fifth columnist

The expression “fifth columnist” functions as a weapon against dissent: in a passage describing efforts to draw the United States into war, it is among the labels repeatedly directed at people who question whether intervention serves the country’s interests. Its force lies in recasting political disagreement as disloyalty, making debate itself seem suspect.

Meaning and Use

The passage groups the term with accusations such as traitor, Nazi, and anti-Semitic, describing them as labels hurled at anyone who argued against entering the war. Rather than answering those arguments, the smear implies that the speaker is serving an enemy from within. The novel’s political vocabulary thus presents the expression not as a substantiated description of covert allegiance, but as a means of discrediting opposition.

Propaganda and Suppression

The accusation appears within a larger sequence of pressures on anti-war speech. Theaters fill with plays celebrating war, newsreels lose objectivity, and newspapers and magazines risk losing advertising if they publish anti-war articles. People lose jobs for speaking openly against intervention, while others stop speaking; lecture halls that host advocates of war close their doors to opponents. In that setting, calling dissenters fifth columnists helps turn public disagreement into grounds for exclusion and fear.

Political Significance

The passage also describes a gradual case for military preparation: defense appropriations win broad approval, while the public learns only later that a substantial portion of the arms is intended for Europe. The expression belongs to this account of how persuasion and pressure can narrow the space for dissent while policy advances. By applying a charge of hidden allegiance to people who question intervention, the rhetoric reverses the apparent test of patriotism: silence and conformity are treated as safe, while criticism is made to look like betrayal.