Playwright David Mamet recently acknowledged that he had been profoundly influenced by Communist apostate Whittaker Chambers’s 1952 anti-Communist memoir, Witness. Mamet described how reading Chambers’s opus inspired “the wrenching experience” of forcibly reevaluating the way he thought, particularly his confessed leftist-herd co-dependence. Also, echoing the delusive herd mentality of the Left’s ad hominem attacks in the 1950s on Chambers — whose allegations of Communist conspiracies have been entirely vindicated with irrefragable documentation from the captured Soviet Venonacables — Congressman Peter King’s staid initial hearings of March 10, 2011, on American Muslim radicalization engendered similarly apoplectic, and equally unwarranted condemnation, even before getting underway.
Mamet’s invocation of Witness, and the repeated hysterical, if groundless, objections to the second round of hearings by Representative King’s Homeland Security Committee (June 15, 2011, on Muslim radicalization in U.S. prisons), are fitting reminders that today marks the 50th anniversary of Whittaker Chambers’s death.
Advertisement
Chambers was born April 1, 1901, in Philadelphia, and spent his childhood on the south shore of Long Island, in (then rural) Lynbrook. Upon graduating high school, Chambers left home and worked as a construction laborer replacing railroad tracks near the Capitol in Washington, D.C., before drifting to New Orleans, and then returning to attend Columbia University from 1920 to 1924. Under the tutelage of Columbia English professor Mark Van Doren (before Van Doren became an internationally known literary critic and poet), Chambers tried his hand at poetry, even completing a book of poems entitled “Defeat in the Village,” before realizing, “I never could write poetry good enough to be worth writing.”
This apprenticeship, however, helped teach Chambers “the difficult, humbling, exacting art of writing,” and he would go on to become an exceptionally gifted writer of prose. He joined the Communist party in 1925, experiencing great success as a writer at the Daily Worker and as an editor at The New Masses, both Communist-controlled publications. In 1932, Chambers was asked to join the underground movement of the Communist party, and he served in the Fourth Section of Soviet Military Intelligence. Recognizing Chambers’s intellectual prowess, the underground placed him with the Ware Group (a collection of Communist cells consisting of government officials and journalists) in Washington, D.C. It was here, among other promising New Deal civil servants, that he encountered Alger Hiss. Chambers and Hiss, along with their spouses, became close friends.
During late 1938, overwhelmed by the horrific actions of the Soviet Communist party, in particular the Stalinist purges and forced starvation of Ukrainian peasants, and having rejected Communism’s militant atheism, Chambers left the Communist movement. The Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 was a watershed event for Chambers, who realized that much of the confidential information about the U.S. that he had forwarded to the Soviet Union could now be passed to Germany. Thus Chambers decided to divulge his prior activities for the Communist underground to the federal government. Shortly thereafter, Chambers was able to meet with the head of security at the State Department, A. A. Berle. Although Chambers revealed most of his activities, he withheld the facts of espionage conducted by his cell, largely to protect others, including, notably, Alger Hiss. Regardless, it was not until 1948 — nine years later — that the information he provided to Berle was acted upon by the government. Chambers was subpoenaed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) to corroborate the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley — the so-called “blonde spy queen” — who alleged that Soviet espionage was occurring within the U.S. government. Chambers corroborated Bentley’s allegations, supplemented them with his own, and confronted Alger Hiss on the first day of his testimony. (Eventually, all 21 names that Chambers provided to HUAC were confirmed by subsequent Soviet archival research.) In 1950, Hiss was convicted of perjury after two federal trials.
A naturally gifted linguist, particularly fluent in German, Whittaker Chambers translated into English Bambi, Dunant: the Story of the Red Cross, and a number of children’s books over the years. Chambers joined Time magazine in 1939, initially as a book reviewer, later as a writer and editor. He wrote many of Time’s cover stories during his tenure, including profiles of historian Arnold Toynbee, vocalist Marian Anderson, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, and Pope Pius XII. Chambers, based upon his experience as a Communist and intuitive grasp of history, displayed a remarkably prescient understanding of the Cold War as an editor and writer for Time’s foreign-news section. He also contributed seven brilliant essays to Life’s 1947–1948 “Picture History of Western Civilization” series. Compelled to resign from Time during the tumultuous Hiss trials, Chambers became an editor and writer on the staff of National Review from the latter part of 1957 to the middle of 1959. Throughout most of his journalistic career, Chambers continued to operate a farm in Westminster, Md., maintaining a dairy herd, raising sheep and beef cattle, and producing various crops.
"Let us pray that we rapidly overcome our generation's similar complacent ignorance about the threat of totalitarian Islam."
