For her own part, Jacoby, the author of “The Age of American Unreason” and other books, believes Alger Hiss was guilty of the perjury for which he was convicted; she is almost, but not entirely, persuaded that Hiss was also a Soviet spy.
This distinction is even too much for the New York Times:
One could say, although not without fear of contradiction, that none of the evidence is exculpatory of Hiss. But Jacoby is incensed at the way current scholars have continued old ideological battles on the back of the Hiss case.
Why is Jacoby incensed?
In the end Jacoby concludes that, sadly, the “misplaced faith inspired by Hiss is still being used to impugn the patriotism of those who believe that it is more, not less, important for this nation to live up to its highest ideals and legal traditions in times of danger than in times of complacent security.”
So, let's see: Susan Jacoby says the Hiss was guilty but not guilty of treason merely guilty of committing perjury about committing treason. And what is worse, vicious right wingers are using evidence of his treachery to undermine liberalism.
Ann Coulter wrote a book called, Treason, in which she pointed all of this out. She was right and for her troubles the New York Times in his article takes a backhanded slap at her lack of scholarship and objectivity, " And it is a little disconcerting to find Ann Coulter thrown into the mix of respectable scholars, just to make Jacoby’s point. " Would that the New York Times would apply the same standard to Susan Jacoby.
