| March 15, 1999 THE OSCARS On Sunday, March 28, 1999, I am going to watch with great interest the Academy Awards, notwithstanding that I have not seen a single film nominated for any important award. (I am not proud of my lack of movie viewing; it simply goes with being the parent of two children under the age of three.) I am going to watch with great interest because the Academy will be awarding a lifetime achievement award to Elia Kazan. Kazan was, arguably, the premier film director from about 1945-1965, winning Oscars for "Gentleman's Agreement" and "On the Waterfront." He also directed and wrote one of my favorite movies, "America, America," which is simply the best and final word on the attraction of America to immigrants. Kazan, however, is an immensely controversial figure in Hollywood, because he "named names" during an appearance before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1952. Furthermore, and of even more significance, he has never "repented" or asked for forgiveness for his decision. Because of his politically incorrect thoughts and actions, a coterie of the Hollywood powerful have, until now, prevented him from receiving the honor and recognition for his work that everybody, even his enemies, agrees he otherwise deserves. In fact, there will be protesters at the Academy Awards, and there have been calls for him to be booed during the presentation. All of this is going to produce a moment of electricity that is rarely equalled. Assuming Kazan can make it (he is 89), he is going to give a speech. I do not know what Kazan is going to say. He may say "thank you" and sit down. I hope not. We live in a post-ideological age, an age in which people have little interest in politics, an age in which there is little threat to our national security, an age in which Bill Clinton can be President. It was not always so. For much of the 20th Century, Marxism was the "opiate of the intellectuals," attracting many educated people to its movement. It is hard for us to appreciate now, when the Soviet Union has disappeared, but there were times during the Century when reasonable people believed that Marxism would rule the world. After the Russian Revolution in 1917, Marxists almost took power in Germany and Marxist revolutionary groups were active throughout Europe. During the 1930's, as the United States and other European countries suffered through the Great Depression while the Soviet Union was rapidly industrializing, Marxism became intellectually fashionable as a solution to all problems. By 1950, Marxists controlled both the world's largest country and the world's most populous country. By 1960, Marxists controlled their first country in the Western Hemisphere and were formenting revolutions throughout the Hemisphere. As an American phenomena, Marxism peaked in the 1930s. The Great Depression convinced many people that free-market capitalism and modernity were not compatible. Marxism, which had been predicting the imminent collapse of capitalism for 50 years, appeared as a comprehensive way of analyzing the Great Depression and, for the first time, began attracting a sizable number of Americans to its cause. It was during this period that Elia Kazan, for example, then in his twenties, joined the Communist Party. Disillusionment, however, soon set in, because it became immediately apparent to the intellectually honest that The American Communist Party was not a home grown movement, but a subversive revolutionary group controlled by the Soviet Union. The following events happened in rapid succession: (a) the Spanish Civil War, in which the Soviet Union attempted to subversively control and manipulate the anti-Franco forces, (b) the show trials in the Soviet Union, and most significantly (c) the Hitler-Stalin nonagression pact. Members of the American Communist Party were expected to fully support each of these events. As a result, the Communist Party began losing members by the late 1930s. Kazan dropped out for the more personal reason that the Party was with trying to control his art and limit his intellectual freedom. During WWII, because the Soviet Union was our ally (and, naturally, the American Communist Party supported the war effort), Communism was not considered a national security threat. Instead, Japanese-Americans were rounded up (and the government briefly considered doing the same with Italian-Americans) and the government was consumed with fear of fascists. After WWII, however, Communism stepped to the forefront once again. After the US spent five years "making the world safe for democracy," Eastern Europe was under the control of the Soviet Union, Marxist revoutionaries were active in Greece, and the United States found itself in a general confrontation with the Soviet Union. By 1946, the Cold War had begun. The Soviet Union was considered a direct threat to the national security of the United States and its allies. Furthermore, in the late 1940s, the issue of Communist spying became a major issue. Whitaker Chambers identified Alger Hiss, then a high ranking official at the State Department, as a Soviet agent. Through the Rosenbergs and other American citizens, the Soviet Union obtained the technology to build an atomic bomb. It in this context that the House Un-American Activities Commiittee ("HUAC") began its investigation of the Communist influence in Hollywood. HUAC was actually formed in the 1930s to investigate the influence of fascism, but, like all government programs, evolved itself to stay in existence after its original purpose had long since disappeared. Beginning with the "Hollywood 10" in 1947, numerous prominent members of the Hollywood community were subpoeaned to appear and testify to their knowledge of the Communist influence in Hollywood. HUAC acted as follows. An artist would be subpoenaed and asked whether he formerly or presently was a member of the Communist Party. If