Capitol Commentary

Bruce Craig, Director of the National
Coalition for History

White House Nominates Historian Allen Weinstein to Become Next Archivist of the United States

On April 8, 2004, President Bush nominated historian Allen Weinstein, currently senior adviser at the International Foundation for Election Systems in Washington, D.C., and formerly the president of the controversial Center for Democracy, to be the Archivist of the United States.

The announcement took the historical and archival communities by surprise as John Carlin, the current Archivist of the United States, had let it be widely known that he intended to retire in the summer of 2005—on his 65th birthday, and upon the completion of key aspects of his NARA ten-year strategic plan (specifically, the Electronic Records Archives).

Regardless of whether the White House move is “politically inspired” as critics allege, the nomination clearly violates the Congressionally sanctioned requirement that selection of a nominee should be preceded by consultations with “recognized organizations of professional archivists and historians.” No such consultation took place though efforts are now underway through the auspices of the National Coalition for History to inject some level of appropriate “consultation” with the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which must pass judgement on the nomination before it is considered by the full Senate.

According to Hill insiders, the effort to replace Carlin is coming from the highest levels of the White House. Reportedly, Karl Rove, who is widely viewed as one of the president’s chief political advisors, if not his political mastermind, and Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to the president, want their own archivist in place for two overarching reasons: first, because of the sensitive nature of certain presidential and executive department records likely to be opened in the near future, and second, because there is genuine concern in the White House that the president may not be reelected.

Though it is not widely known, in January 2005, the first batch of “confidential (P-5 exemption) records (the mandatory twelve years of closure having passed) relating to the first Bush administration will be subject to the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and could be opened. Another area of concern to Bush administration officials relates to the 9-11 Commission records. Because there is no mandatory thirty-year closure rule (except for highly classified White House and Executive Department records and documents), all materials relating to the commission are scheduled to be transferred to the National Archives upon termination of the commission later this year. Theoretically, these records could be made available to researchers and journalists just as soon as they are processed by NARA. The speed of that processing rests with the Archivist.

In what appears to be a calculated move by administration officials, Rove and Gonzales have advanced the nomination of Weinstein fully aware that according to the National Archives and Records Administration Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-497), the Archivist of the United States position is to be an appointment based “without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office of the Archivist.” If Weinstein is confirmed before the November election and if President Bush is not elected, then President John Kerry could be accused of “politicizing” the position should he try to replace Weinstein. In fact, though, the president’s strategy in seeking to replace Carlin at this time rather than later injects an element of partisanship that could give Kerry, should he be elected president, ample justification to replace Weinstein in the same manner that the White House is seeking to replace Carlin.

On April 14, 2004, archival, historical, and other governmental watchdog organizations, including the Organization of American Historians, concerned both by the politicization of the appointment process and the qualifications of the nominee, issued a statement (see below) calling for Congress to conduct a confirmation hearing consistent with other positions of importance requiring Senate confirmation. Due in part to the publicity and to a statement of concern issued by nearly two dozen historical and archival organizations, the White House effort to see the nominee confirmed through an “expedited” appointment process was thwarted. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee—the committee of jurisdiction that will be making a recommendation to the U.S. Senate about the qualifications of the nominee—indeed will give the Weinstein nomination a full and proper hearing. According to committee spokesperson Leslie Phillips, “We’re just beginning the vetting process . . . . But we will examine him [Weinstein] carefully as we do all nominees.” It is unknown exactly when confirmation hearings will be scheduled.

Who is Allen Weinstein?

Allen Weinstein possesses strong bipartisan political connections and scholarly qualifications (For Weinstein’s official biography, tap into http://www.centerfordemocracy.org/awbio.html ). In the past, among other positions, he has served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar has worked with Weinstein for years in promoting democracy across the globe. According to the senator, Weinstein “always has had a keen understanding and perspective of the complexities of democratic societies, qualities that will serve him well as head of the agency that preserves the nation’s most important documents.” Weinstein is also undoubtedly known by Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), the ranking member of the Senate committee that will consider his nomination: Lieberman served on the board of the Center for Democracy for years.

