37
" S C O U N D R E L TIME"
— Lillian Heilman
on the McCarthy witch-hunts
by
In a short autobiographical narrativ e
titled Scoundrel Time, A m erican playw right
Lillian H eilm an h a s given a vivid account of
w hat it w as like to be cited before the UnA m erican Activities Committee a t the
height of the M cC arthy era.
A lthough one of the forem ost political
d ram atists of her generation, H eilm an had,
until recently, rem ained relatively unknown
outside the U.S. It took the combined acting
power of J a n e F onda an d V anessa Redgrave
Tom
Appleton
and the film Julia — based on a story by
L illian H eilm an — to m ake her nam e
internationally famous.
There's a photograph of H eilm an in this
book, show ing her in 1975, w hen she wrote
Scoundrel Time. This is the face of a
survivor, one who's still able to smile. The
smile is much the sam e as th a t seen on an
earlier picture from 1935: a good, hard,
toothy smile — a thing w orth rescuing
across 40 years.
38
A U ST R A L IA N LEFT REVIEW N o. 76
T here's also 40 years of work, routine and
experience behind her writing. This author
is p ast her prime; but if Scoundrel Time
appears in p arts to have been put together in
a ra th e r slapdash m anner, it never loses the
d ra m a tist's touch.
There are occasional echoes of Dashiell
H am m ett in her writing — the creator of the
tough, realistic crime novel, w ith whom
Heilm an lived the better p a rt of 30 years,
until his death in 1961 — ju st as there are
echoes of Heilm an in H am m ett's work —
notably N ora C harles in The T hin Man.
H eilm an's writing is generally superb,
and there's no question of her "stan d in g in
the shadow of a great husband".
Still, H am m ett had a significant influence
on her life. For one thing, he h ad become a
mem ber of the Am erican C om m unist P arty
"in 1937 or 1938". Ham m ett believed th a t he
was "living in a corrupt society" and th a t
"nothing less th a n a revolution could wipe
out the corruption". When M cC arthy's
obviously corrupt henchm en cited him
before their committee in 1951, H am m ett
m ade it a point of honor not to co-operate
with them , and went to jail.
After th at, it was clear th at, sooner or
la te r, " M c C a rth y 's boys" (a s L illia n
Heilm an calls them with undisguised
contem pt) would get on to her, too; political
terrorism had arrived in America.
The political clim ate in the U.S. had
ch an g ed d ra m a tic a lly a fte r P resid en t
Roosevelt's death. His successor, H arry
T ru m a n , step by step , re v e rse d all
progressive social legislation and severely
cut the rig h ts of trade unions. The M arshall
plan and the Trum an doctrine spelt out his
Cold W ar policies. In order to achieve such a
radical change in attitude tow ards a former
ally, the Soviet Union, T rum an h ad to "scare
hell out of the country", as S enator A rthur
V andenberg put it a t the time.
The Cold War and the fable of a
com m unist th rea t were conceived w ith cold­
blooded political cynicism, as Lillian
H eilm an observes: "Senators M cC arthy and
M cC arran, Representatives Nixon (the
subsequent president), W alter an d Wood, all
of them , were w hat they were: m en who
invented when necessary, m aligned even
when it w asn 't necessary. "I do not think
they believed much, if anything, of w hat
Lillian H eilm an and D ashiell
Pleasantville, the late 1940s
Ham m ett,
they said: the time w as ripe for a new wave in
America, and they seized their political
chance to lead it along each day's
opportunity, spit-balling w hatever and with
whoever came into view...... The anti-Red
theme was easily chosen from the grab-bag,
not alone because we were frightened of
socialism, but chiefly, I think, to destroy the
rem ains of Roosevelt and his sometimes
advanced work .... "
After the 1946 congressional elections,
which gave the Republicans their first
m ajority in 16 years, the House UnAm erican Activities Committee (HUAC)
began to grow in stature. Up to then it had
led a slimy, back-alley existence for about
ten years, specialising in racist and antiSemitic innuendo. Self-respecting members
of Congress tried to steer clear of it.
In 1947, T rum an ordered a loyalty check of
all public servants, and his Attorney
General slapped together a list of all
"SC O U N D R EL TIME
organisations he deemed undem ocratic.
Now the h u n t w as on for com m unists and
radical dem ocrats.