you said you were formerly a member but considered your membership a mistake, you were asked who you knew was in the Party. If you "named names," that was the end of it and you could go back to work. If you answered truthfully, but refused to name names, you were held in contempt and were risking being blacklisted by the major film studios. If you asserted the Fifth Amendment and refused to even answer whether you had ever been a member, you were definitely blacklisted. Subpoeaned in 1952, Elia Kazan first refused to name names, but then changed his mind several months later and reappeared and named names (all of whom were already known to HUAC). He then paid for an ad in the New York Times explaining his actions (In short, Communism was a terrible thing, etc.). Ever since, Kazan has been castigated by the Left for his act of "betrayal." Is Kazan a hero, villain, or somewhere in between? To me, he is a hero, and I pray that he makes his pitch Sunday tonight. The notion that those blacklisted in the 1950s are heroes, while those who named names are villains, is a perversion of history. By 1948, loyalty in any way to the Communist Party was, for all practical purposes, treasonous. While membership in 1935 could be excused as a youthful indiscretion, any person who remained loyal after the Stalin-Hitler nonagression pact in 1939 and the following dismemberment of Poland, the invasion of Finland, and then the creation of the Iron Curtain after the conclusion of WWII, was simply beyond hope. By 1947, there was simply no doubt that the American Communist Party was an arm of the Soviet Union engaged in espionage against the United States. People were not blacklisted for formerly being members of the Communist Party. In fact, contrary to the image of HUAC and the blacklist as a witchhunt, as far as I am aware, there is not a single example of any person being falsely accused of either formerly or presently being a member of the Communist Party. The "Hollywood 10," who went to jail for refusing to answer any relevant questions, were in fact Communist Party symphathizers, if not actual members. Their decision not to cooperate at all was mandated by the Communist Party, who feared that cooperation would open up a can of worms -- specifically the extent of Soviet control over the American Communist Party. Kazan was a political liberal who had no symphathy for Sen. Joe McCarthy. It is clear that he was torn over what he should do. Ultimately, he concluded that his loyalties were with the United States and not a Communist Party that was a tool of the Soviet Union and was opposed to everything he believed. Therefore, Kazan decided to truthfully answer the questions he was asked. He did not falsely accuse anybody of being a Communist, all he said was that when he was a Communist in the 1930s, the following people were also members of the Communist Party. Should he have named names? Let's rephrase the questions -- why should he not have named names? What is the moral issue for certain people that makes Kazan a bad guy? Certain people act as if being a "stool pigeon" is wrong in itself. ("On the Waterfront" is a partial response to these people). These are the same people who believe that Linda Tripp is worse than Clinton and is the incarnate of evil. But these people are simply hypocrites. Is G. Gordon Liddy a better person than John Dean simply because Liddy refused to talk but Dean violated the attorney-client privilige to squeal on Nixon? The issue is obviously not naming names in the abstract. The issue is whether or not naming Communists in 1952 was right or wrong. There are people today who continue to assert that a member of the American Communist Party in 1952 was nothing more than a misguided idealist. That is simply a lie. Would anybody say being a Nazi in 1952 was a misguided idealist? Would anybody say being a KKK member in 1952 was a misguided idealist? The people who hate Kazan are fighting with all of their heart the notion that being a Communist post-1939 was in no way different than being a Nazi post-1939. To admit the absence of a distinction between Communism and Fascism is to confront the realization that the ideological "Left" is rooted in evil. I am not saying that the "Left" is evil. The leading opponents to Communism in the post-WWII era were members of the anti-Stalinist Left. However, much of the Left's legitimacy as a political force is dependent on superior intention. In other words, no matter how often the Left is wrong about policy, and no matter the cost in human lives, the failure is always excused by the good intention behind the policy. (Comparatively, the good policy of a member of the Right can always be dismissed because of bad intention. If David Duke supports the end of affirmative action, that proves that ending affirmative action is racist and wrong. If the American Communist Party supports affirmative action, on the other hand, that is no reflection on the merits of affirmative action.). If people were to intellectually treat Communists and Nazis as equals, and therefore the Left no longer had a "good intention" pass, policies would have to be judged on their actual merits. If policies were judged on actual merits, as opposed to whether or not the advocate was "compassionate" and had the proper intentions, we would live in a better society. I want Elia Kazan to get up on stage before 1 billion people and say Communism is evil and that those who supported Communist policies post WWII and did not repent are evil. I want him to say that he is sorry if anybody innocent was hurt, but not sorry if the unrepentant were hurt. I want him to say he was on the right side of history and those who opposed him were on the wrong side and should get out of the way. However, whatever he says, it is going to be a great moment and a reminder of a time when politics really mattered. Thank you for listening. DS |