynamics between men and women?"

In her book Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, Sonia K. Foss defines an ideology in Chapter 7 "Ideological Criticism" as "a system of ideas or a pattern of beliefs that determines a group’s interpretations of some aspect(s) of the world ... [which] highlight particular positions on social issues ... not ones that express personal desires or that focus on personal issues ... [but] likely to communicate group beliefs." Here, if one were to ask what the ideology being developed/emphasized is, it would be that of "Americanism." The implication of the ideology in this context, however, is that those who champion it the most are hypocritically fighting against American freedom of speech and press.