They seemed to be everywhere — even in
Hollywood. The com m ittee charged w ith the
task of testing th e ideological purity of
cultural workers, found no difficulty in
detecting "com m unist propaganda" in the
movies. There was, for example, Song of
Russia, a film depicting sm iling R ussians.
And an "expert" declared th a t it was one of
the basic com m unist propaganda tricks to
show sm iling R ussians. The next thing was
th a t scores of Hollywood actors were
dragged before th e committee. Lillian
Heilm an recalls how some of them met the
test:
"G ary Cooper w as asked, in a m ost
deferential and friendly m anner, if he had
read m uch C om m unist propaganda in the
scripts subm itted to him . Cooper, as a m an
who h ad not been called upon ever to speak
very much, th o u g h t th a t one over and said
no, he d id n 't th in k he had, but then he
m ostly read a t night. There were to be
shudders as well as laughter when C harles
Laughton, who h ad been a close friend of
Bertolt Brecht, received a cable from the
E ast G erm an governm ent inviting him to
attend his old friend's m em orial service. Mr.
L aughton im m ediately phoned J. E dgar
Hoover (the director of the F.B.I.) to say th a t
he had received th e wire, but after all th a t it
w asn 't his fault an d shouldn't be counted
ag a in st him."
In mid-1952 th e M cC arthyist hysteria
would reach its peak. On February 21, the
bell w as rung a t L illian H eilm an's door: "An
over-respectable-looking Black m an, a
Sunday deacon, in a suit th a t w as so correctincorrect th a t it could be worn only by
somebody who d id n 't w ant to be noticed,
stood in the elevator, his h a t politely
removed. "He asked me if I was Lillian
Heilman. I agreed to th a t and asked who he
was. He handed me an envelope and said he
was there to serve a subpoena from the
House Un-American Activities Committee. I
opened the envelope and read the subpoena.
1 said, 'S m art to choose a Black m an for this
job. You like it?' an d slam m ed the door."
The HUAC was dangerous:
under Am erican law, any congressional
committee h a s th e rig h t to call citizens
before it and dem and th a t they answ er
39
w hatever questions it puts to them.
A lthough this procedure h a s no juridical
character, it differs little, in its m ethods and
effects upon the individual, from a proper
court of law.
However, under the provisions of the Fifth
A m endm ent (to the U.S. constitution),
citizens have the right to refuse an answ er to
a question if, by answ ering it, they would
incrim inate them selves. Those who m ade
use of the constitutional rig h t before HUAC
w ere im m e d ia te ly b ra n d e d as " F ifth
A m endm ent Com m unists". Those who did
not take recourse to this law and yet refused
to p o in t a fin g e r a t f r ie n d s a n d
acquaintances — as did the "Hollywood
T e n " — w e re t a k e n to c o u r t fo r
"contem pt of Congress" and given jail
sentences.
But even accepting the shelter of the Fifth
A m endm ent h ad its tricky aspects. Thus, for
example, one couldn't refuse a n answ er to
the question w hether one knew P resident
Roosevelt, as there was nothing selfincrim inatory in that. But if asked w hether
one knew C harlie C haplin or Dashiell
H am m ett, one h ad to refuse an answ er. The
committee w as thus able to point the finger
a t individuals and cast a slur upon them on
the basis of nothing more th a n a vague
suspicion.
Lillian H eilm an had no intention of
becoming either stigm atised as a "Fifth
A m endm ent Communist" or of giving
inform ation about her friends. Her lawyer,
too, agreed it was time somebody took a
m oral stan d vis-a-vis the committee. Thus
she wrote.
"I am ready and willing to testify before
the representatives of our G overnm ent as to
my own opinions and my own actions,
regardless of any risks or consequences to
m y se lf.... But to h u rt innocent people whom
I knew m any years ago in order to save
m yself is, to me, inhum an and indecent and
dishonorable. I cannot and will not cut my
conscience to fit this year's fashion .... I w as
raised in an old-fashioned A m erican
tradition and there were certain homely
th in g s th a t were tau g h t to me: to try to tell
the truth, not to bear false w itness, notT®
harm m y neighbour, to be loyal to my
country, and so o n .... It is my belief th a t you
will agree with these simple rules of hum an
decency and will not expect me to violate the
40
A U ST RA LIA N LEFT REV IEW No. 76
good Am erican tradition from w hich they
spring ....