Amen. I've been doing precisely that for many moons.
The description of God as some arbitrary sovereign who must be obeyed irrespective of any moral descrepancy accurately describes the attitude of most members of the political class.
[quote]
...But no one who has not wrestled with Communism as a philosophy and Communists as political opponents can really understand the values of Western democracy. The Devil once lived in Heaven, and those who have not met him are unlikely to recognize an angel when they see one.
[\quote]
For those of us who have [wrestled], the reality is a nightmare, seeing the ignorance and the lack of desire for knowledge (history in this case--and not the revisionist's one), especially among the intelligentsia, the so-called academics in particular, who, claiming the adherence to the proper scientific method of research, do the opposite. Deliberately spreading a false message by obscuring the facts, ridiculing and denigrating their opponents, and ultimately stifling any and all opposition. Just as the true Communists did.
Useful idiots plus willful accomplices, a deadly combination.
I am a pediatric ER physician, and I meet roughly 4,000 patients and their families every year, and have done so for the last 20+ years. Many of these people are fine, upstanding, overtly responsible people.
Sad to say, but many, many of the people I meet in ER are derelict and ignorant. Derelict in their personal behavior, and totally ignorant of anything beyond their own limited horizons, such as where their next fast-food meal is coming from, and whether I can "prescribe" Tylenol because they "can't afford it"; all the while chatting away on cell phones, and complaining about the State-provided before-care and after-care (and breakfast/lunch/dinner for their kids at school); and about their kids' going from "dad's house" to "mom's house," or having to be reared (sic) by the grandparents; etc, etc....
It is this latter group who give me greatest concern about the future of our nation. They routinely vote only their own selfish interest: namely, what the Government can do for them.
There is no pretence to morality when 14-year-old girls come to ER with their 16-year-old sexual partners (they are quite open about it, in front of the shrugging mom, with no Dad to be seen)....So many teens are on "birth control," which always means no (self-)control, and no birth, to paraphrase G.K.Chesterton.
The Western World -- or, at the least, quite a few people within it -- has become shallow, ignorant, immoral, and selfish; not to mention violent.
Dear ER doc (bouletboulet): Don't be afraid. Yes, society is slowly falling apart at it's moral seams. Divorce, birth control, sexual immorality, abortion and now same sex marriage have all contributed to destroying the American family which leads to all those terrible things you've cited. But don't give up, don't be afraid, and keep telling them to save themselves!
Whittaker Chambers was an unrepentant Communist. I read "Witness" and what came through for me was that he never actully apologized for his anti-Americanism. He sold out his former comrades for some much-needed dental care, that was all.
Remember that he withheld the vital "pumpkin evidence" for more than two years after he made his accusations against Hiss. That was only because his own credibility was being severely questioned, and he was being threatened with espionage charges himself. Otherwise, he would not have been forthcoming.
Chambers became, in his "post-revelation" persona, nothing more than an accomodating flack at Time and the National Review. He wrote what he believed his publishers wanted to read, contrary to what he actually felt and thought.
To elevate Chambers to the status of Koestler is a sacrilege. Whittaker never converted; not really. He was an opportunist who hoodwinked his bosses and readers with just enough titillation to keep them interested. Arthur Koestler, by contrast, came to realize the evils and ultimate consequences of Socialism through true epiphanies of mind and soul.
It is long past time that National Review's love affair with Whittaker Chambers came to an end. If Stalin had looked to be a winner, and if he hadn't been faced with his own prosecution, Chambers would have happily joined the staff at Pravda instead of Time.
Chambers was a bum with bad teeth, a conniving mind and no heart.
As a member of the Whittaker Chambers Family, I found your comments refreshingly contrary acerbic for _National Review_. This magazine normally genuflects automaton-like to the guidelines of founding father William F. Buckley, Jr., when it comes to "St. Whittaker."
Therefore, I have no issue with your call for _National Review_ to end what you call its love affair with Whittaker Chambers. I myself have submitted comments and even articles to _National Review_ and the like—dismissed (so I interpret) because they do not toe the line. That kind of closed-mindedness is not what I expect from institutions of any kind in the land of democracy and free speech. "Different," "dissent," whatever you call it, remains unpopular in America—but we are used to that in our family.
In response to your further comments:
Unrepentant:
Literally, I believe you are right about an apology. I don't recall any moment in which Whittaker Chambers said "sorry" or made an "apology" for his deeds as a Soviet underground agent. Please note that he did deeply repent for his deeds, publicly and personally. He used words like "remorse" instead of "sorry" or "apology."
