It would be easy to judge Whittaker Chambers as a traitor to freedom or something, but that isn't exactly true to the narrative he tells us (although the reader must choose whether they trust Chamber's words). At least in the narrative that he explains to the reader, it seems that he was merely a person whose innocence and lack of experience left him open to manipulation. When the Russians asked him to be a spy, the Americans were continually harassing him for being politically liberal. So he made a mistake, thinking that he was standing up for the little guy.
That's what he admits, anyway. If he knowingly sabotaged the US government and intentionally invited Russian interference, than of course, history should hold him responsible for those decisions, but the more important lesson here is actually not related to Communism specifically.
Anyone can become politically radical. To have an unpopular opinion will certainly make anyone into a target for public ridicule, criticism, and even humiliation. But when Chambers experienced his disenfranchisement as a thoughtful, independent youth, he fell for a trap. He was wise enough to be critical of Capitalism, but can Russia say their history of Communism is healthy and well?
Therefore, Chambers became a spy because he was naïve, at least if the reader trusts this story. When the Pumpkin Papers are produced to condemn Alger Hiss, however, one must wonder, why would someone so admittedly impressionable have stored up evidence to condemn their friends? Perhaps the very testimony itself points to an issue in Chambers's voice: Because he was a liar and a spy, it is nearly impossible to believe anything he says.
