Elia Kazan, Hero for Fighting Hollywood's Communists

CNSNews.com ^ | 9/29/03 | Robert Tracinski

[kattracks]

Almost without exception, the obituaries of Elia Kazan, while praising his enormous talent as a director, are critical of his testimony against Hollywood communists.

According to some, Kazan, a former member of the Communist Party, should never be forgiven for naming names of fellow party-members before the House Un-American Activities Committee.

But Kazan deserves to be honored, not despite his testimony, but because of it. He is worthy of respect and admiration not because we should separate his politics from his art, but because his politics helped preserve artistic freedom for everyone in America.

Kazan was the one defending freedom while it was the Hollywood communists who were betraying their fellow man.

The search for Hollywood communists was not a hysterical witch-hunt. There were real communists in Hollywood (as numerous reports, such as Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley's recent book, Hollywood Party , have shown). Thus, the injustice of which Kazan is accused is not that he made false accusations--but that he was an anti-communist.

Yet there is nothing unjust about exposing the supporters of dictatorship. The Communist Party was not merely a political organization like the Democratic or Republican Party. It was a totalitarian network. Its goal was not to win an electoral majority but to eliminate free elections and institute a one-party dictatorship.

The Party's charter called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, and its officials took orders from Soviet despots.

With brazen effrontery, however, the Hollywood communists painted themselves as martyrs for freedom. In an attempt to conceal their dirty secrets, they claimed that their political rights - the very rights that had been systematically exterminated in the slave state they admired and worked for - were being violated by the House investigations and by the Hollywood "blacklist." And, amazingly enough, history has believed them.

It is perfectly legitimate for Congress to investigate any organization that declares its active intent to overthrow a free society on behalf of a foreign dictatorship. It was not the communists' ideas, which were the inquiry's target, but their actions--or threatened actions.

As to the "blacklist," why shouldn't private employers, such as the Hollywood studios, refuse to give platforms to people whose views they find repugnant? The communists claimed the right to free association in order to shield themselves from the disapproval of others. Didn't the studio-owners have the same right not to associate with advocates of totalitarianism?

The morality of congressional investigations and private blacklists would not be challenged if the targets were, say, the militia movement or some neo-Nazi group. Such entities would be clearly recognized as threats to individual freedom. The left would
surely support an anti-Nazi blacklist, but somehow regards an anti-communist blacklist as unpardonable.

Further, "whistleblowers" are hailed today as protectors of our rights when they disclose that corporations are circumventing minimum wage laws or Occupational Safety & Health Administration regulations. Yet a man who blew the whistle on a genuine evil - on a movement bent on establishing an omnipotent state - is condemned for "selling out."

What can explain such perversity, except the belief that communism is not an evil, but anti-communism is?

Kazan's own defense of his testimony provides the most revealing analogy. His 1954 film, On the Waterfront, portrays a young hood who becomes disillusioned with the gangsters who control the local longshoreman's union.

The rule on the docks, enforced by terror, is that union members are supposed to be "deaf and dumb"--to pretend they don't know anything about the gang and to refuse to speak to the police.

The hero of the film is the one man who has the courage to break this code of silence and testify against the gang. Kazan intended the film as a metaphor for his decision to testify against his former comrades in the Party.

Almost 50 years later, the sympathizers of leftist dictatorships still want to cover up the fact that the real defenders of freedom were not the "martyred" Hollywood Reds but the courageous men who acted to expose them.

Robert Tracinski is a senior editor at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this commentary.

[MEG33]

These people were members of a party that owed its allgance to the Soviet Union and sought to overthrow our government.Martyrs,PIFFLE!

[Bud Bundy]

Excellent article!

[1john2 3and4]

thank you. the lying revisionists and haters of america never rest.....heard a report on radio where it was mentioned that he was involved in the "witch hunts", and several years later, when he received an award, many members in the audience (totalitarian murderers-sympathizers, all) refused to applaud.

truly: "woe unto you who call good.....evil"

[Burkeman1]

I still remember who stood and clapped for Kazan when he was "controversially" honored by the Academy Awards a few years back. Nick Nolte and Ed Harris sat on their hands with scowels on their faces. Speilburg did not stand but clapped lightly. Kathy Bates (from "Misery" and "About Schmidt") was about the only one in the audience who was on her feet clapping enthusiastically for this great and brave man. I also seem to remember that this was a "Freeped" event.