If you feel apology remains needed, I hope you will please accept mine on his behalf.
Teeth:
The dental care came prior to the Hiss Case—courtesy of friendly hints from colleagues at _TIME_ that perhaps he might have his teeth seen to... If you have seen photos of him after 1948, dentistry did not seem have do much good (!) What could they have been like before? I cannot tell you, as this is not something that as a child one asks one's elders… What the bad teeth represented is a different issue, for which you might find some clues in Lionel Trilling's description of the Whittaker Chambers character in his novel _The Middle of the Journey_ (1947).
Then again, I have always found attacks on personal appearance a cheap shot by those unable to criticize on substance.
Pumpkin Papers:
Please note that Chambers' "life preserver" came out some two months (not years) after Hiss launched a slander suit against him. Hiss had his lawyers send the first batch (all papers called the "Baltimore Documents") to Justice, inadvertently putting himself in jeopardy as much as Chambers. The impact of the "Pumpkin Papers" (a second batch: in fact, five rolls of microfilm) comes from their manipulation by (then Rep.) Richard Nixon. However, it was the Baltimore Documents that ultimately burned Hiss—which, again, please note, Hiss himself had his lawyers submit to Justice.
Thus, the situation at the time was not that Chambers retrieved his life preserver to shore up credibility before either the Grand Jury or HUAC. On the contrary, Chambers jeopardized his credibility in both venues with this life preserver—pushed to respond to Hiss in the separate slander suit. (It was a complicated, three-ring circus as early as October 1948.)
In sum, quite the contrary, Chambers was quite forthcoming.
Flack:
Detractors may consider Chambers' years at _TIME_ and _National Review_ as the actions of a "flack."
In his own mind, paraphrasing Clausewitz, Chambers saw war as a means of achieving a political object—an outlook held by many Marxists of his day. This approach did not change when he changed sides.
He got the job at _TIME_ to re-establish himself as a non-communist American who could not be kidnapped or killed, as was happening in Europe and even America to people whom he knew personally like Juliet Poyntz ("disappeared" in 1937) and Walter Krivitsky ("suicide" in 1941). When Henry Luce at _TIME_ took notice of his book and movie reviews and then found he agreed with Chambers' political articles, it was mere happenstance (happy or not, depending on your viewpoint).
Did he take the opportunity when it arose to wage war (in his own mind) against Communism? Clearly yes—he felt this his duty, as discussed with Krivitsky (and recounted in _Witness_) and also part of his apology: to undo the wrong he has. Thus, Chambers did write very much what he himself actually felt and thought—at odds with many of his more Left-leaning colleagues (most recently discussed by Alan Brinkley in his 2010 book _The Publisher_.)
Koestler:
I agree that to elevate Whittaker Chambers to the status of Arthur Koestler is too much—though for different reasons, perhaps worthy of discussion elsewhere.
(I also admire Koestler very much and even reviewed Michael Scammel's 2009 biography of him for _The Washington Times_: External Link .)
Conversion:
Most importantly, however, it is refreshing to read how you challenge Chambers' "conversion."
In fact, your word choice is fascinating, in and of itself. This is also worthy of further discussion.
Hoodwinking:
One thing I can assure you of, however, is that, regardless of how (poorly) you consider his judgment or means in changing sides, Whittaker Chambers never sought to hoodwink anyone. If anything, his idealism and moralism created blindness in him to much "street smarts." Admirers like Buckley have often associated this shortcoming with near-sanctity. One might also consider it an almost artistic sensibility (particularly if one keeps in mind how often artists are self-destructive.) More unbiased critics like Tony Judt (who wrote an essay about him that also mentions Koestler) saw Chambers as a "loner" who paid highly for his morality and particular understandings. Hand-in-hand with that blinding vision came the courage to look at, doubt, and criticize himself. None of this, however, saved him from being merely mortal and thus continuing to make major mistakes in his life even after leaving Communism. He was painfully aware of his many shortcomings, as his writings in _Cold Friday_ (1964) reveal.
Winning or Losing:
You are quite wrong, however, about the winning/losing side issue. Whittaker Chambers felt very strongly that Communism was the winning side and stated so quite clearly in his writings. He also stated that defecting from the Soviet underground and from Communism was to leave the winning for the losing side. I'm surprised you have missed the opportunity to explore what Chambers really meant here—though you are by no means alone. Again, this is worthy of further discussion.
Heart:
Overall, I do not think Chambers was a bum (though often times very poor). His mind in fact lacked in conniving or "street smarts" (unlike Alger Hiss), for which he often suffered personally.
