Monday, September 15, 2014

Fellow Traveler Drew Pearson

It is easy to mock Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias in the new journalism game for their obvious bias, the Journolist coordination, their femininity, and the visible steps to progressive punditry. They are anointed as policy brains by the media with no actual policy innovation. They are just spokesmen meant to guide the public for academic and lobbyist policy makers. A minion of theirs, Dylan Matthews, went from Harvard (writing in the Crimson while there) to WaPo (added to Journolist) and now to Vox. He is 24 and a tool for the progressives. We see this now, but has it always been this way? This college commie to media commie move is old, and just more overt and in the open now. If you read about the intrigues of Congressional investigations into subversion, the career arc of Drew Pearson reads similar to our modern journalists.

The son of a professor, Drew Pearson went to Swarthmore College after attending Phillips Exeter. After leaving Swarthmore, he served in the Quaker organization the American Friends Service Committee, which has often been investigated or generally accused of being a communist front. Pearson was an FDR fan and was a foreign interventionist, arguing against isolationism. Pearson was critical of the US not creating a second front to relieve the USSR, he attacked Douglas MacArthur whenever possible, he made up stories on Patton, he attacked anti-Soviet Secretary of Defense James Forrestal (some blamed Pearson for Forrestal's suicide) and most odd, hired David Karr as his chief aide. We will get back to Karr.


Pearson was an effective attack dog for the internal commie interests. When the Truman State Department was shaping up, Pearson attacked Undersecretary Joseph Grew relentlessly over his comments on Japan or his lack of unwavering adulation for the USSR. Grew was asked to resign, and Dean Acheson took his spot. With the early post-war era forcing the Secretary of State into an international nation hopping job, the Undersecretary role was critical with setting up methods, departments and simple operations. This all happened as the war wound down and the State absorbed many individuals from OSS and OWI; many who were suspected communists or would be revealed as such or other security threats.

David Karr was originally David Katz. David Karr was also a KBG source for decades. Karr made good money through his connections to Armand Hammer. Karr also acted as a go between for years for Senator Ted Kennedy and Soviet leadership. Karr was supposedly cleared (this is even noted years later in Jack Anderson's memoir) despite being kicked out of government service, yet we know now that all the suspicions were correct. Karr replaced Andrew Older as Pearson's chief aide and leg man. Older was named a Communist Party member in HUAC testimony. Karr was a verified commie. This was one of McCarthy's charges at Pearson. Why is this journalist defending communists at every turn, attacking those who point out communist subversion and has commies as  sidekicks? McCarthy died in 1957. Pearson worked decades more.

Pearson was very active in his attacks on McCarthy. Unlike other media members, he did it from day one. Pearson had a history of this as he had attacked Congressman Martin Dies who started up the HUAC and Congressman John Parnell Thomas who was chairman of HUAC, who dared try to face communist subversion. Pearson would scrape up dirt on the figure to smear the accuser. Pearson went after Secretary of Defense Forrestal because he was anti-communist and in Pearson's words, "the most dangerous man in America". Pearson used personal attacks. Forrestal committed suicide; Pearson lived for decades. The best defense for his fellow travelers was a steady offense of attacking McCarthy. McCarthy whipped up the public to boycott Pearson's radio show (sounds familiar), and Pearson eventually dropped off radio. He won in the end though as the rest of the Operation Mockingbird figures chipped in and Ike leaked information to help submarine McCarthy. Weird that the CIA's program Mockingbird would allow such a fellow into its circle. Jack Anderson, a Pearson partner, had worked for the OSS and then was part of the CIA's Mockingbird program. He had been a McCarthy friend and used McCarthy as a source, but Pearson hated McCarthy from day one. Anderson brought stories of reported communists to Pearson, using McCarthy's information. Pearson would not print the stories because he did not trust McCarthy's motives. Eventually, Pearson, with his communist aide, would convince Anderson of the need to stop McCarthy. The rest of the Mockingbird crew followed.



Is it better that these types are out in the open now or cloaked in false objectivity like then? They can be open now because they rule completely. The media claims objectivity but only the most na├»ve or dumbest amongst us believe this. Pearson is the perfect example of the ideological fellow traveler bias that goes unreported everywhere but extreme examples like MSNBC and Fox News. "What liberal media" the progressives cry out, but how can one avoid the biases of every individual who forms our media corps. We all have biases. The social justice warriors tell us that we have privileges and constructs that I could never have dreamed of, yet they affect us in everything we do. There might be more honesty today, which is an improvement.

Was Pearson a Soviet Agent of influence? No. He was a homegrown and fostered commie working for the home team of communists that took over with the New Deal. Pearson has too many ties to the communists and too much fellow traveler behavior to not raise eyebrows and cause all Americans to question the official McCarthy story. It is not a matter of McCarthy being right, but of how horrible the first draft of history was due to the bias of the men holding the pen. Pearson was not an open communist, but defended them at every step. Pearson did not just do it to him but to everyone who went after communist security risks. Those were Pearson's friends, and McCarthy was his enemy. To schoolchildren and the paper reading public, those called to answer questions became the good guys while McCarthy the villain because as Pearson told Jack Anderson, McCarthy "was a bad man". McCarthy's motives are pure evil and not to be trusted because Pearson and his ilk say so, yet no one ever questioned Pearson.

10 comments:

PA said...

"Is it better that these types are out in the open now or cloaked in false objectivity like then?"

An open enemy is better than a false friend.

