March 19, 2004

WE KNOW HE'S GUILTY, WHY DID HIS DUPES BELIEVE HIM?

Unmasking Alger Hiss: a Review of Alger Hiss's Looking-Glass Wars: The Covert Life of a Soviet Spy (Ronald Radosh, 3/17/04, Hudson Institute)

What White accomplishes in this innovative and brilliant new book is not yet another attempt to show Hiss's guilt, but rather an examination of how Hiss managed to be both a gifted Soviet agent and "a successful publicizer of his innocence," able to convince so many people. Why, White asks, was Hiss seen as a sympathetic figure by so many who should have known better—and why did they ignore irrefutable evidence in order to go on believing him?

White starts from the premise that Hiss was both a dedicated Communist party member and an agent of Soviet military intelligence from 1934 to 1946, and then asks why Hiss lied about this so blatantly, for so long, and even enlisted friends and family in the lie. He had other options. He could—as his wife desired—have faded into the woodwork and led a private life. He could have admitted his guilt and sought to excuse his actions with the "idealistic" reasons that he thought at the time justified the betrayal of his own country—the rationale used today by left-wing historians to exonerate the Rosenbergs.

Instead, Hiss pursued a consistent path of categorically dissociating himself from the slightest connection with Communism, developing what White calls a false narrative that he would relate for the rest of his life. He was, he claimed, simply a loyal New Dealer and devotee of international peace, a man who was therefore accused by the New Deal's right-wing enemies for their own partisan purposes. He characterized those who accused him as liars and himself as their innocent and unwilling victim. Hiss's chosen narrative was nothing but a spy's cover story, repeated ad infinitum until many opinion makers chose to believe him. [...]

Hiss had a fanatical dedication to vindicating his reputation. One of the major themes of White's psychological portrait is of how Hiss brought his son Tony, who had been estranged from him since childhood, into active participation in his fraudulent effort. He mended his fences with Tony in adulthood, and gained the loyalty of a family member who would carry on the effort to vindicate him even after his death. In effect, he betrayed the trust of loyal friends and family members, including his own son, to pursue the goal of helping the Soviet Union.

What helped Hiss most was the changing moral and political climate. When he was imprisoned, most Americans undoubtedly believed in his guilt. But he maintained his charade long enough for the 1960s and Vietnam to come along and produce a new national climate, one in which many Americans came to believe the worst about their government—that, for example, the Justice Department and FBI would fabricate evidence to convict an innocent person. This skeptical climate enabled Hiss to gain near-vindication, as White puts it, "without his producing a shred of credible new evidence." His tale of partisan right-wingers and government officials orchestrating a frame-up won him fresh supporters among the emerging New Left.


Didn't help that one of the men who brought him down, Richard Nixon, self-destructed in the 70s.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 19, 2004 6:07 PM
Comments

I guess one of the greatest pieces of luck a guilty man can have is a lying, vindictive, sleazy prosecutor who needs a shave.

But why are you beating this horse? Weinstein killed it over 30 years ago.

And there's no great mystery about why people were hoodwinked by Hiss. His speeches in favor of American values are among the most eloquent anyone ever gave. One in Rolling Stone (forget date) was perhaps the most eloquent defense of what I myself think of the American experiment I've ever read.

Why did people believe Jim Bakker?

Same thing.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 19, 2004 6:43 PM

Who believed Jim Bakker?

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2004 7:22 PM

>>Who believed Jim Bakker?

Everyone who sent him money, that's who.

Posted by: Joe at March 19, 2004 7:51 PM

Unfortunately, Hiss made the mistake of living past the fall of the Berlin Wall. Had he died and taken his crusade with him a decade earlier, the information confirming his work for the Soviets would still have emerged, but he wouldn't have been around to stoke the fires and make his detractors even more determined to prove him wrong.

Posted by: John at March 19, 2004 7:57 PM

Joe:

Who? He was deposed fairly rapidly. As opposed to Hiss who folks like Tony Lake still say was not guilty.

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2004 7:59 PM

"Perjury" settled it for anybody but the foil beanie crowd. If Lake's in that crowd, sobeit.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 19, 2004 8:31 PM

Orrin:

They won't admit it nowadays, but back in the glory days of PTL, you could hear the cash registers ringing constantly as the love gifts from the Pentecostal faithful came in. I don't know that any of them ever got their money back after he got busted. BTW, did you ever read P.J. O'Rourke's takedown of Heritage USA?

Posted by: Joe at March 19, 2004 9:23 PM

Joe/Harry

If fifty years from now a Republican cabinet appointee is this dubious about Jim Bakker's guilt I'll concede that you both made a good point:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=96-D_118

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2004 9:53 PM

It's been more than 60 years since Coolidge left office, yet I know Republicans today who refuse to believe that his economic policy (or lack of one) wrecked the American economy.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 20, 2004 12:51 PM

Better yet, find an economist who believes it (other than the steel advisor).

Posted by: oj at March 20, 2004 12:53 PM

Protectionism is an economic policy. Worked wonders, didn't it.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 21, 2004 2:09 PM

Well, you keep citing the performance of the stock market as a sign that Bush's policies are working.

It seems only fair to count the 84% drop in the stock market as a mark against Coolidge Prosperity.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 21, 2004 8:19 PM

What 84% drop?

Posted by: oj at March 21, 2004 8:28 PM

The drop in market value of NYSE stocks between Black Friday and Hoover's last day in office.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 22, 2004 4:41 PM

Which is attributable to Coolidge how?

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2004 8:21 PM

He put his confidence in a free market and the market failed.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 23, 2004 1:42 PM

No it didn't. The Fed and the protectionists failed the market. Then Hoover and FDR made things worse by spending government money and boosting taxes.

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2004 3:31 PM
« POLL DRIVEN POLS: | Main | TALK TO MY LAWYER (via John Resnick): »