Enemy Images, Evidence, and Cognitive Dissonance: The Cold War as Recalled by Michiganders

HomeArticlesEnemy Images, Evidence, and Cognitive Dissonance: The Cold War as Recalled by Michiganders

This chapter is a summary of Michiganders’ view of three Cold War events: the communist infiltration of labor unions in the 1940s, McCarthyism in the 1950s, and the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s. Fifteen Michiganders from the Flint and Tri-city area in March 2009 were shown articles about a Cold War event and then were interviewed for approximately an hour about their recollection of the events. In the interviews, I explore three specific questions: 1) do Michiganders’ perceptions of Communists subscribe to an “enemy image”?; and, on what basis do they make such perception, if they possess it?; 2) do Michiganders have confidence in their leaders to meet the global challenge of communism?; and 3) do Michiganders suffer from cognitive dissonance in their perceptions of Cold War and personal events? And if they do, how do they reconcile themselves with it?

The concept of enemy image—a set of negative beliefs or perceptions that a person has about another’s country’s capabilities, motivations, political system, and culture—can lead to exaggerated fear of that country as well as create a self-image of innocence where one’s own actions are not perceived as aggressive. Often individuals who subscribe to an enemy image and have an innocent self-image have confidence in their own political leaderships: a set of positive beliefs or perceptions about their political leadership being able to confront international crises. However, cognitive dissonance may result when new information becomes revealed that conflicts with a person’s existing beliefs and perceptions.

This chapter will see whether Michiganders had these experiences during the Cold War. But before we look at this, I will provide the political demographics of the Flint and Tri-city area as well as a history of the Labor Movement in the United States, since this topic is not as well known as the other Cold War events: McCarthyism and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Political Demographics

Michigan is the eighth most populous state in the United States with an approximate population of 10 million residents. It has a large white population (81%) and a sizable African-American (14%) and Arab (Lebanese) populations. Its economy is dominated by the automobile industry, with education, agriculture, and tourism playing secondary roles. Although it has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1992, the state continues to be a “swing” state with Democrats strong in Detroit and Ann Arbor and Republican strength in Grand Rapids and the rural regions.

The Flint and Tri-City area (Saginaw, Bay City, and Midland) is a racially and economically diverse region and is one of the places in Michigan that determines the state’s electoral outcomes, i.e., it is a “swing” region of the state for presidential elections (the Detroit suburbs is the other region). It is the birthplace of the so-called “Reagan Democrat”: the traditional Democrat voter, a white working-class Northerner, who defected from their party to support Republican President Reagan in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. A smaller but substantial number supported President George H.W. Bush in 1988, but they returned to the Democratic Party by a slight margin since then. Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead viewed them as working primarily for the benefits of others: the very poor, the unemployed, minorities, and feminists.

Flint metropolitan population is approximately 400,000 and economy is dominated by the automotive industry, as expected being the birthplace of General Motors (GM). Within Flint proper, the population is divided evenly between whites (53%) and blacks (41%). The 2008 median household income is $31,424.00. Because of the decline of GM since the 1970s, Flint has suffered from a decline in population and a rise in crime, with racial tensions exacerbated as the local economy continues to suffer. Flint traditionally is a bastion of Democratic voters but now is a swing city in the state, as discussed above with the “Reagan Democrats.”

The Saginaw metropolitan population is approximately 200,000 and economy also is dominated by automotive industry, specifically Delphi, which is one of the primary parts suppliers for GM. Within Saginaw proper, the population is divided evenly between whites (47%) and blacks (43%) with a growing Latino population (9%). The 2008 median household income is $26,485.00. Like Flint, because of the decline of the automotive industry, Saginaw has suffered from both high unemployment and crime. Residents who live in Saginaw City vote overwhelming Democratic, while those in the suburbs tend to vote Republican.