As for his heart, though very warm, socially minded, and at times very spiritual, in the real world it was weak, causing him angina pectoris in his late 30s, seven major heart attacks, and an early death at age 60.
We miss him very much, despite all his (and our own) shortcomings.
Handy by reading post I have to assume that you don't know who Whittaker Chambers is...I have read a lot of Chambers and read a lot on his life nothing even comes close to affirming what you have written. Unrepentant communist, you got that impression form Witness? Wow
That said, it is disheartening on this, the anniversary of Whittaker Chambers' death, to see your magazine follow suit with many other blogs in reprinting this article by Andrew Bostom.
On behalf of our family, I have already contacted this author, asking him not to use the name of Whittaker Chambers when talking about Islam or other subject with which Whittaker Chambers was so entirely unacquainted -- a wish he has vehemently chosen not to respect.
In fact, earlier this week I asked him to post a comment on that article on his own website. (The request including comment along with his replies follow below.)
Apparently, the author's respect for Whittaker Chambers runs just as short as his actual understanding of Chambers himself. Do not be fooled by long, impressive-looking quotes.
Instead, please note that, first, Chambers simply did not and would not today comment on Islam. Second, that is in part because comparing Western and non-Western systems of thought works about as well as comparing apples and oranges. Terms in Christian- or Greek-derived Western philosophy simple do not equate or sometimes even approximate those in Islam or in the Middle East. Distance, time, and historical experience preclude this -- as does the author's obvious antipathy toward Islam. It is hard to imagine that anyone who has read and understood Whittaker Chambers' writings could produce a piece like this article.
Of course, the open-mindedness of founder William F. Buckley, Jr., does not seem to have passed down to inheritors at National Review -- easily demonstrated by the abrupt termination of the magazine's relationship with son Christopher Buckley in 2008. WFB started out as a dissenter: National Review dishonored his memory by breaking off with son Christopher -- as it dishonors the memory of Whittaker Chambers with articles like this one.
In future when you write of Whittaker Chambers, please consider coming to his family for insight and thought.
While we welcome your warm and well read appreciation of the man, the Whittaker Chambers Family asks you to desist from using his name with respect to Islam or any other issue with which he was unfamiliar.
Whittaker Chambers had at best a cursory knowledge of Islamic affairs (e.g., history, theology). Like most people of his time, his viewpoint was highly euro-centric. He would not condone use of his name in this manner.
If you respect the man and his ideas, then please desist henceforward from using his name like this.
UNQUOTE
At first, Mr. Bostom replied, "It does not seem you have read the piece at all."
When I demonstrated to him that I had read the piece thoroughly, he insisted that "you do not appear to have gotten beyond the introduction."
When I again assured him that I had done so, he shut down, saying: "I am a busy physician in academic Medicine" and refusing to publish the comment.
@ bouletboulet, You have an unique position from which to view the results of this great experiment in democracy. Your post confirms the realization of many of our founding fathers greatest fears.
Henning W. Prentis, author of , “Industrial Management in a Republic”, had this to say about democracy.
“Paradoxically enough, the release of initiative and enterprise made possible by popular self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within. Again and again after freedom has brought opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent, the incompetent and the unfortunate grow envious and covetous, and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the Golden Calf of economic security. The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.”
I must admit I find some of the negative comments here mystifying. This is exactly the kind of article that made me an ardent fan of National Review for the better part of 40 years. It speaks to the fundamental conflicts that lie at the core of all human endeavors and affairs, which is to say that it examines the nature of man, and why no man can be trusted to exercise dominion over another.
As for Chambers being an "unrepentent" communist, I can imagine no comment more ridiculous or less historical. Frankly, if you have actually read Chambers and know of his life, and somehow believe he was unrepentent about his communist past, you are beyond the reach of reason.
Yes indeed our democratic society is showing many signs of decay. But I do not believe it is any significantly different now than before. And Chambers may not be a good person. But that does not mean that he is wrong in what he thought. And that is not the point of the article any way. I think he was right.
I do not think we can rapidly overcome our complacent ignorance about the totalitarian threat that Islam presents and it is already too late. For most of us it is very simple, our secular concept accept equally all religions and that includes a totalitaran religion. So we are proudly bending over backward to accomodate this relgion. This permits us to boast about multi culture and multi religious nature of our society living in harmony remaining oblivious to the danger that lies ahead.
I think this is a wonderful piece by Mr. Andrew Bostom. Not having any familiarity with Mr. Chambers, I can venture no opinion on his character or conviction.
