From Bruce Craig of the National Coalition for History and posted on H-Net
Controversy continues to mount over the Bush administration’s nomination of Allen Weinstein to succeed John Carlin as Archivist of the United States. Press coverage in major newspapers including the Washington Post, New York Times, and other major publications and wire services such as the Associated Press has helped heighten public awareness of the issue that focuses on an apparent attempt by the White House to replace John Carlin as Archivist of the United States with a person of its own choosing.
Due in part to the publicity and to a statement of concern issued by nearly two dozen historical and archival organizations (see http://www.archivists.org/statements/weinstein.asp ), the White House effort to confirm the nominee through an “expedited” appointment process appears to have been 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 incoming weeks. 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.”
In the meantime, evidence that the nomination was initiated more by the White House rather than by Carlin’s desire to step down prior to summer 2005 continues to grow. When reporters queried about allegations that Carlin was being forced out, the White House issued a 19 December 2003letter signed by John Carlin in which the Archivist states his intention to resign in the future and urges the White House to begin a “smooth transition of leadership.” NCH sources inside NARA report that the letter was requested of Carlin by the White House with some critical parts being “essentially dictated.” When asked by reporters whether the 19 December letter was generated by the White House, Carlin declined, through a spokesperson, to comment whether he is leaving voluntarily.
Statements to the press by the nominee himself, however, are suggestive of the reliability of the insider’s assertion. When asked by Washington Post reporter George Lardner exactly when the nominee was approached by the White House, Weinstein stated that he was contacted by the administration about his nomination in the “fall” of 2003, weeks if not months prior to the crafting of Carlin’s intention to resign letter.
While the selection may well be partly driven by politics, in interviews with press representatives Weinstein declared that “I am not in anybody’s pocket and I am committed to maximum access. “He states he is a registered Democrat — “a raving moderate” and that “the National Archives as far as I am concerned, works for the American people and is not a creature of the administration.
“Critics note that while Weinstein may be a registered Democrat, The Right Web, a watchdog group that profiles right-wing organizations and includes on its lists Weinstein’s Center for Democracy, documents the nominee’s ties to conservative groups and funding institutions and notes that his wife Diane Weinstein, is legal counsel to former Vice-President Dan Quayle.
Discussion also continues about the nominee’s credentials. Friends and supporters are beginning to speak out 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 sees 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.
“Critics, however, continue to raise questions about some of Weinstein’s scholarly practices. In the past, the nominee has been criticized for his record on providing access to his research notes used in writing two controversial books about Soviet espionage. According to American University history professor Anna K. Nelson, “his history of sharing information is not all that great.
“In an interview with New York Times reporters, Weinstein did not address allegations regarding his records practices and opted to reserve discussion of that until his Senate confirmation hearings. He did, however, forthrightly respond to the widely publicized allegation that he or his publisher paid the KGB some $100,000 for special access to records that facilitated the writing of his latest book, “The Haunted Wood.” “That’s a total slander” declared Weinstein, though he 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” he stated. 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.
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, 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 senator who could put a hold on the nomination.