The Bay City metropolitan population is approximately 108,000 and economy is dominated by light industries and tourism. Within Bay City proper, the population is predominantly white (91%), mostly of Eastern European descent and of working-class origins. The 2008 median household income is $30,425.00. Bay City residents tend to vote Democratic.

Midland, the last and smallest of the tri-cities, has a metropolitan population of 82,000 and economy is dominated by Dow Chemical and Dow Corning, where both companies’ corporate headquarters are located. Within Midland proper, the population is predominantly white (93%) and well-educated. The 2008 median household income is $48,444.00. Midland residents tend to vote Republican.

Labor History in the United States

Although the first local unions were formed in the late eighteenth century, the first effective labor organizations—the Knights of Labor and the American Railway Union—appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century. However, both the Haymarket Riot (1866) and the Pullman Strike (1894) provided the federal and state governments an excuse to repress these labor movements. From these events emerged the American Federation of Labor (AFL) which favored local union autonomy, limited membership to workers, and excluded minorities and women. A rival union, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), was established in 1905 and supported anarcho-syndicalism, while a new political party, the Socialist Party, emerged as a political power in the Midwest in the 1910s with the objective of overthrowing capitalism. But a series of events—the Danbury Hatters’ Case and the War Labor Administrator during World War I in particular—provided the federal government the authority to crush the IWW and relegate the Socialist Party as a minor regional power.

In the 1930s the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) established the United Steel Workers of America (UWA), the United Automobile Workers (UAW), and other industrial unions throughout the United States. The CIO and the AFL attempted a merger between the two organizations but it failed. Nonetheless, both the AFL and CIO supported Franklin Roosevelt in 1940 and the war effort in June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The unions agreed to a no-strike policy during World War II except in November 1943 when the CIO went on a twelve-day strike for higher wages, causing a conservative coalition in Congress to pass anti-union legislation that ultimately led to the Taft-Hartley Act (1947).

This Act amended the National Labor Relations Act that prohibited “unfair labor practices” on part of unions, such as jurisdictional strikes (pressure employer to assign particular work to a union representative) and common situs picketing (unions refuse to handle goods of a business which they have no primary dispute but associated with a targeted business). The Act also outlawed closed shops, permitted states to pass “right-to-work” laws, and forced unions to give a sixty-day’ notice to employers of a potential strike. It also required unions to come to the negotiating table during a “cooling-off” period, as authorized by the President.

Both the AFL and CIO supported President Truman’s Cold War policies, including the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO. Left wing elements protested and were forced out by the unions, with Walter Reuther of the UAW purging all Communist elements. Reuther also was active in expelling eleven Communist-dominated unions from the CIO in 1949. As a prominent figure of the anti-Communist left, Reuther founded the Americans for Democratic Action (1947) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (1949) in opposition to the Communist-dominated World Federation of Trade Unions. He left the Socialist Party in 1939 and became an ardent supporter of the Democratic Party.

Since 1955, when the AFL and CIO merged into the AFL-CIO, the American labor movement actively supported the Civil Rights Movement and the organization of public sector (government) unions, which now surpasses private sector unions in terms of membership. The UAW is an example of the decline of union membership in manufacturing: there were approximately 1.6 million members of the UAW in 1970; now there is approximately a little more than half a million. Perhaps the biggest and most recent blow against the American labor movement was President Reagan’s firing of the PATCO and replacing them with scabs in 1981. Thousands of employees lost their jobs, wages remained stagnant, and, most important of all, the nation’s airplane service resumed without any glitches, giving the public the impression that unions impeded efficiency and best management practices. This negative perception of unions continued with the passage of NAFTA, the flooding of imported foreign goods and services, the rising attraction of right-to-work states for corporations, and the disproportion blame placed on unions for the recent federal government bailout of GM and Chrysler.

Labor History in Michigan

The history of labor in Michigan is the history of the United Automobile Workers (UAW), or formally known as the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. This organization now represents workers in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico; and, although originally represented workers in the automobile manufacturing industry, it currently includes industries as diverse as health care, casino gaming, and higher education. It has approximately 800 local unions and headquarters is located in Detroit.

