Second, Lemann undermines the concluding sentence in his own essay in which he writes that “As for the extent of Soviet spying, [Allen] Weinstein, Haynes, Klehr and others are right to say that their case has been supported by most of the evidence that has emerged since the Soviet Union collapsed.” Why, then, does this support “a conservative view?” Cannot someone who sees himself today as a political liberal acknowledge that his liberal ancestors might have had a blind spot in the late 1940’s about the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States ? If they answer in the negative, they are substantiating the claim of Ann Coulter who continually argues that liberals are incapable of understanding that America has real enemies.
Next, Lemann cannot refrain from bringing up the irrelevant argument surrounding the former Bush administration. Could not have a person been a critic of some Bush policies, and still have supported a war against Islamic radicalism? If Lemann answer in the negative, he too is arguing in favor of the Coulter position, without realizing it.
Finally, Lemann presents a bizarre statement about Prof. Allen Weinstein, who resigned recently as Archivist of the United States for health reasons. He suggests Bush appointed him because having done so “sent a message.” The implication is that because Weinstein was author or the path breaking book Perjury:The Hiss-Chambers Case, which proved to most people’s satisfaction that Hiss had been a Soviet agent, Bush made him Archivist to subliminally gain support for his unnecessary war on terror.
He ignores that Weinstein had strong bi-partisan support in the Senate for his appointment, and had managed to win over backing of professional organizations whose left-leaning membership was at first opposed to his appointment. Moreover, those who work in the Archives will point out that during his tenure, Weinstein was a strong and professional leader, who did more to restore the Archives to prominence than previous purely political appointees. He is a scholar who had worked in archives himself, who took positions that in fact differed on points favored by the Bush administration, and who among other things, took the Nixon Library out of private hands and made it part of the Presidential libraries run by the Archives. Is Lemann suggesting that perhaps Weinstein should not have been made Archivist, because his own research led him to conclude Hiss was guilty? Many leftists opposed his gaining the post because Weinstein’s research led him to this conclusion about Hiss. Does that mean that others backed him because of this conclusion? There is, in fact, no evidence for this assertion.
I do not think I am wrong in reading Lemann in this manner. Indeed, so does Eric Alterman. In a recent posting on the website of The Nation, Alterman more or less endorses and recommends Lemann’s essay as one that seconds his own position. Like myself, Alterman views the Lemann essay as “an extremely valuable contribution to the historical debate,” but the real reason he cites it is to emphasize Lemann’s judgment that the finding by Haynes and Klehr that I.F. Stone had been a Soviet agent for two years- 1936 to 1938- to be “unproven accusations.”
Lemann does argue that Hanes and Klehr set the bar for “being a ‘spy’ or an ‘agent’ awfully low,” and writes that they do not show that “Stone was paid.” Of course, nowhere do the authors ever assert Stone was paid; that is in Lemann’s imagination. Lemann also writes that the authors “let Stone’s softness toward the Soviet Union- and the ardor of his defenders- enter the courtroom.” Why is it then, that when they issued their book on Venona in 1999, Haynes and Klehr wrote that documents mentioning Stone only showed that he was “flirting with the KGB,” not that he was or had been an agent. They wrote: “There is no evidence in Venona that Stone ever was recruited by the KGB,” (my emphasis) although they conclude that one had to leave open the possibility that he may have met with KGB agents at other times.
What changed between 1999 and 2009 is simple. The new Vassiliev documents revealed KGB messages that Stone had “entered the channel of normal operational work.” In other words, he had formally agreed to work with the KGB. The evidence, in other words, led them to change their opinion. In 1999, Klehr and Haynes took a position that was the opposite of many on the Right, like Herbert Romerstein, who argued vociferously that Venona did indeed prove Stone was an agent. So Lemann’s charge that they reached their judgment because they let Stone’s softness towards the Soviet effect their judgment is unfounded.
In my earlier entry I quoted the following passage from Anne Applebaum, who wrote the following in her TNR review of Spies: “The truth, of course, is that neither [Ann]Coulter or [Victor]Navasky, nor any of the many others who have joined this particular battle, is really interested in history. They…instead wish to score points about contemporary politics- points that bear only a tendentious relationship to the events of the 1930s and the 1940s. Coulter and her ilk want modern liberals to be identified with the CPUSA: Hiss= Obama. Navasky and his friends [like Alterman] suspect that anyone who investigates Hiss is covertly promoting ‘the wholesale suspension of liberties,’- historical research=Guantanamo.”
I’m afraid that despite his seriousness and erudition, Nick Lemann comes close to making the same mistake as Coulter and Navasky that Applebaum refers to: changing a discussion about history and the past to one of present politics. For if one takes him at his own words—anyone not a conservative will think twice about what the evidence about Soviet espionage reveals. That would mean that only conservatives can accept the truth about the past. I do not think that is an outcome Nicholas Lemann would approve of.