492
PARTISAN REVIEW
non-recognition, cessation of trade-to be unsure of our friendliness. It
was not practical to jeopardize Russian confidence by raising the ques–
tion of peace terms while the fight was still raging.
It
was not practical
to give a forum to dissident opinion on Russia's role in world affairs.
It
was
practical to give Russia anything she needed which we had, with
no strings attached to it-all the lend-lease she wanted, say, with no
conditions imposed; indeed, to send Harry Hopkins to Russia with its of–
fer, rather than wait for Molotov to come and ask for it. What
was
practical, when peace terms were at last under discussion, was the
conciliatory spirit of Yalta, the reassertion of our faith that we had
only to disarm ourselves in relation to Russia for Russia to disarm
herself in relation to the world.
What was practical, in other words, was what was ideal. The
Roosevelt administration was notable in history for having been able to
resolve that age-old, apparently unresolvable contradiction in the minds
of liberals-between what might be wished for, and what could be.
In the space of a decade and a half, a paradox had become a simple
working formula.
This, sketched in haste, was the political background of Hiss's
public career. Chambers has told us hi$ ideological story. We have to
guess at Hiss's by understanding the external circumstances of his in–
tellectual life, and by trying to fill in the gaps between the public and
the private man.
I have said of both sides of the Hiss case, of both those who
believe him guilty and those who believe him innocent, that they tend
to neglect the evidence in the case because they are motivated by
hidden preferences. But I havc offered it as my impression that this is
even truer of Hiss's partisans than of his accusers. And indeed perhaps
the most striking aspect of the Hiss case is the passion of loyalty that
has been roused on Hiss's side, not merely among people who knew
him-that is readily understandable-but among men and women who
would seem to have had no closer connection with him than with
Chambers. How can we account for the unshakable faith people who
never set eyes on Hiss have in him, so that they will go to any imagina–
tive extreme to explain away Chambers's charges and evidence?
Some of these people think Chambers is a moral monster not only
because he has called Hiss a Communist and a spy, but because he was
himself a Communist and a spy. That is, they would be ready to think
Hiss monstrous too if they believed him guilty. They point to Hiss's
idealistic career, which was so much in consonance with their own
