strongly recommended his employment.nThe anonymous negative evaluations,nhe believes, came usually fromnpeople who did not know him well andnwho viewed him politically: they tendednto be anticommunists, often ex-communists.nMoreover, assessments werenpassed through the mind of the FBI agentnconducting the interviews, who frequentlyndistorted their essence; thenvarious interviews were reviewed bynstill another individual; and finallynKimball’s potential employer had tonweigh negative accusations againstnpositive recommendations. In these lastntwo stages evaluators could differnprofoundly on the material before them.nA member of the State Departmentnhierarchy in 1946 took great exceptionnto Kimball’s classification as a securitynrisk; the State Department’s AppealsnCommittee on Personnel Security initiallyndid not consider the original classificationnsufficiently justified even to benappealed; and later Senator Bentonndismissed the file as “drivel” uponnappointing Kimball to his staff.nIt is likely that the file’s definition ofnKimball as a security risk did preventnhim from obtaining a Foreign Servicenappointment in the late 1940’s andnpossibly a position with the FCC in thenearly 1960’s. But it did not keep himnfrom serving in at least one importantngovernment post, and it certainly did notnaflfect the series of positions he held innthe private sector. In real life we mustnrepeatedly assess others, usually on thenbasis of very incomplete information;nand when any employer declines to hirenan individual utilizing incomplete,nincorrect, or misunderstood information,nhe may affect his life profoundly,neven do him an injustice. If we judge bynthe context of this book, Kimball couldnnot reasonably be classified as a securitynrisk either in 1946 or now, and on thatnlevel we may agree that he has been thenvictim of an injustice which, he says,nmakes his “emotions cry for revenge.”nBut such injustice is hardly peculiar tongovernment. It inheres in any society innwhich some individuals must judgenothers on the basis of limited information,nand that means any society whichnhas ever existed.n3o strongly does Kimball feel aboutnhis case, however, that he set out notnonly to write this book, but to correctnthe file itself In afew instances his censornwas careless and he learned the names ofncertain of his detractors, whom he thenndecided to confront directly. One ofnthem, the femed liberal James Wechsler,navoided him so skillfully for so long thatnKimball finally ceased pursuing him.nAnother, Gilbert Cant, did meet withnKimball 33 years after the fact. At thenmeeting Cant maintained that the FBIninterviewer had largely misinterpretednhis remarks, and Kimball failed tondiscover in him that “meanness of spirit”nwhich he had confidently expected. Henexperienced a feeling of sadness rathernthan vengeful jubilation upon meetingnhis accuser, who proved no less humannthan he was. Further, on the basis ofnindirect evidence Kimball was virtuallyncertain that a third detractor was anwoman researcher who had worked atnIn the MailnTime and whose identity he himselfnconceals. When he confronted her, however,nshe denied any complicity sonpassionately that Kimball comes tonwonder whether in her case he is notnresorting to the same methods of inferringn”guilt by association” and drawingn”conclusions at second hand” whichnvitiated the work of those who investigatednhim so long ago. And finally henconjectures—^with much feebler evidencennow—whether a fourth detractornmight have been Whittaker Chambers,nwith whom he had “never traded anword” at Time. Given this lack of personalnacquaintance, Kimball uses politicallynstereotyped phrases in describingnChambers as an “oddball,” an “ex-communistnturned FBI informant.” I wouldnprefer to believe that Kimball has nevernread Chambers’s Witness, for otherwisenhe could not have composed the mostncontemptible sentence in The File, whennhe comments that since Chambers wasnlong dead he could not learn the truthnfrom him in this life—“and I hoped Innever ended up where he must be now.”nIn the end Kimball concludes that henFantasy and Reconciliation: Contemporary formulas ofWomen’s Romance Fictionnby Kay Mussell; Greenwood Press; Wes^rt, CT. It was bound to happen: a critical study ofnHarlequin romances.nThe Middle Class Credo: 1,000 “All American Beliejs?” by T. L. Brink; R&E Publishers;nSaratoga, CA. Dr. Brink itemizes some of what “everybody knows.” Fodder for TV commercials?nAmerican Values: Opposing Vieupoints edited by David L. Bender; Greenhaven Press;nSt. Paul, MN. Fortunately, there are some defenders of American values on the scene—ncontributors to this collection and stalwarts of The Rockford Institute, John A. Howard and AllannC. Carlson, for example.nA Historian and His World: ALife (^Christopher Dawson, 1889-1970 by Christina Scott;nSheed & Ward; London. A daughter examines her lather. And nowhere else will you find a photonof Professor Dawson chatting with Alec Guiness.nA WorldWithouta UM: WiatWould Happen If the UnitedNationsShutDoum edited bynBurton Yale Pines; The Heritage Foundation; Washington, DC. A world without Disneylandnis a more dread prospect.nThe Recovery of Political Theory: Limits and Possibilities by William C. Havard;nLouisiana State University Priess; Baton Rouge, LA. Sometimes, the one to whom a book isndedicated encompasses the text: “To Eric Voegelin.”nnnil9nDecember 1984n