The Trial of Arthur Miller

The Dilemma of Loyalty and Law

John Steinbeck reflects on the trial of Arthur Miller for contempt of Congress, highlighting the profound moral and ethical challenges it presents to individuals and the government.

The Individual's Moral Quandary

Steinbeck contemplates the hypothetical situation of being in Arthur Miller's position, facing a contempt of Congress charge for refusing to name individuals associated with groups deemed dangerous. He acknowledges Congress's legal right to ask any question and punish refusal, particularly when defining a situation as a "clear and present danger."

The Writer's Perspective

As a writer, Steinbeck posits he would have been interested in various groups and people. If asked to name individuals from these groups, he would consider the potential consequences:

• Those named would likely be questioned, possibly losing their jobs and reputations.
• If he believes these individuals are innocent, naming them would be disloyal and immoral.
• The committee would be asking him to commit an immorality in the name of public virtue.

Personal Stakes and the Conflict of Loyalties

Steinbeck considers the personal implications, such as the threat to his family and property. Succumbing to pressure would result in deep shame. He argues that loyalty to friends and personal morality are intertwined with loyalty to one's country. "You can't slice up morals. Our virtues begin at home."

The Government's Moral Responsibility

Steinbeck extends the dilemma to Congress, asserting that law must be moral to survive. Forcing personal immorality undermines public virtue. He warns that fear could lead individuals to fabricate information. An immoral law or a government fostering immorality poses a "clear and present danger."

The Balance Between Legal Right and Moral Responsibility

Congress must consider its moral responsibility alongside its legal rights. Overzealous attempts to protect the nation could erode the deep personal morality that serves as its ultimate defense. Steinbeck concludes that Congress is also on trial.

Implications of Principled Disobedience

Steinbeck envisions the scenario where he, like Miller, refuses to name names and faces imprisonment. Suffering for one's principles could expose the law's flaws, suggesting that contempt of an immoral law is a valid form of contempt. Respect for the law hinges on the law being respectable.

Individual Courage vs. Public Patriotism

He believes individual courage and morals are more valuable than "the safe and public patriotism which Dr. Johnson called 'the last refuge of scoundrels.'"

Core Values and Resistance to Tyranny

Steinbeck invokes his father's teachings: glory to God, honor to family, loyalty to friends, respect for the law, love of country, and "instant and open revolt against tyranny," whether from a bully, dictator, or demagogue.