The UAW was founded in 1935 in Detroit under the auspices of the AFL but left the AFL when the CIO was established in 1936. The UAW was the first major union that was willing to organize African-American workers and found success in organizing with the sit-down strikes, first in Atlanta in 1936 and, more famously, in Flint on December 29, 1936. That strike ended in February 1937 after Michigan Governor Frank Murphy negotiated recognition of the UAW by GM. The next month the UAW was established at Chrysler as workers engaged in a sit-down strike. However, at Ford, the UAW was not established until 1941, after the Battle of the Overpass (1937), when labor organizers clashed with Ford security guards.

After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the UAW agreed to a no-strike policy to ensure the war effort would not be hindered by strikes. After World War II, the UAW elected Walter Reuther at their 1946 convention. Reuther ousted Communists from positions of power, especially at the Ford local, and used the strategy of negotiating a contract with one major auto maker and applying to others to secure a number of new benefits for automobile workers, including fully paid hospitalization and sick leave benefits at GM and profit-sharing at American Motors. Soon the UAW became one of the best paid groups of the industrial workers in the country—placing them solidly in the middle class.

By the end of the 1960s, changes in the global economy, specifically competition from European and Japanese automobile makers, and management decisions by U.S. automakers started to significantly reduce the profits of the U.S. automakers. Membership in the UAW declined over this period as did the profits and market share of the U.S. automakers to the point where General Motors and Chrysler (its second time) requested a bailout from the federal government in 2008-2009. The American public, and Congress, blamed the UAW for the automotive crisis, pointing out the high benefits of its members when compared to workers for foreign automakers, i.e., a UAW worker receives $74/hour compared to a Toyota worker’s $44/hour. The Union also has come under criticism for setting up the controversial job bank program and refusing to cut its salary to match the salaries of workers in competitors, such as Toyota.

Communist Infiltration

Five interviewees from the Flint and Tri-City area were given two articles to read for their reactions. The articles and a summary of each one are below:

“AFL Denounces Labor Disruption,” New York Times, 20 June 1941, p. 9

Representative Woodruff of Michigan wanted the President of the CIO, Philip Murray, to quit the National Defense Mediation Board because of communist infiltration. Because he has been doing everything he can to keep the Communists out of the unions, Representative Woodruff called for Murray to quit if the President of the CIO refuses to purge subversive agents from the labor movement. According to Woodruff, the Nazi-Communist alliance is attempting to overthrow the American labor and union system: “their purpose is to sabotage defense production, stir up industrial strife, undermine trade union movement, and organize a revolution against the United States . . . They betray the million of loyal, hard-working American union members.”

“Red Charge Fly in Flint Strikes,” New York Times, 20 January 1946, p. 8.

 The UAW membership was concerned about communist infiltration in their own membership as well as in the membership of the local teachers unions. By not purging the communist influence in these unions, members worried about a divided organization. However, members also were concerned that the accusations of certain union leaders as being communists were part of a “Red Scare” tactic by government and business to split the union. Both the leadership and its members were opposed to communist infiltration in their unions but also wary of accusations of their leaders being communist.

After reading the articles, the five people were interviewed for approximately an hour about their recollection of communist infiltration in the UAW. All five signed consent-release forms for the academic use of their interviews.

The demographic information about the interviewees is below:

Interviewee #1            Male, 88, Roman Catholic, High School Education, Democrat, Flint

Interviewee #2            Male, 76, Roman Catholic, High School Education, Democrat, Saginaw

Interviewee #3            Male, 85, Protestant, Doctorate Education, Republican, Midland

Interviewee #4            Female, 74, Roman Catholic, High School Education, Democrat, Saginaw

Interviewee #5            Female, 80, Protestant, High School Education, Republican, Midland

A summary of all the respondents’ interviews is below:

All interviewees recall a negative impression of communists, specifically the Soviet Union and Stalin: “It was a scary time. We were getting all our information from the radio, and we heard all the terrible things that Stalin was doing over there to the Russians and all other countries . . . just bad things . . .” (#1).  Stalin is often referred to as “an evil man” (#2), “a threat to the United States” (#4), and “someone who was dictator and wouldn’t stop until he had all of Europe” (#1).