But your question brings to mind something else that today is cloaked in false friendship, if objectivity is not the applicable quality here: the Republican party.

nikcrit said...

ok,
but there's always been a pipeline between elite universities and plum national media gigs, right out of the gate, too.
And that's true for both Dems and Gops, though you may not feel like siding with that lib-con dichotomy, per-PA's comment above.

Just a reminder; you didn't really point out the bipartisan element of elitism and opportunism in your post essay; so i'm thinking i'm sorta restating the obvious.

Son of Brock Landers said...

I know of gop's dc methods. They getso few young people that when one shows interest they shower him with job opps and attention.

eah said...

...they shower him with job opps and attention.

Except if you're Jason Richwine and write or say or have said or have written the wrong thing(s).

Anyway that sounds rather creepy in a Jerry Sandusky sort of way.

peterike said...

From Wiki: "Pearson was born in Evanston, Illinois; his parents were Paul Martin Pearson, an English professor at Northwestern University, and Edna Wolfe."

Edna Wolfe? Was she Jewish, I wonder?

Pearson didn't take on Judaism as a religion, but so what. It's the rebellious, radical nature of Jews that makes them such relentless troublemakers. A "destroy the host you're living on" parasitism that must be genetically enabled because it's been so consistent for so long.

In any case, the FDR administration is when Communists (writ large) essentially took over the bureaucracy and have never given it back. Among his many mistakes, one of Reagan's biggest was to not totally clean house in the agencies. Putting your guy at the top doesn't mean anything. The rats just hunker down and play it cool for a while. At a minimum CIA and State needed to be flushed clean, meaning firing thousands. Never happened, and now of course it never will.

Indeed, now we're at the point where the CIA essentially spat out Obama, his mother and grand parents both being CIA ops. That doesn't surprise me. What I wonder more about is the collusion across the parties. As PA notes above, the "false friends" that are the Republicans. I'm very curious about just what drives this. Some I assume are just in sheep's clothing, pretending to be Republicans because it serves their interests. These are likely active collaborators. But I think many are just stupid and media-driven and really don't know what they are up to. They are dupes, pure and simple. You can see sometimes when they are on some typically antagonistic show like Maher or Stewart. They bumble and fumble when confronted on anything. They have no core from which to drive a coherent response.

McCain is a very fascinating case. You'd almost think he was a Manchurian candidate who got flipped at the Hanoi Hilton.

Toddy Cat said...

Good to bring this up. People tend to forget that human slime like Pearson did tremendous damage to this country, and that they indeed were Communists. Guys like Yglesias and Klein are a joke compared to Pearson; he was a lot smarter and had a lot more influence.

nikcrit said...

McCain is a very fascinating case. You'd almost think he was a Manchurian candidate who got flipped at the Hanoi Hilton.

Well, vanity too is a big factor; especially among politicians and entertainers who've tasted a bit of celebrity.
I've said it before, but I believe McCain is unique in what I sense as a very highly twinned combination of nihilism and narcissism; i'm convinced that, given his familiarity with the national political games and media, there is no way he picked Sarah Palin as a running mate not knowing what a debacle she would be electorally (it's a separate debate to opine on whether or not she DESERVED to be desecrated by the media); ain't no way a guy in his position would be unaware of what was to follow his decision...I can only conclude that his choice was a vainglorious act of poltiical sabotage. He smelled Obama's victory and decided to make it absolute------ the personal psychodynamic perhaps being that he could forevermore accredit his loss to Palin rather than himself.

McCain is a weird case; I only doubt peterike's "hanoi hilton' posit because I don't think McCain has that much true political conviction toward any ideology or strategy.
When I see him, I see pure vainglory of hte personal kind.

nikcrit said...

Indeed, now we're at the point where the CIA essentially spat out Obama, his mother and grand parents both being CIA ops. That doesn't surprise me. What I wonder more about is the collusion across the parties. As PA notes above, the "false friends" that are the Republicans. I'm very curious about just what drives this. Some I assume are just in sheep's clothing, pretending to be Republicans because it serves their interests. These are likely active collaborators...

I can't go along with this; this is where I sometimes think you dark-enlightenment types get too deterministic, i.e., are letting your disappointment and passion color your objectivity, or are just confusing the naturally thin boundary between passion and objectivity when gearing into emotionally loaded topics.

Aren't there less sinister reasons to explain current arrangements? Personally, I think you give the "just stupid and media-driven" theory short shrift.
That often explains plenty, particularly when describing political 'fence-sitters,' who make up a significant percentage of our fine citizenry.


peterike said...

Nikcrit, maybe a John McCain biography is in your future! I think "highly twinned combination of nihilism and narcissism" could be right. And the whole vainglory thing.

The Left used to love saying the personal is political, and they were probably right. Or at least, the personal drives the political. I agree that many politicians, especially those who have been at it forever, are very much preening ass-hats who feel slighted at the drop of a hat. Some long corrupted version of "honor" flows through their veins.

nikcrit said...

I know of gop's dc methods. They getso few young people that when one shows interest they shower him with job opps and attention.

I know this is a dated post now, but your above comment overlooks a lot: yeah, there's a disproportion of lib-vs-con young journalists in the elite-university-to-plum-media-gig pipeline we spoke of in the thread.
But there are elite universities that routinely churn out conservative pundits: University of Chicago is sorta one of them; Dartmouth and some of the other more obscure Ivies and near-Ivies all fit the bill; Cornell is a pretty conservative incubator, too, when it comes to journalism and other humanities matriculations, as is U of Penn to some degree.Princeton, both economically and in terms of the humanities, may be the most conservative Ivy of them all.