THE OPPEN'HEIMER CASE
251
is
entirely unlikely that, were it not for our present political temper,
the matter of Dr. Oppenheimer's clearance would have again been
raised at this time, I do not think the final decision against Dr. Oppen–
heimer can easily be written off as a manifestation of McCarthyism.
Indeed, to hold such a view seems to me to be a dangerous oversimplifi–
cation. I suppose we can take it for granted that McCarthyism was
pleased by the final decision not to grant clearance to Dr. Oppenheimer.
But this does not mean that the case against Dr. Oppenheimer closed
on nothing but an appeal to the base sentiments of the reactionary ele–
ments in our society. On the contrary, such is the force of probity and
decency which still persists in American life, and this despite the upsurge
of a reactionary spirit and our properly alarmed response to it, that
there
is
a most notable difference between the charges first formulated
against Dr. Oppenheimer and the charges on which he was finally
judged to be a security risk. The final charges, as I have said, point
straight to the testimony-to the evidence against Dr. Oppenheimer, as
such evidence applies to security regulations in the matter of character
and associations. They do not point to the mere fact that Dr. Oppen–
heimer was once a fellow-traveler and should therefore be punished. I
do not myself believe that the judgment which was arrived at on the
basis of this evidence against Dr. Oppenheimer was a correct one. But
I do think it is important to keep it in mind, in these perilous days, that
not all errors of judgment, or judgments which we consider erroneous,
are a response to vicious political motive-Mr. Meyerhoff should be
reminded that there are a not inconsiderable number of conscientious,
thoughtful men and women, as firm in their opposition to McCarthyism
as he is, who on the basis of the evidence agree with the Atomic Energy
Commission that Dr. Oppenheimer does not meet the tests of a good
security risk. Surely this opinion does not rule them out of the liberal
camp.
But perhaps Mr. Meyerhoff believes it does, for the line of his at–
tack upon me-his representation of a monolithic liberal attitude which
permits no divergence of approach or emphasis even in a case as com–
plicated as Dr. Oppenheimer's-certainly seems to me to warrant the
assumption that Mr. Meyerhoff is in the business of issuing passports
to the good opinion of liberalism, accoraing to his own definition of
the nature and outcome of the intellectual process. It is a strange posi–
tion to allow oneself to be carried to by the fervor of one's decencies,
where one apes the custom of the enemy of liberalism in order to assert
the liberal responsibility.
Diana Trilling
