500
PAR.TISAN REVIEW
be tarred with the Communist brush. The way McCarthy conducts
himself confirms their fear.
Their fear was based, however, upon the belief that Hiss was him–
self an innocent liberal.
If
you believe that Hiss was guilty, you must
also fear that innocent liberals will be smeared by a McCarthy. But you
also acknowledge the fact that had it not been for the un-American
Activities Committee Hiss's guilt might never have been uncovered. And
you reserve the possibility that a McCarthy, too, may turn up someone
who is as guilty as Hiss. What you lament is the tragic confusion in lib–
eral government which leaves the investigation of such important mat–
ters to the enemies of liberal government.
The anti-Communist liberal maintains, that is, a very delicate
position which neither supports a McCarthy nor automatically defends
anyone whom a McCarthy attacks. He decries witchhunts. He demands
that there be no public accusations without proper legal evidence. And
even where this evidence is presented, he calls as much attention to the
political motive of the accuser as of the accused. But he does not
make the mistake of believing that just because the wrong people are
looking for Soviet agents in the American government, there are none.
He does not deceive himself that whoever a McCarthy names is ipso
facto an innocent liberal.
He deplores, indeed, the very need to speak of a liberal as either
innocent or not innocent. For he knows that were we really as realistic
about politics as, in our practical idealism, we like to think we are,
there would be no such confusion of innocence and non-innocence
among liberals. There never was before 'the Communist revolution .
A liberal was simply a liberal, and it was quite enough to be.
(A number of leading liberals have been invited to comment on Mrs.
Trilling's article. What ever comments are recei'ved will be printed in
forthcoming issues.)