the question. The 'm ust' in th a t sentence
annoyed Mr. Wood — it was to annoy him
I
am prepared to waive the privilege again an d ag ain — an d he corrected m e:' You
m ight refuse to answ er, the question is
a g a in st self-incrim ination and to tell you
asked, do you refuse?' But in the middle of
an y th in g you wish to know about my views
one of the questions about my past,
or actions if your Committee will agree to
som ething so rem arkable happened th a t I
refrain from asking me to nam e other people.
am to th is day convinced th a t the unknown
If the Com mittee is unw illing to give me this
gentlem an who spoke h ad a great deal to do
assurance, I will be forced to plead the
with the rest of my life.
privilege of the Fifth A m endm ent at the
hearing."
A voice from the press gallery had been for
N aturally, the committee refused her
a t least three or four m inutes louder th a n the
other voices. (By th is time, I think, the press
request (or offer) and she was obliged to
had finished reading my letter to the
ap p ear a t a hearing on May 21, 1952. "The
Committee an d were discussing it.) ....
opening questions", writes Heilm an, "were
Suddenly a clear voice said, 'T hank God
standard: w hat was my nam e, where w as I
somebody finally had the guts to do it.' ....
born, w hat was my occupation, w h at were
Wood rapped his gavel and said angrily, ‘If
th e titles of my plays. It did n 't take long to
get to w hat really interested them: my time
th a t occurs again, I will clear the press from
in Hollywood, which studios I had worked
these cham bers’. ‘You do th at, sir,’ said the
for, w h at periods of w hat years, w ith some
sam e voice.
m ysterious em phasis on 1937. (My time in
Shortly afterw ards the hearing was over.
Spain, I thought, but I was wrong.) Had I
HUAC had suffered its first m ajor defeat,
m et a w riter called M artin Berkeley?"
even if, stric tly sp eak in g , H eilm an's
T his M artin Berkeley, whom she never
defiance of the comm ittee was based on
even knew, had claimed th a t in his home the
relatively narrow political grounds and
Hollywood chapter of the C.P.U.S.A. had
succeeded by working its way around one of
been formed — and th a t Lillian Heilman
the more dubious legal propositions in the
was one of the foundation members.
com m ittee's methodology.
Heilman: "When this nonsense was
The HUAC hearings pursued three aims:
fin is h e d , M r. T a v e n n e r (one of th e
to elicit nam es; to achieve defam ation of
inquisitors) asked me if it was true. I said
in d iv id u a ls a s " F if th A m e n d m e n t
th a t I w anted to refer to the letter I h ad sent, I
Com munists" or to set in train legal
procedures a g a in st them . Heilm an w asn't
would like the Committee to reconsider my
going to nam e nam es; she had offered to
offer in the letter .... Mr Wood (the chairm an)
speak freely about herself, and could thus
said th a t in order to clarify the record Mr.
not be defamed; and legal procedures
T avenner should put into the record the
couldn't be taken a g a in st her because she
c o rre sp o n d e n c e betw een me a n d th e
had been forced into taking the Fifth
Committee. Mr. T avenner did ju st th at, and
Amendment.
w hen he h ad finished R auh (H eilm an's
counsel) sp rang to his feet, picked up a stack
L illia n H e ilm a n h a d escap ed th e
of m im eographed copies of m y letter, and
M c C a r th y is t in q u is itio n — b u t n o t
h anded them out to the press section. I was
unscathed. Life for her had changed. M any
puzzled by th is — I h a d n 't noticed he had the
people avoided contact with her and, worse
copies — but I did notice th a t R auh was
still, she was black-listed in Hollywood
looking happy.
which m eant th a t she could not get
Mr. T avenner was upset .... T hen (he)
em ploym ent there. A B ritish producer
asked me if I had attended the m eeting
eventually offered her a job — a t a fifth the
described by Berkeley, and one of the
salary she had earned in Hollywood. But in
h ard est th in g s I ever did in m y life w as to
order to travel to B ritain she needed a
swallow the words, 'I don't know him , an d a
passport and had to fight hard and long to
little investigation into the tim e an d place
get it, because as a rule "unfriendly"
would have proved to you th a t I could not
w itnesses were refused passports. Civic
have been a t the m eeting he talk s about.'
rights and political liberty had been severely
In stead I said th a t I m ust refuse to answ er
curtailed.
