speak No EvilnMichael Straight: J^terLong Silence;nW. W. Norton; New York.nby John E. HaynesnAn After Long Silence Michael Straightnreveals that he was a member of a communistncell and cooperated with a Sovietnespion^e network while working fornthe U.S. government. These revelationsncaused a brief stir in the media whennStraight’s memoir appeared becausenStraight’s socially prominent familynfounded and owned The New Republic,nand Straigjit edited the journal from 1948nuntil his femily sold the m^azine in 1956.nStraight explains that he joined a communistnstudent cell at Cambridge Universitynin the mid-1930’s and was recruitednto serve as a Soviet spy in America.nHe returned to the U.S. in 1937 and usednhis femily connections to gain a positionnin the State Department. Subsequendy,nhe moved to an office in the Interior Departmentnwhere political speeches fornthe White House were prepared, andnlater returned to the State Department.nThroughout this period Straight metnsecredy with a Russian who was his contactnwith Soviet intelligence. Straight assertsnthat he broke off the relationship innlate 1941.nStraight says that when he becameneditor of The New Republic he was annopponent of communism and Soviet expansion,nthough he did not go to the authoritiesnuntil 1963. (Even at that latendate, his information led to uncoveringnat least two Soviet spys.) In the ideologicalncivU war among American liberalsnthat followed World War H, Straigjit, afternsome hesitation, sided with the anticommunistnwing against the PopularnFront faction gathered behind HenrynWallace. In his memoir. Straight is emphaticnthat under his leadership The NewnRepublic was both liberal and anticom-nMr. Haynes is a legislative assistant innWashington, D.C.nChronicles of Culturenmunist However, an examination oiThenNew Republic’s coverage of the WhittakernChambers-Alger Hiss afiair during thenperiod of Straight’s editorship illustratesnthe limits of Straight’s version of anticommunistnliberalism.nIn 1948 Chambers testified beforenHouse Un-American Activities Committeen(HUAC) that he had managed a ringnof Soviet spies which included Alger Hiss,na former high official in the State Departmentnand, at that time, the head of thenCarnegie Endowment for Peace. Hiss’sndenial of Chambers’s testimony developedninto a cause celebre and led to Hiss’snconviction for perjury.nStraight’s experience with communismnand Soviet espionage obviously gave himna special perspective on the case. Straightnknew the falsity of the widely believedn[who also testified regarding a communistnspy ring in Washington] andnWhittaker Chambers. ‘Any neuroticnexhibitionist who can claim to havenbeen a Communist,’ said The Nation,n’is now assured of absolution, soulsatisfyingnpublicity and, probably, morenmaterial rewards.’ My signed editorialnin The New Republic was less palatablento most liberals. ‘In general,’ I wrote,n”we believe the outline of ElizabethnBendey’s story is largely accurate’nStraight, however, quotes himself out ofncontext. In the original the passage isnimmediately followed by the followingncomments:nThe Bentley testament, if true, indicatesnthat the Russians may have got by espionagenwtat the British and our othernallies got by sitting at a table in meet-n”[TJhis memoir oflFers no serious evidence Straight has complained that he is notnand never was a spy. I’m inclined to believe him the main result of his book is tonstrengthen the myths of the Cold War without adding new evidence.”n—Victor NannaskynThe Progressivennotions that a man of Hiss’s blue-bloodednbackground could never be a spy andnthat the claim of Soviet espionage networksnin Washington was only the productnof paranoid anticommunist hysterianIn addition to his knowledge of the contextnfor the case, Straight also relates innAfter Long Silence that after Chambers’sntestimony he phoned Hiss to get his reaction.nRecalling that conversation.nStraight states, “1 sensed then that Chambersnwas telling the truth, and that remotenas America had been from the anguishnof Europe, there had indeed beennSoviet ^ents in high positions in ourngovernment.”nIn his memoir, Straight contrasts hisnattitude in The New Republic with thatnoiTheNation, the chief rival for the positionnof spokesman for liberalism.nThe editors of The Nation were perfecdynclear as to where they stood onnthe chaiges made by Elizabeth Bentleynnnings of the Combined Chiefe of Staflfnand other inter-allied boards. The testimonynof Chambers, if true, demonstratednthat certain government officialsnin the early thirties exercisedntheir constitutional rights to be simultaneouslynmembers of the governmentnand members of the Communist Party.n… All this has seemed to us self-evidentnfor some time.nAs Straight quotes his words in After LongnSilence, the passage suggests that in ThenNew Republic he affirmed Bendey’s andnChambers’s testimony. But in theirnproper context, the words lead to a deprecationnof the significance of theirntestimony.nIn the editorial, Straight also writesnthat vs^en Hiss appeared before HUACnin response to Chambers, he “clearednhimself in the eyes of most of the committee.”nOf those named by Chambers,nStraight said: “many of these men we be-n