I am afraid, if I interpret Mr. Bostom's piece correctly, some if not many will miss the parallel in this piece with current affairs, and the societal aspects so pervasive in our urban environment so aptly described by "bouletboulet". I believe there is a very large percentage of our current "free" society that, thru radicalized adaptation, manipulation and sociocultural manipulation/reform is emotionally, intellectually and apathetically ripe for the constraints established within these synonomously decrepit doctrines of universal domination.
We are currently being "democratically" governed by a professed "former" adherent to the Islamic faith, who's further converted/convenient "Christian" religious experience is a pseudo-African variant of a rhetorical dogma rife with hate for "ALL" non-afrocentric aspects of societal reality. Additionally, and most importantly, he was indoctrinated/ inculcated within multiple "universities" espousing some of the most radical socialist, liberal doctrine, groomed to become the altruistic community organizer/societal manipulator.
To further his metamorphosis, he is a professed expert/interpreter of "constitutional" law, the very doctrine of "OUR" external freedoms.
...yes, I can't help but agree..."the world might better be stunned as by tocsin of calamity"
there are far too many in the back of the cave who still believe in the shadows on the wall...we must fight to bring everyone willingly to the light
That said, it is disheartening on this, the anniversary of Whittaker Chambers' death, to see your magazine follow suit with many other blogs in reprinting this article by Andrew Bostom.
On behalf of our family, I have already contacted this author, asking him not to use the name of Whittaker Chambers when talking about Islam or other subject with which Whittaker Chambers was so entirely unacquainted -- a wish he has vehemently chosen not to respect.
In fact, earlier this week I asked him to post a comment on that article on his own website. (The request, including comment plus replies, follow below.)
Apparently, the author's respect for Whittaker Chambers runs just as short as his actual understanding of Chambers himself. Do not be fooled by long, impressive-looking quotes.
Instead, please note that, first, Chambers simply did not and would not today comment on Islam. Second, that is in part because comparing Western and non-Western systems of thought works about as well as comparing apples and oranges. Terms in Christian- or Greek-derived Western philosophy simple do not equate or sometimes even approximate those in Islam or in the Middle East. Distance, time, and historical experience preclude this -- as does the author's obvious antipathy toward Islam. It is hard to imagine that anyone who has read and understood Whittaker Chambers' writings could produce a piece like this article.
Of course, the open-mindedness of founder William F. Buckley, Jr., does not seem to have passed down to inheritors at National Review -- easily demonstrated by the abrupt termination of the magazine's relationship with son Christopher Buckley in 2008. WFB started out as a dissenter: National Review dishonored his memory by breaking off with son Christopher -- as it dishonors the memory of Whittaker Chambers with articles like this one.
In future when you write of Whittaker Chambers, please consider coming to his family for insight and thought.
While we welcome your warm and well read appreciation of the man, the Whittaker Chambers Family asks you to desist from using his name with respect to Islam or any other issue with which he was unfamiliar.
Whittaker Chambers had at best a cursory knowledge of Islamic affairs (e.g., history, theology). Like most people of his time, his viewpoint was highly euro-centric. He would not condone use of his name in this manner.
If you respect the man and his ideas, then please desist henceforward from using his name like this.
UNQUOTE
At first, Mr. Bostom replied, "It does not seem you have read the piece at all."
When I demonstrated to him that I had read the piece thoroughly, he insisted that "you do not appear to have gotten beyond the introduction."
When I again assured him that I had done so, he shut down, saying: "I am a busy physician in academic Medicine" and refusing to publish the comment.
"Witness," itself was a self-serving screed. It could have been titled "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me." Boo Hoo, Whit, baby. Boo freaking Hoo.
While you were living on R Street in Washington DC during the 30s and lamenting that no one provided you with a car, the real heroes of freedom were in European ghettos fearing for their lives. When you ratted out Hiss and your other comrades, why did you have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to cough up the hard evidence? Why couldn't you make a go of your Maryland dirt farm? Because you were a dilletante who thought he was above it all. Plenty of folks would have gladly traded places with you during the Depression.
Buckley latched on to you and made you famous. But, WFB, another renowned dilletante, rejected Koestler and Orwell. He didn't want to rock the conventional boat too much, afterall.
As for your critique of Ayn Rand; it was a put-up job after she told Billy to butt out of her life. You wrote what you thought he wanted, Whit, baby. She never gave you a second thought, and she never looked back on WFB, either.
It's true that you are no longer with Time, but your legacy lives on. It remains a typical, Progressive, Socialist rag. You, and others of your ilk laid the cornerstone for that type of mainstream thought.
It takes a long time for bad ideas to be evacuated through the intellectul digestive tract. "Time's" time has come and gone. National Review is still vibrant, except for a few Paleo posties who still don't get it. Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
