--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: clips@philodox.com Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:02:59 -0500 To: Philodox Clips List <clips@philodox.com> From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com> Subject: [Clips] Rosenberg Reruns Reply-To: rah@philodox.com Sender: clips-bounces@philodox.com <http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007878> OpinionJournal WSJ Online DE GUSTIBUS Rosenberg Reruns They were guilty, but the left can't give up their cause. BY JOSEPH RAGO Friday, January 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST You would think, by now, with a half-century of scholarship behind us and a great deal of damning evidence on display, we would not have to be arguing about the guilt or innocence of various iconic figures of the late 1940s and 1950s: Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White or, perhaps most notoriously, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. But the martyr status of such figures seems irresistible, even today, to a certain kind of sentimental leftist. They still remain symbols of some malevolent American quality--never mind the truth of what they actually did. Such was the lesson of a forum last week in Manhattan convened to discuss the "artistic influence" of the Rosenbergs. The invitation to the event, sponsored by the Fordham Law School, referred to the Rosenbergs as "the accused." It was a tellingly exculpatory phrase. For the record, both Julius and Ethel were convicted as communist spies and executed for espionage in 1953. The stars of the evening were the novelist E.L. Doctorow and the playwright Tony Kushner. Mr. Doctorow is the author of "The Book of Daniel" (1971), a novel that centers on a couple loosely patterned after the Rosenbergs; Mr. Kushner wrote the play "Angels in America" (1993), which imagines the specter of Ethel Rosenberg returning to haunt various protagonists. Both works are highly sympathetic to the Rosenbergs' dilemma, if that is the right word. The forum was generally arcane and self-serious. Messrs. Doctorow and Kushner ventilated many concerns about the relation of culture to society, chief among them the obligation of the artist to accurately represent the past. The pair eventually settled on the definition of historical art as "an aesthetic system of opinions," as the good Doctorow put it. Fair enough. But why would "the artist"--let alone anyone--still be hung up on the Rosenbergs? To plow through the evidence for the millionth time: While the trial of the Rosenbergs was flawed by technical improprieties, their crimes are not uncertain or unresolved. Julius Rosenberg, with Ethel as his accomplice, was the head of a sophisticated spy network that deeply penetrated the American atomic program and relayed top secrets to Stalin's Kremlin. In his memoirs Nikita Khrushchev noted that the Rosenbergs "vastly aided production of our A-bomb." Joyce Milton and Ronald Radosh wrote a damning account of their activities in "The Rosenberg File" (1983). And the Rosenbergs' guilt was corroborated by the 1995 declassification of the Venona documents, thousands of decrypted KGB cables intercepted by the National Security Agency in the 1940s. The notion that anyone would today deny their fundamental complicity in Soviet subversion is extraordinary, almost comically so. But comedy was not quite the mentality at the Rosenberg event. "Ambiguity is the key word, I think," said Mr. Doctorow, regarding our understanding of the past, though in this instance ambiguous is precisely what it is not. Mr. Kushner argued the Rosenbergs were "murdered, basically." Mr. Doctorow went further, explaining that he wanted to use their circumstances to tell "a story of the mind of the country." It was a mind, apparently, filled with loathing and paranoia--again, never mind the truth of the charges against the Rosenbergs or other spies of the time. "The principles of the Cold War had reached absurdity," he continued. "We knew that the Russians were no threat, but we wanted to persuade Americans to be afraid" and so impose "a Puritan, punitive civil religion." Pronounced Mr. Kushner: "Our failure to come to terms with a brutal past, our failure to open up the coffins and let the ghosts out, has led to our current, horrendous situation." The enduring artistic influence of the Rosenberg case, then, seems to be primarily allegorical. Guilt and innocence drop away (rather, guilt is converted to virtue) and the Rosenbergs are made into victims of "American fascism," to use Ethel Rosenberg's own phrase. Or to borrow the exquisite formulation of the scholar-apologist Ellen Schrecker, the Rosenbergs were guilty only of "nontraditional patriotism." The arts should not be judged entirely on political character, of course. But in considering an "aesthetic system of opinions" when the aesthetics are pointless bathos and the opinions are the whole point, politics ought to be taken into account. And for all the hand-wringing about fidelity to historical accuracy, the point is that Messrs. Doctorow and Kushner get the politics so wrong. As the artists turned the Rosenbergs' treason into dissent and then into patriotism, the audience was enthusiastically in tune. Present were the Rosenbergs' children, Robert and Michael Meeropol, who continue to contest their parents' Soviet entanglement, and the former editor of the Nation, Victor Navasky. When it came time to ask questions, the moderator warned off any "Cold War warriors" from asking "disrespectful" questions, like, presumably, how these authors could defend an ideology that took millions of lives. No one did. Mr. Rago is an assistant features editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list Clips@philodox.com http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
What's the relevance here? Also, this guy is a real Soviet-style thinker. He believes art should somehow be subservient to politics, or to the latest political winds. I'm wondering why WSJ even bothered to publish this: Is there some kind of political alignment test they see coming down the pike? -TD
From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com> To: cypherpunks@jfet.org Subject: [Clips] Rosenberg Reruns Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:03:48 -0500
--- begin forwarded text
Delivered-To: clips@philodox.com Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:02:59 -0500 To: Philodox Clips List <clips@philodox.com> From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com> Subject: [Clips] Rosenberg Reruns Reply-To: rah@philodox.com Sender: clips-bounces@philodox.com
<http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007878>
OpinionJournal
WSJ Online
DE GUSTIBUS
Rosenberg Reruns They were guilty, but the left can't give up their cause.