SC O U N D R E L TIME"
In spring 1954 the M cC arthy era officially
came to an end. The popular mood had
swung ag a in st the w itch -h u n ts. In
addition, the Senator from W isconsin, in his
tireless struggle ag a in st world communism,
h ad picked on an adv ersary th a t was several
times too large for him: the U.S. army.
Before he could even begin his hearings on
the alleged com m unist infiltration of the
arm y, M cC arthy him self was called before
an investigative comm ittee and charged
w ith inciting governm ent employees to
commit illegal actions. The Senate censured
him on two points, a rare occurrence. His
political career was over. But M cCarthyism
w as neither dead nor discredited, and m any
of M cC arthy's co-workers (Richard Nixon as
a prime example) continued to have political
careers in spite of it.
T h e p r e v a i l i n g l i b e r a l v ie w o f
M c C a r th y is m (a n d V ie t N a m , a n d
W atergate ....) seems to be th a t the Am erican
political system is basically sound and,
given time, will rid itself of m ost of its
political cankers. Lillian H eilm an disagrees:
"We were not shocked at the dam age
M cCarthy had done, or the ruin he brought
on m any people .... There were m any broken
lives along the p ath the boys h ad bulldozed,
but not so m any th a t people needed to feel
guilty if they turned their backs fast enough
and told each other, as we were to do again
after W atergate, th a t Am erican justice will
alw ays prevail no m atter how careless it
seems to critical outsiders. It is not true th a t
when the bell tolls it tolls for thee:
"It was no accident th a t Mr. Nixon
brought with him a group of high-powered
operators who m ade Cohn and Schine (two
of M cC arthy's side-kicks) look like cute little
rascals from g ram m ar school. The nam es
and faces had been changed; the stakes were
higher, because the prize was the White
House. And a year after a presidential
scandal of a m agnitude still unknown, we
have alm ost forgotten them, too. We are a
people who do not w an t to keep much of the
p ast in our heads. It is considered unhealthy
in America to rem em ber m istakes, neurotic
to think about them , psychotic to dwell upon
them."
Yet some, like Heilm an, could not simply
fo rg e t. T h e w o u n d s in f lic te d by
M cCarthyism were deep, and w hen they had
healed w hat h u rt were the scars. Like
H am m ett, Heilm an considered M cC arthy­
41
ism as essentially deeply im m oral and
judged its protagonists on m oral grounds.
Unlike H am m ett, who converted his
righteous indignation into a party-political
a f filia tio n , H e ilm an in te rn a lis e d th e
problem: "My belief in liberalism was mostly
gone. I think I have substituted for
it som ething private called, for w an t of
som ething th a t should be more accurate,
decency .... It is painful for a nature th a t can
no longer accept liberalism not to be able to
accept radicalism ."
The judgm ent appears accurate not only
about H eilm an as an indivdual, but as a
com m ent on one sector of the urbane,
"civilised" intelligentsia. There are obvious
political shortcom ings in a "resistance" to
state persecution of the individual th a t
lim its itself to an assertion of hum an
d e c e n c y . N e v e rth e le s s , th e p o litic a l
significance of w hat she did cannot be
m easured solely by its relatively narrow
legal definition. Hers was a challenge to all
the sanctim onious "Cold War liberals" and
ex-radicals who rationalised their way into
becoming inform ers, using anti-com m unism
as a justification to protect fortune and
career.
Her bitterest words Lillian H eilm an has
kept for Am erica's intellectuals, a n ti­
com m unist or no: "I am still angry th a t their
reason for disagreeing with M cC arthy was
too often his crude methods — the stan d ard s
of the board of governors of a country club....
They went to too m any respectable
conferences th a t turned out not to be under
respectable auspices, contributed to and
published too m any C.I.A. m agazines ....
None of them, as far as I know, h a s yet found
it a p art of conscience to adm it th a t their
Cold W ar anti-com m unism was perverted,
possibly ag a in st their wishes, into the
V ietnam War and then into the reign of
Nixon, their unw anted but inevitable leader
.... None of them, as fa r as I know, h as
stepped forward to adm it a m istake."
(The book is called S c o u n d re l T im e, by
Lillian Heilman. Quartet Books, 1978,
pp. 172. $4.30 in N.Z.
The author o f this article says: "I thought
if the N a tio n a l T im es starts printing
Lillian H eilm an's cooking recipes, it's tim e
to remember where the w om an's really at.")