Changes

According to Ehrman, Victor Navasky, [http://www.thenation.com/authors/victor-navasky long-time publisher of ''The Nation''], is "now [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a01p.htm virtually alone] in his rejection of the case against Hiss." As editor, one thing Navasky "would not permit" in ''The Nation'', writes Powers, was any "public admission that it was [[Whittaker Chambers]] who told the truth and Alger [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/books/review/29POWERSL.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print Hiss who lied]." Morgan calls Navasky a "prime example of an opportunist," who "wrote that the ''Venona'' transcripts were forgeries. One of his friends described him as being 'frozen into false positions.'"<ref>Ted Morgan, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=4ijWhgff9XEC&source=gbs_navlinks_s Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America]'' (New York: Random House, Inc., 2004) ISBN 081297302X), p. 635, n. 199</ref>

According to Ehrman, Victor Navasky, [http://www.thenation.com/authors/victor-navasky long-time publisher of ''The Nation''], is "now [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a01p.htm virtually alone] in his rejection of the case against Hiss." As editor, one thing Navasky "would not permit" in ''The Nation'', writes Powers, was any "public admission that it was [[Whittaker Chambers]] who told the truth and Alger [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/books/review/29POWERSL.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print Hiss who lied]." Morgan calls Navasky a "prime example of an opportunist," who "wrote that the ''Venona'' transcripts were forgeries. One of his friends described him as being 'frozen into false positions.'"<ref>Ted Morgan, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=4ijWhgff9XEC&source=gbs_navlinks_s Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America]'' (New York: Random House, Inc., 2004) ISBN 081297302X), p. 635, n. 199</ref>

"Hiss’s defenders stubbornly tried to rebut each revelation," recounts Ehrman, "but eventually they [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a01p.htm were overwhelmed]." [http://www.thenation.com/authors/nicholas-von-hoffman ''Nation'' contributor] Nicholas von Hoffman,<ref>Von Hoffman wrote prophetically in 1995 of the need to "make liberalism respectable" to what he called "[http://www.thenation.com/print/article/calling-air-america the impressionable, feckless, white-collar American masses]" in order to "put a lefty in the White House."</ref> a [http://www.nationbooks.org/book/209/Radical protégé of Saul Alinsky], is "[http://www.thenation.com/article/cold-war-ghosts?page=full anything but a right-winger]," admits Navasky, but even he concedes, "The sum and substance of this growing body of material is that Alger Hiss, a darling of the establishment, was guilty."<ref>Nicholas Von Hoffman, "Was McCarthy right about the left?" ''The Washington Post'', April 14, 1996, p. C1</ref> "[E]ven many on the left&mdash;including younger historians such as Rick Perlstein"<ref>Perlstein, a [http://www.thenation.com/authors/rick-perlstein ''Nation'' contributor], writes that [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] had Hiss "nailed dead to rights," even before "[[Whittaker Chambers|Chambers]] produced clinching evidence" in the form of the pumpkin papers. Rick Perlstein, Introduction, in Rick Perlstein, ed., ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=wFRSat2M0YEC Richard Nixon: Speeches, Writings, Documents]'' (Princeton University Press, 2008) ISBN 0691136998, pp. xxv-xxvi</ref> have become convinced that "Hiss was guilty," observes Slate.com, "although [http://www.slate.com/id/2170415/ old-school loyalists like Navasky] remained skeptical."

"Hiss’s defenders stubbornly tried to rebut each revelation," recounts Ehrman, "but eventually they [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a01p.htm were overwhelmed]." [http://www.thenation.com/authors/nicholas-von-hoffman ''Nation'' contributor] Nicholas von Hoffman,<ref>Von Hoffman wrote prophetically in 1995 of the need to "make liberalism respectable" to what he called "[http://www.thenation.com/print/article/calling-air-america the impressionable, feckless, white-collar American masses]" in order to "put a lefty in the White House."</ref> a [http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/-Organized--crime-6271 protégé of Saul Alinsky], is "[http://www.thenation.com/article/cold-war-ghosts?page=full anything but a right-winger]," admits Navasky, but even he concedes, "The sum and substance of this growing body of material is that Alger Hiss, a darling of the establishment, was guilty."<ref>Nicholas Von Hoffman, "Was McCarthy right about the left?" ''The Washington Post'', April 14, 1996, p. C1</ref> "[E]ven many on the left&mdash;including younger historians such as Rick Perlstein"<ref>Perlstein, a [http://www.thenation.com/authors/rick-perlstein ''Nation'' contributor], writes that [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] had Hiss "nailed dead to rights," even before "[[Whittaker Chambers|Chambers]] produced clinching evidence" in the form of the pumpkin papers. Rick Perlstein, Introduction, in Rick Perlstein, ed., ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=wFRSat2M0YEC Richard Nixon: Speeches, Writings, Documents]'' (Princeton University Press, 2008) ISBN 0691136998, pp. xxv-xxvi</ref> have become convinced that "Hiss was guilty," observes Slate.com, "although [http://www.slate.com/id/2170415/ old-school loyalists like Navasky] remained skeptical."

But even Navasky (once dubbed "[http://www.tnr.com/article/red-dusk the cheerleader] of the 'everybody was innocent' school") has now retreated, claiming "[http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/37819.html my point is not guilt or innocence]." Today, "instead of forcefully arguing that Hiss wasn't guilty as he once did, Navasky," now [http://www.cjr.org/about_us/masthead.php chairman] of the ''Columbia Journalism Review'', "acknowledges that [http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/28/magazine/cold-war-without-end.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Hiss wasn't telling the truth] when he testified that he didn't know Whittaker Chambers." Nevertheless, in reference to the activities of people "in US left circles.... many of whom were Marxists, some of whom were Communists, some of whom were critical of US government policy," during this era, argues Navasky, the word "espionage" is "out of context." He prefers to characterize their activities as "exchanges of information" that happened to be in "[http://www.thenation.com/article/cold-war-ghosts?page=full violation of the law]." (As critics have noted, such "exchanges" only went [http://reason.com/archives/2004/04/01/fools-for-communism/print one way].)

But even Navasky (once dubbed "[http://www.tnr.com/article/red-dusk the cheerleader] of the 'everybody was innocent' school") has now retreated, claiming "[http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/37819.html my point is not guilt or innocence]." Today, "instead of forcefully arguing that Hiss wasn't guilty as he once did, Navasky," now [http://www.cjr.org/about_us/masthead.php chairman] of the ''Columbia Journalism Review'', "acknowledges that [http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/28/magazine/cold-war-without-end.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Hiss wasn't telling the truth] when he testified that he didn't know Whittaker Chambers." Nevertheless, in reference to the activities of people "in US left circles.... many of whom were Marxists, some of whom were Communists, some of whom were critical of US government policy," during this era, argues Navasky, the word "espionage" is "out of context." He prefers to characterize their activities as "exchanges of information" that happened to be in "[http://www.thenation.com/article/cold-war-ghosts?page=full violation of the law]." (As critics have noted, such "exchanges" only went [http://reason.com/archives/2004/04/01/fools-for-communism/print one way].)