When asked about communist infiltration in the UAW, only interviewees #1 and #2 answered, since they were members: “We were worried about them infiltration, not just the unions but the United States as well.” (#2). However, they were skeptical about charges that either specific members or their union leaders were communists: “A lot of things were said, but I didn’t know any Communists” (#2). “There was a lot of fear, but I didn’t know any [Communists]. I think you have to have evidence first before you can say someone’s like that.” (#1). Both interviewee #1 and #2 heard rumors of someone in their unions being a communist, but, as far as they could recall, nothing was done about it. The other respondents didn’t know any communists either, with interviewee #3 making the point that “I lived in a fairly wealthy neighborhood and things around seemed as if all were well. I didn’t know any communists, nor did I think any of family knew any.”

All respondents had confidence in the leadership of the United States to confront the communist challenge. “I had complete faith in the United States and the president” was a typical refrain from the interviewees (#1-2, 4-5). All interviewees believed that the United States’ leadership would be able to meet the communist challenge.

Michiganders subscribed to an enemy image, with all of them having negative impressions of communists, Soviets, and specifically of Stalin, who was referred to an “evil man” and “doing the terrible things over there to the Russians and all other countries.” Michiganders also had confidence in the political leadership in the United States to confront the communist challenge. “I had complete faith in the United States and the president” was a typical refrain from the interviewees. However, when asked about communist infiltration in the unions, Michiganders were skeptical about the charges and wanted to see evidence before making judgment. This is a form of cognitive dissonance: Michiganders were suspicious of communist infiltration as reported nationally, but, when specific leaders or members were charged, Michiganders wanted to see evidence furnished. In other words, union cohesion and the rule of law were higher values among Michiganders than a fear of communist infiltration.

McCarthyism

McCarthyism was a period of intense anti-communist suspicion in the United States from the late 1940s to the late 1950s. During this time thousands of Americans were accused of being Communist or communist sympathizers and became subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels and committees. Perhaps the most famous example was the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy and the Hollywood blacklist, associated with the hearings conducted by the House Committee of Un-American Activities. Ultimately, public and political support turn against McCarthyism, with Murrow’s See It Now, Army-McCarthy Hearings, and a series of Supreme Court rulings playing critical roles.

Five interviewees from the Flint and Tri-City area were given two articles to read for their reactions. The articles and a summary of each one are below:

“Movies to Oust Ten Cited for Contempt of Congress,” New York Times, 25 November 1954

Members of the Association of Motion Pictures Producers voted unanimously to refuse employment to any known members of the communist party and discharge or suspend without compensation the ten men cited for contempt to the House of Representatives. Major heads of Hollywood studios got together in a hotel for two days and vote to keep fear out of Hollywood.

“Mr. M’Carthy as a Symbol,” New York Times, 11 November 11, 1954

McCarthyism is defined as “the invasion of personal rights, the irresponsible attacks on individuals and institution, the disregard of fair democratic procedures, the reckless shattering of mutual trust among the citizens of this country, the terrorization of local civil servants—these are all elements of McCarthyism. It is the destruction of orderly government process; it is the destruction of the constitutional relationship between the equal branches of our Government; it is the assault of federal agencies most intimately concerned with the actual “cold war” or the potential “hot” one; it is the contempt for the Bill of Rights and for the ordinary rules of public and policy decency. It is the encouragement of fear, the undermining of self-confidence, the pandering of emothalism; it is the diverse force of accusation, recrimination, and suspicion.”

