338
PARTISAN REVIEW
through the years it has published many pieces protesting the punishment
of dissidents in Eastern Europe, it made no protest when people in this
country were jailed or ruined. In fact , it took no editorial position against
McCarthy himself although it did publish the results of anti-McCarthy sym–
posiums and at least one distinguished piece by Irving Howe ."
Now, there are a number of different facts, observations, questions,
political biases all lumped together in these statements. First, as to the facts:
Partisan Review
printed only two editorials during this period , and one was
a reply to James Burnham's letter of resignation from the advisory board be–
cause of the magazine's anti-McCarthy policies. Burnham claimed he was
neutral on the question of McCarthy, and the editors replied that one could
not be neutral in this respect. In addition, besides the essay by Irving Howe ,
which was mostly against the intellectual drift to the right, there were anti–
McCarthy statements by Richard Rovere, Arthur Schlesinger, Dwight Mac–
donald, and Philip Rahv. There were also several pieces critical of the new
conservatism by myself.
Furthermore, though I have claimed no special credit for it, I, too, was
harassed by the FBI and was pressured before a grand jury to give names. I
had not been a member of the Communist party but had been secretary of
the John Reed Writers Club . Nor did I get any publicity for my stand, since I
was not a Hollywood celebrity. Miss Hellman speaks of the loss of lucrative
jobs by the Hollywood ten and others . Again, though it was not publicized,
I and other writers who had broken with the Communists were kept from
writing for various journals and prevented from getting not-so-lucrative uni–
versity jobs because of the pressure and machinations of the Communists.
Lillian Hellman's question as to why we did not come to the defense of
those who had been attacked by McCarthy is not as simple as it appears . First
of all, some were Communists and what one was asked to defend was their
right to lie about it. My own code was to tell the truth about myself, regard–
less of the consequences. Another consideration was the feeling , which I am
sure was shared by others, that Communists did not have a divine right to a
job in the government or in Hollywood-any more than I felt I had a right
to a high-salaried job in an institution I believed to be an instrument of
capitalist power and exploitation. I do not recall, for example, any instance
of Lenin's, or Trotsky's, or Rosa Luxembourg'S demanding that they be em–
ployed by the institutions of the enemy. Frankly, too, I could not take ser–
iously those Communists and fellow-traveling celebrities who were playing
with revolution, for it did not seem to occur to them that being for a revolu–
tion might have consequences . Furthermore, it was not just a case of dis–
agreeing with the Communists . They had branded us as the enemy. They
were under orders not to speak to us. Their press called us every dirty name