[Wilhelm Tell]

It disgusts me that there are fashionable leftists who will never "forgive" Kazan, and yet they will praise to no end Hollywood Stalinists who knew about the famine, who knew about the camps and the purges, and who knew about the Hitler-Stalin Pact. If you want to talk about betrayal, talk about those who betrayed humanity by continuing to support Stalin when it was evident that Stalin was just a Red Hitler.

[El Gato]

The morality of congressional investigations and private blacklists would not be challenged if the targets were, say, the militia movement or some neo-Nazi group. Such entities would be clearly recognized as threats to individual freedom.

The militia movement is not a threat to indivdual, unless you think George Washington, Francis Marion, Nathanael Greene (admittedly a regular as was Washington, although both started out as militiamen) and the "overmountain men", and others were threats to individual freedom.

[joebee]

I learned about his death this morning while watching NBC's Today Show. Katie Couric announced his death, by concluding that he is remembered "by what many call his betrayal". Isn't it amazing that despite what we learned from the Soviet KGB files about communists infesting Hollywood and our government in the 30's and 40's, that his naming names of Hollywood fellow travelers, isn't considered courageous. (During a screening of the Academy Awards where Elia Kazam was awarded an Oscar, I noticed that Nick Nolte was one of the many "stars" who neither stood nor applauded as the award was presented.)

Actually, I shouldn't be surprised. Several nights ago, David Gregory, one of NBC's greatest, delivered a prolonged report on President Bush's UN speech without once referring to him as "President Bush". I guess I should be happy that they are at least addressing him as "Mister Bush".

[Clemenza]

Surprisingly, Warren Beatty also stood up and clapped, largely because Kazan was responsible for his breakout role in Splendor in the Grass.

[Burkeman1]

I dind't know that. Intersting. I guess Beatty has some inner sense of integrity and personal honor even if his politics are all wrong.

[weegee]

There was no HUAAC, it was the House Committee On Un-American Activities (HCUAA). When the left (and others) routinely get this detail wrong, it makes me wonder how much of it they research themselves.

The communists of Hollywood old defended Uncle Joe Stalin and never appologized for their error. The Hollywood of today has supported "Uncle" Saddam Hussein by attacking our president (saying that he is worse than Hitler) and downplaying Saddam's dictatorship. At least Mr. Kazan was willing to step forward for America. That 50 years out, "Hollywood" still disapproves of this action indicates to me that they still do not see Stalin's Soviet Union as a threat. The Soviet's term for these people was "useful idiots", it still holds true today.

[peter the great]

Question. the New York post gave a little bio on Mr. Kazan. It basically stated that he was born in Constantiople and moved to this country when he was four. Where I am going with this is that he very well may have been a Greek who was simply reacting to the horror that was perpetrated on his coreligionists the Orthodox of Russia. Any insight on this?

[boop]

Interesting. I had not thought of "On the Waterfront" in this way. Ironic because the bad guy is Lee J. Cobb, a suspected communist in the 50's. And what is a pinko like Brando doing "naming names" in this movie?

[RightWingAtheist]

Beatty has a lot of integrity; he's known as a strident activist, of course, but he has never put down or insulted anyone just because they disagree with him. And I will further add that while he's never been a great actor, he's never given a bad performance either.

[Burkeman1]

He is mediocre in my opinion. He is the Kevin Kostner of 30 years ago- the same character in every movie he is in.

Though he might have integrity still.

[RightWingAtheist]

Yes, he was of Greek ancestry; his original family name was Kazangolou. I do not know if this had anything to do with his turning against the Soviet Union, however. Edward Dmytryk, a member of the Hollywood Ten who defended Kazan's Oscar, and himself repudiated communism, was of Ukranian Orthodox ancestry, and knowledge of what was happening in his parent's homeland may have affected his decision to eventually name names as well.

[RoarkMan]

Yes! I've been going nuts reading all the "news" items about his death. Thank you for articulating it so well.