But outside the world of Republican political activists and a small circle of historians of espionage, Weinstein is not very well known by many academics. He is also a virtual unknown to archivists. Though he possesses fine academic training and qualifications, Weinstein has not been a member of either the Organization of American Historians or the American Historical Association for years, essentially since his career turned to that of being an activist in the field of foreign relations and international service.

Several historians and journalists familiar with Weinstein’s scholarly and popular writings (especially relating to the contentious Alger Hiss case and Soviet espionage in general) and career (especially his ties to alleged “right-wing” causes) have started to express their reservations about the nominee. Former National Security Archive founder and director Scott Armstrong, for example, has characterized the White House move as “the most cynical appointment of an Archivist possible. He [Weinstein] has a very clouded, very complicated, self-promoting, neo-con, politically manipulative record . . . . While he uses historical documentation in his work, he is very selective in his use.”

Much of the controversy on Weinstein’s work relates to the disposition of his research notes and his research methods associated with his controversial book, Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case (New York: Random House, 1978, rev. 1998) and a more recent work, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—the Stalin Era (New York: Random House, 1999). His book on the Alger Hiss case is considered in many circles as definitive. Because Weinstein concluded that Alger Hiss was Soviet spy, he earned the wrath of Hiss’s defenders but, at the same time, Weinstein found himself embraced by conservatives for the same reasons. Perjury served as his entree into the world of conservative causes and financing which Weinstein has tapped throughout the years to help underwrite his various projects. (For interesting reading focusing on the records-related issues regarding “Perjury,” tap into: <http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19971103&s=navasky>.)

More controversial questions arise out of a more recent study in which allegedly Weinstein (or his publisher) paid a fee to the KGB for “exclusive access” to documents that no other historians have been able to see relating to Soviet espionage in America. Historian Ellen Schrecker writes about Weinstein’s role in a payment to the KGB that resulted in the crafting of The Haunted Wood coauthored by Weinstein and former KGB agent Alexander Vassiliev. For more on this controversial issue, see: <http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=19990524&s=schrecker>.) Schrecker notes “this sort of research is not the kind that inspires confidence within the scholarly community” and it raises “ethical questions.”

In recent interviews, including one with New York Times reporters, Weinstein did not address allegations regarding his records practices opting to reserve discussion of that until his Senate confirmation hearings. Weinstein did, however, forthrightly respond to the widely publicized allegation relating to the $100,000 fee paid for special access to records that facilitated the writing of The Haunted Wood, calling it “total slander.” Weinstein admitted that his publisher Random House did pay a retired agent’s group for “access to files” that contributed to the writing of four books, including his own. But, “no personal money passed hands.” Nevertheless, critics continue to question the ethical ramifications of purchasing access and note that Weinstein continues to restrict access to his research notes based on those restricted files.

In addition to critics, friends and supporters are also speaking out, but in support of the Weinstein nomination. Richard Norton Smith, executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, views the present controversy as so much “faculty-lounge politics.” He views Weinstein as someone who can bridge the gap between historians and the public. He also notes that Weinstein played a role in persuading the Church of Christ, Scientist, to release the once highly restricted records of the founder of the Christian Science church, Mary Baker Eddy. Said Smith, “He [Weinstein] made the case that if the [church’s] library was going to have intellectual legitimacy, it would have to have transparency.” Stephen H. Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars, also comments that Weinstein is “a man who is capable of confronting evidence honestly and changing his mind.”

The Weinstein nomination will undoubtedly continue to spark lively discussion through the spring and possibly summer months. Hill insiders report that the upcoming November presidential election when coupled with accusations from Democrats that the Bush administration is too secretive in general, could spell difficulty for the Weinstein nomination. Even if the nominee is deemed qualified by the Senate committee assessing his qualifications, his confirmation could be held up until after the election by a single Democratic senator who could put a hold on the nomination.

Bruce Craig is director of the National Coalition for History (NCH). He can be reached at: <rbcraig@historycoalition.org>. For the NCH, he edits the weekly electronic newsletter targeted to historians and archivists—the NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCC’s web page at <http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~nch/>. To subscribe to the “NCC Washington Update,” send an e-mail message to listserv@h-net.msu.edu according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution.