The Redhunter and The View From Alger's Window

Dear Ron,

PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...SINGLE PAGE

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

My, how quickly the gloves come off. So much the better for "free and spirited debate." Now onto the ... ahem... red meat.

We've disposed of Buckley's novel. But what of the phenomenon it fails to illuminate? You say that McCarthyism has proven so popular in this country because "so many in America refused to take seriously the tough reality--that there was a legitimate issue of Communists in government who posed a real security risk." True, but we are discussing issues of degree and proportion. Life is filled with all kinds of risks. I take a risk every time I descend onto the New York City subway system or drop my daughter off at her (Godless, atheistic) day-care center. Of course the Soviets spied on us and enlisted a few sympathetic, well-placed individuals to help out. Many were Communists, including those at the top echelons of the party. But we did the same to them. We would have been idiots not to. That's what international relations, particularly Cold War international relations, are all about. It's still true today and true among friendly nations as well. The Israelis spy on us, we spy on the French. Everybody spies on everybody.

But the fact is that anti-Communist hysteria--wholly unjustified by the level of physical threat that the Soviets or the Communist Party posed to anyone in America--did far more damage to the United States than the Commies did. The Soviets did not get the "secret" of the atomic bomb from us, since there was no secret to get. At worst they speeded up their program a bit. The Communist party, while run by a bunch of dishonest thugs, never appealed to the working man or woman in numbers that might be judged even remotely significant. Meanwhile, McCarthyite hysteria did real and lasting damage to our democracy, destroying careers, closing off debate, corrupting our judicial process, compromising our Constitution, and generally instituting a (happily brief) anti-intellectual reign of terror.

Regarding Mr. Hiss, I realize that this is inconvenient (and as conservatives love to say, "unfashionable") to say so, but there remains plenty of room for doubt for those with open minds. The Venona documents prove nothing, since the primary reference to Hiss was a scrawled anonymous statement made by an NSA official decades after the events in question took place. This identification has never been successfully cross-referenced, despite false claims by Allen Weinstein and Sam Tanenhaus that it had been. (As I pointed out in both The Nation and the Wall Street Journal in my one foray into the case, all three alleged references to Hiss being named as the spy "Ales" are the same single reference, mentioned three times; that reference is the same one noted above, and carries no evidentiary weight.) For all I know Hiss is guilty, but the case is not fully proven. And one thing has always bothered me about the Chambers case against Hiss: If Alger was a spy--and indeed was passing the Soviets valuable documents at Yalta that resulted in our "losing" China, as so many including Chambers have claimed--then why in God's name did the Soviets suggest him to head the U.N. commission in San Francisco? If he is their greatest super-secret agent, why would they want to put a red light on his head and say "We Love This Guy! Question This Man's Loyalty Right Away"? Are Commies really that stupid?

As for your attacks on The Nation, well, I am not my magazine's keeper. I disagree with much of what appears in its pages. But the historians you mention, Victor Navasky and Ellen Schrecker, are both honorable, intellectually scrupulous individuals who have looked at the case and come to different conclusions than you on many issues. In an online post in H-Diplo (the listserve for diplomatic historians) you called Navasky "obtuse" for his refusal to admit that Hiss was guilty. I call Victor brave and open-minded. His critique of the case is far more nuanced than your criticisms allow.

So, by the way, is The Nation's record on this case. I don't want to get in the position of defending some of the silly things that have appeared in its pages, but I would point out that two different writers in the magazine have recently allowed that they believe Hiss was probably guilty. When I wrote about the case in the magazine, I did not take a position on his guilt or innocence. Contrast this with the New Republic, which, by the way, has proved far more obsessed in recent years with Hiss/Chambers than The Nation. (Check the numbers.) Marty Peretz would plant a big wet kiss on Arafat's stubby cheek before he published an article that even allowed for the possibility of Alger's innocence in his magazine.

Regarding alleged gay-bashing, that's just silly. True, the word "weirdo" was a poor choice when applied to all four cases. I apologize for that. I was speaking primarily of Hoover. There was nothing weird about being a closeted homosexual in 1930s and 1940s America. What I meant to address, however clumsily, was the apparent relationship between repressed sexuality and Red-hunting, particularly since these same Red-hunters are also hunting closeted homosexuals. And I'm still saying it ... and still waiting for a response.

Your serve,
Eric

PRINTE-MAILRECOMMEND...RSS

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

Eric Alterman is a columnist for The Nation and the author of Who Speaks for America? (click here to buy the book). Ronald Radosh is senior research associate at the Center for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University and co-author, with Harvey Klehr, of The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism (click here to buy the book). This week they discuss The Redhunter: A Novel Based on the Life and Times of Senator Joe McCarthy, by William F. Buckley Jr. (click here to buy the book), and The View From Alger's Window: A Son's Memoir, by Tony Hiss (click here to buy the book). Addendum: William Buckley Quotes Himself in Self-Defense

SPONSORED CONTENT