After reading the articles, the five people were interviewed for approximately an hour about their recollection of McCarthyism. All five signed consent-release forms for the academic use of their interviews.

The demographic information about the interviewees is below:

Interviewee #1            Male, 75, Roman Catholic, High School Education, Republican, Midland

Interviewee #2            Male, 81, Roman Catholic, High School Education, Independent, Bay City

Interviewee #3            Male, 81, Protestant, Bachelor Degree, Democrat, Saginaw

Interviewee #4            Female, 72, Protestant, High School Education, Independent, Bay City

Interviewee #5            Female, 62, Protestant, High School Education, Republican, Flint

A summary of all the respondents’ interviews is below:

Most of the interviewees knew about McCarthyism, particularly how it affected Hollywood, but were suspicious about the charges that Americans were Communists. Some excerpts from the interviews are below:

“It was a time of confusion, especially for me and my family growing up with the war and really wanting to trust our leaders, we expect them to steer us in the right direction and really they were filling our minds with bullshit, like McCarthyism. It made me feel betrayed, like I had no one to trust. He [McCarthy] wasn’t the governor of Michigan, so I think we were being represented all right, but if this man could pull a damn cover over all these people’s eyes, I just didn’t want to think what else could be done. It was a shady time, because real communists were out there . . . Look at the way Bush made all of us afraid of terrorists, and not just terrorists, but Muslims. We can’t even walk down the street today without looking at a guy with a towel on his head, saying he’s got a bomb or on an airplane.  McCarthyism is not really all that uncommon or hard to make happen.” (#1)

“A lot of people were frustrated because he was out there accusing people for wrongdoing when he had no proof . . . If someone told you that your ticket holds the winning lottery numbers, you want to make sure you have proof first. You don’t want to get all squalled up over the situation until you see the proof for yourself. It is the instinct of human nature, we want evidence for everything.” (#3)

“I was a member of the U.S. Army. I was supposed to represent my country. I signed up with the army for one purpose and one purpose only: I felt I wanted to do good for my people . . . Many people were against McCarthy but were careful what they said. I was concerned about my family, friends, and army buddies.  They were confused and wanted evidence. It reminds one of the Salem Witch trials. It was only when Edward Murrow’s See It Now that McCarthy had the tables turned on him. That man did not have good intentions.” (#3)

“I don’t know anyone that was touched by communism directly or indirectly. No one in my circle was effected. I read a lot about it, especially in Hollywood. Most of it was bogus, just suspect, but not actually genuine. It was a shame how many of those careers were ruined by it. I was busy raising a family. The Soviets were tyrants and was opposed to the idea. People sharing everything is a bad idea. A person should work for what they should always have a free enterprise.” (#4)

Michiganders subscribed to the enemy image of communists, however, they were skeptical about Senator McCarthy’s charges that certain Americans were communists unless evidence was furnished. Still, the perception of communists as enemies did not change since the 1940s. Michiganders also suffer cognitive dissonance as they did in the 1940s: they knew of the communist threat as reported nationally but personally did not know any communist and therefore wanted to see evidence if someone was accused of being a communist. Interestingly, the contempt and distrust of Senator McCarthy did not translate into a lack of confidence in the Michigan political leadership or President Eisenhower.

Cuban Missile Crisis

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a confrontation between the United States, the Soviet Union, and Cuba that occurred in the early 1960s during the Cold War. On October 14, 1962, the United States reconnaissance saw missile bases being built in Cuba. The crisis ended two weeks later on October 28, when President Kennedy and U.N. Secretary-General U Thant reached an agreement with the Soviets to dismantle the missiles in Cuba in exchange for a no invasion agreement. Khrushchev’s request that Jupiter and Thor missiles in Turkey be removed was ignored by the Kennedy administration and not pressed by the Soviet Union. Along with the Berlin Blockade, the Cuban Missile Crisis is regarded as one major confrontations of the Cold War which the Cold War came closest to a nuclear war.