BY JOSEPH RAGO Friday, January 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
You would think, by now, with a half-century of scholarship behind us and a great deal of damning evidence on display, we would not have to be arguing about the guilt or innocence of various iconic figures of the late 1940s and 1950s: Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White or, perhaps most notoriously, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. But the martyr status of such figures seems irresistible, even today, to a certain kind of sentimental leftist. They still remain symbols of some malevolent American quality--never mind the truth of what they actually did.
Such was the lesson of a forum last week in Manhattan convened to discuss the "artistic influence" of the Rosenbergs. The invitation to the event, sponsored by the Fordham Law School, referred to the Rosenbergs as "the accused." It was a tellingly exculpatory phrase. For the record, both Julius and Ethel were convicted as communist spies and executed for espionage in 1953.
The stars of the evening were the novelist E.L. Doctorow and the playwright Tony Kushner. Mr. Doctorow is the author of "The Book of Daniel" (1971), a novel that centers on a couple loosely patterned after the Rosenbergs; Mr. Kushner wrote the play "Angels in America" (1993), which imagines the specter of Ethel Rosenberg returning to haunt various protagonists. Both works are highly sympathetic to the Rosenbergs' dilemma, if that is the right word.
The forum was generally arcane and self-serious. Messrs. Doctorow and Kushner ventilated many concerns about the relation of culture to society, chief among them the obligation of the artist to accurately represent the past. The pair eventually settled on the definition of historical art as "an aesthetic system of opinions," as the good Doctorow put it.
Fair enough. But why would "the artist"--let alone anyone--still be hung up on the Rosenbergs? To plow through the evidence for the millionth time: While the trial of the Rosenbergs was flawed by technical improprieties, their crimes are not uncertain or unresolved. Julius Rosenberg, with Ethel as his accomplice, was the head of a sophisticated spy network that deeply penetrated the American atomic program and relayed top secrets to Stalin's Kremlin. In his memoirs Nikita Khrushchev noted that the Rosenbergs "vastly aided production of our A-bomb." Joyce Milton and Ronald Radosh wrote a damning account of their activities in "The Rosenberg File" (1983). And the Rosenbergs' guilt was corroborated by the 1995 declassification of the Venona documents, thousands of decrypted KGB cables intercepted by the National Security Agency in the 1940s.
The notion that anyone would today deny their fundamental complicity in Soviet subversion is extraordinary, almost comically so. But comedy was not quite the mentality at the Rosenberg event. "Ambiguity is the key word, I think," said Mr. Doctorow, regarding our understanding of the past, though in this instance ambiguous is precisely what it is not.
Mr. Kushner argued the Rosenbergs were "murdered, basically." Mr. Doctorow went further, explaining that he wanted to use their circumstances to tell "a story of the mind of the country." It was a mind, apparently, filled with loathing and paranoia--again, never mind the truth of the charges against the Rosenbergs or other spies of the time. "The principles of the Cold War had reached absurdity," he continued. "We knew that the Russians were no threat, but we wanted to persuade Americans to be afraid" and so impose "a Puritan, punitive civil religion." Pronounced Mr. Kushner: "Our failure to come to terms with a brutal past, our failure to open up the coffins and let the ghosts out, has led to our current, horrendous situation."
The enduring artistic influence of the Rosenberg case, then, seems to be primarily allegorical. Guilt and innocence drop away (rather, guilt is converted to virtue) and the Rosenbergs are made into victims of "American fascism," to use Ethel Rosenberg's own phrase. Or to borrow the exquisite formulation of the scholar-apologist Ellen Schrecker, the Rosenbergs were guilty only of "nontraditional patriotism."
The arts should not be judged entirely on political character, of course. But in considering an "aesthetic system of opinions" when the aesthetics are pointless bathos and the opinions are the whole point, politics ought to be taken into account. And for all the hand-wringing about fidelity to historical accuracy, the point is that Messrs. Doctorow and Kushner get the politics so wrong.
As the artists turned the Rosenbergs' treason into dissent and then into patriotism, the audience was enthusiastically in tune. Present were the Rosenbergs' children, Robert and Michael Meeropol, who continue to contest their parents' Soviet entanglement, and the former editor of the Nation, Victor Navasky. When it came time to ask questions, the moderator warned off any "Cold War warriors" from asking "disrespectful" questions, like, presumably, how these authors could defend an ideology that took millions of lives. No one did.
Mr. Rago is an assistant features editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
-- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list Clips@philodox.com http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips
--- end forwarded text
-- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
participants (2)
-
R. A. Hettinga -
Tyler Durden