Well I would be happy to help but what’s the books name?
Propaganda is the same as advertising
The title of Granger's book is The Finger in the Glove: the Proper Relationship between the Individual <span>and Society.
This hints at a major theme of the novel: that of the individual's role in society. The individual is just a finger in the "glove" of society. The individual is only a small part of society and is necessary to "fill" it. The glove, or society, is the outer shell presented to the world.
Furthermore, just as gloves protect fingers, so too does society protect the individual. This "protection" can take a negative turn, as when censorship is used.</span>
the third option would be the best choice because it appears on a national health organization website
McCarthyism is nothing more than a witch hunt. A lot of finger pointing and not a lot of proof. Both parties (Democrat & Republican) in the United States use this in todays world. Ill give examples of both and follow up with how it can be beneficial to each party.
Democrats: Accuse other politicians of being "racist" or "bigoted" just from political ideas and from certain members of the base. While it is not fact or true that Republicans are by policy racist, it is a word that is hated by people and has a negative connotation to it, forcing some to keep distance from said person
Republicans: Accuse other politicians of being "muslin lovers" or "muslins" themselves. We saw this for the entire Obama presidency. Congress and some Republican supporters would use the word "muslin" to describe the president in order to give a negative connotation towards Obama. This has some strong effectiveness due to the recent events (September 11th, 2001).
Both parties are trying to stick a negative idea/precedent/description about the opposition in order to sway votes. This tactic is very effective because not only will you sway votes, theres little repercussion in doing so because the people who disagree with you are not going to be swayed, but that voter in the middle who cares about one issue over the other (in this case racism over fear of muslims or vice versa fear of muslims over racism).
Either someone is intelligent enough to know the rhetoric between the two parties and votes by policy (unaffected / no positive or negative response), they don't care about either issue (unaffected / no positive or negative response), or someone is strongly in favor of one or the other (strong positive or negative response).
While there are some attempts that have been made and can be made that would be so egregious that most people have a negative response, but that rarely happens and would be deemed political suicide.
Hope this helps.
