560
PARTISAN REVIEW
with the Popular Front during the war and with pro-Soviet policies in the
early Cold War, had published a special issue they called "How Free is
Free?" in which its editors itemized the ways they thought American
society had succumbed to fear. Writing in the socialist
New Leader,
Rovere objected to the journal's "spurious brand of anti-McCarthyism,"
even though he thought some of the contributors had made valid argu–
ments. But a special issue gave the impression that American democracy
itself was in a weak state, and would work "to encourage the world to
accept Radio Moscow's view of the United States" as a "disintegrating
democracy" in which hooligan McCarthyites held power. As for
McCarthy, Rovere emphasized that even he was only after Communists.
He had not heard him "protesting that there are
205
liberals in the State
Department, as I am sure there are." What was needed was a sound loy–
alty program that would successfully "distinguish between liberals and
Communists." Accompanying the article was a sidebar prepared by the
editors, which showed in detail how many contributors
to
The Nation
special issue were affiliated with Communist fronts.
What, then, did the intellectuals believe was the proper way to deal
with the actual threat to American democracy posed by members of the
Communist Party? The most controversial differences took place over
how to deal with Communists who were members of the academic com–
munity. Hook firmly believed, as he reiterated over and over, that proven
membership in the Communist Party was alone sufficient grounds on
which
to
remove an individual from his teaching job. In his eyes, any true
Communist believed and acted upon Party instructions to use the class–
room for proselytizing, and for introducing Marxist-Leninist interpreta–
tions as truths to be learned . To Hook, it was the burden of the
Communist teacher to prove that even though he was a member of the
Party, he did not obey its program or let it interfere with his role in the
classroom. Schlesinger argued, contrary
to
Hook, that performance in
the classroom could alone be the standard on which
to
judge an individ–
ual's capabilities and suitability for employment, and not his beliefs.
When it came to the issue of Communists working in the Federal
Government, however, there was unanimity. The liberal editor and jour–
nalist James A. Wechsler stated the issue most clearly years before
McCarthy came on the scene. Writing in
Harper's,
Wechsler pointed out
that Communists were not members of a regular political party, but
rather were "organized instruments of Russian espionage." They had a
right to express their ideas, but that was quite different than asserting
they had an intrinsic right to a government job. Almost predicting the
rise of someone like McCarthy, Wechsler wrote:
"If
liberals cannot face