Five interviewees from the Flint and Tri-City area were given two articles to read for their reactions. The articles and a summary of each one are below:

“President Grave,” New York Times, 23 October 1962

President Kenny imposed naval and air quarantine on shipment of offensive military equipment to Cuba. The President makes two claims: 1) the Soviets were responsible with “false intentions in Cuba”; and 2) the U.S. will act alone against Cuba, if necessary. Kennedy makes an appeal to Khrushchev for peace and calls for a meeting of OAS.

“US Get Soviet Offer to End Cuba Bases, Rejects Bids to Link It to Those in Turkey; U-2 Lost on Patrol, Other Craft Fired on,” New York Times, 28 October 1962

Khrushchev offered an acceptable solution to the United States in a private communication. The Soviet Union will remove the missiles in Cuba. However, the U.S. brushes aside demands to remove missiles in Turkey. As the crisis was escalating, a U-2 reconnaissance aircraft went missing.

After reading the articles, the five people were interviewed for approximately an hour about their recollection of the Cuban Missile Crisis. All five signed consent-release forms for the academic use of their interviews.

The demographic information about the interviewees is below:

Interviewee #1            Male, 84, Protestant, Bachelor Degree, Republican, Midland

Interviewee #2            Male, 78, Roman Catholic, Bachelor Degree, Democrat, Bay City

Interviewee #3            Male, 66, Protestant, Associate Degree, Democrat, Saginaw

Interviewee #4            Male 56, Protestant, High School Education, Independent, Flint

Interviewee #5            Male, 78, Protestant, Law Degree, Republican, Midland

A summary of all the respondents’ interviews is below:

“It was a contest between capitalism and communism. One of the points of high ground that I felt we took was the position we do not occupy and take over by force other countries. The Soviets were going into country after country: Poland, Hungry, Bulgaria: a series of them where they would install their own government and leave their troops there. We were essentially the knight in shining armor. Now that may be an exaggeration, but that was the feeling I had. Now whether that was fueled by what was released by our government, I can’t say. I’ve always tried to hear all the different sources so I can weigh in and make my own decision.” (#1)

“During the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, I was aboard the USS Wasp CVS 18, an anti-submarine aircraft carrier. We were employed down by Cuban waters in-between Cuba and the U.S. and our vessel’s purpose was to stop Russian ships keep them from to Cuba. We were down there for about a month and we stopped certain vessels and we didn’t find any missiles. We were close to all-out nuclear war. Real close. We had the ‘hands on the button’ so to speak. Russia was ready at a moment’s notice to fire their nuclear weapons, and so was the U.S. Most people in the country in the country had no idea of actually how close it really was. It was very scary.” (#3)

“I had big faith in President Kennedy at the time. He knew what was happening more than anything else. I had a lot of faith in Kennedy. He was a navy guy and he knew what was happening and was directly involved in the situation. Presidents nowadays do not have the courage that I believe that President Kennedy had. He was ready to protect the U.S. at all costs.” (#3)

“I thought that the United States was able to handle the situations. The American public had a lot of pride. I had faith that President Kennedy and his team of political advisors would handle the matter, but at the same time I didn’t seem to care much if it was resolved peacefully. Looking back on the event with the knowledge that I have now, I feel that President Kennedy handled the situation better than anyone else probably could have handled it. But, it really wasn’t my concern: I knew that the Soviet Union was a threat, and that there was a good chance that military force would be necessary to contain the problem.” (#4)

As before with the communist infiltration of labor unions and McCarthyism, Michiganders continue to subscribe to the enemy image of communists in the Cuban Missile Crisis and had confidence in the American political leadership to handle the crisis. But, unlike the previous two events, Michiganders did not suffer from cognitive dissonance in their national and personal perceptions of Cold War events. Because of the nature of nuclear war, Michiganders felt directly threaten and therefore affected by Soviet missiles.

Conclusion

Michiganders suffered from cognitive dissonance in two of the three Cold War events: communist infiltration of labor unions and McCarthyism. In spite of national claims by the media and prominent politicians, none of the interviewees knew any Communists. This dissonance was reconciled in the first instance with the value placed of union cohesion over accusations of communist infiltration; and, in the second event, the value of skepticism over Senator McCarthy’s charges of communist infiltration. In both cases, interviewees wanted to see evidence according to the rule of law to see whether such charges were legitimate. The values traditionally associated with the United States judicial system of fairness, use of evidence, and the assumption of innocence before guilty were preferred by Michiganders over the values of suspicion, slander, and insinuation.

With respect to the questions of enemy image and confidence in their leaders, Michiganders perceived the Soviet Union as a threat to the United States and to its way of life and had confidence in its leaders, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this event, both personal and public experiences coincided for Michiganders. This would be expected, since a nuclear war would impact everyone in the United States. Although none of the interviewees knew any Communists, they still perceive the Communists as enemies as told by the U.S. government and media. In other words, the basis of Michiganders’ enemy is national and public in nature, as opposed to local and personal.

When confronted with the events of the Cold War, Michiganders clearly base their beliefs on the national organizations and public institutions. However, when these messages began to conflict with their own personal and local experiences, Michiganders resorted to rules of evidence, common sense, and skepticism to reconcile their cognitive dissonance. It would seem, at least in the Flint and Tri-City region, the local and personal ultimately triumphed over the national and public during the early stages of the Cold War.

 

References

Barnard, John. American Vanguard: The United Auto Workers During the Reuther Years, 1935-1970 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2004).

Boyle, Kevin. The UAW and the Heyday of American Liberalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995).

Blight, James G. and David A. Welch. On the Brink: Americans and Soviet Reexamine the Cuban Missile Crisis (New York: Hill and Wang, 1989).

Brody, David. In Labor’s Cause: Main Themes on the History of the American Worker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).

Chayes, Abram. The Cuban Missile Crisis, International Crisis and the Role of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974).

Cummings, Michael S. and Ray Tillman, eds. The Transformation of U.S. Unions: Voices, Visions, and Strategies from the Grassroots (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishing, 1999).

Fausold, Martin and Alan Shank, eds. The Constitution and the American Presidency (Albany: SUNY Press, 1991).

Fine, Sidney. Sit-Down: The General Motors Strike of 1936-1937 (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1969).

Griffith, Robert. The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1970).

Jervis, Robert. Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.

Lichtenstein, Nelson. State of the Union: A Century of American Labor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).

Michigan Government. http://michigan.gov/.

Rovere, Richard. Senator Joe McCarthy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959).

U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/.

Zieger, Robert and Gilbert J. Gall. American Workers, American Unions: The Twentieth Century (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2002).

Zieger, Robert. The CIO, 1935-1955 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1997).

 

Also available are “The American Perspective of the Cold War: The Southern Approach (North Carolina)“; “Soviet Perspective on the Cold War and American Foreign Policy“; “The Polish Perspective of American Foreign Policy: Selected Moments from The Cold War Era“; “The Netherlands During the Cold War: An Ambivalent Friendship and a Firm Enmity“; “The Special Relationship: United States-Russia“; “The U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment’s Perception of Poland (1980-1981)”; “After the Cold War: U.S.-Ukrainian Relations (1991-2000)“;  Soviet Attitudes Towards Poland’s Solidarity Movement” and “The Paradox of Solidarity from a Thirty Years Perspective.

This article was originally published with the same title in Comparative Perspectives on the Cold War, Lee Trepanier, Spasimir Domaradzki, and Jaclyn Stanke, ed. (Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University Press, 2010).

Lee Trepanier

Written by

Lee Trepanier is a Professor of Political Science and University Pre-Law Advisor at Saginaw Valley State University in Michigan. He is author and editor of several books and also is the editor of VoegelinView (2016-present) and editor of Lexington Books series Politics, Literature, and Film (2013-present).