- The Washington Post tells us breathlessly that Katherine
Grahamís funeral today (Monday, July 23, 2001) is going to feature
an all-star cast, with "luminaries like Arthur M. Schlessinger, Jr.,
and Henry Kissinger giving the eulogies. Former Sen. John Danforth, an
Episcopal minister, is delivering the homily. Schlessinger, the history
professor and writer who has earned the title of "distorian,"
calls himself an "unreconstructed New Dealer. Kissinger was the architect
for US imperialism under the guise of Machiavellian statecraft. Thus, even
in her death, Graham is doing what she did during her life: promoting the
growth of the Leviathan state at the expense of individual liberty.
-
- It is considered inappropriate to speak ill of the dead,
and especially one whose untimely passing has brought out the "big
guns" of our society, from political to business to academic public
figures. Furthermore, I never met Kate Graham and know absolutely nothing
about her ñ except from what I read in the papers. However, I do
think that it is quite appropriate to point out that the real legacy of
Graham and her newspaper is the constant erosion of freedom that we have
seen since her ascendancy to the "throne" of the Post.
-
- By now, all of us who even marginally follow the mainstream
news know that Graham was basically a Washington socialite who was suddenly
placed in an unfamiliar role of chairman of the Washington Post Company
after her husband committed suicide in 1963. We hear how she was absolutely
unprepared for such a job, but that she courageously overcame her fears
and ultimately turned her newspaper from a mediocre local rag into one
of the most prominent in this country.
-
- Her legacies, the eulogists tell us, are the decision
to publish the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and the Postís pursuit of
the Watergate scandal in the face of "stonewalling" from the
Nixon Administration. To that, I say, "Big deal!" The Pentagon
Papers were dumped on her lap and told us very little that we had not known.
In fact, had those "papers" been absolutely honest, they would
have told us how Grahamís newspaper was one of the cheerleaders
of US involvement in the disastrous Vietnam War at a critical time. Politically,
it was a no-brainer. The Washington social and political establishment
ñ all thoroughly Democrat ñ hated Richard Nixon and although
Vietnam was a Democratic operation through and through, publishing of the
"papers" was seen as a victory against Nixon and the hated Republicans.
In other words, it was not any sort of victory for freedom of the press,
but rather just a win for Grahamís political allies.
-
- The same goes for Watergate. As everyone knows, Post
reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein pursued the trail left behind
of Nixon operatives who had bungled an attempt to break into Democratic
National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex and bug the telephone
of the DNC chairman Larry OíBrien.
-
- Again, while Grahamís support of the investigation
is admirable, it was hardly courageous. The Nixon Administration, corrupt
as it was, could pose no real threat to the Post and since Nixon was a
pariah to the Washington establishment, she was roundly supported at all
of the ubiquitous Washington dinner parties by her like-minded friends.
In other words, pursuing the Watergate scandal cost Graham absolutely nothing.
-
- It is interesting to note that the Post gave Nixonian
treatment to President Jimmy Carter and his administration. Some folks
may express surprise, since Carter was a Democrat, but since he was not
part of the Washington establishment and, in fact, ran his campaign against
Washington, it was a no-brainer again. Carter was not "one of us,"
so the Post gave reporters the green light to trash him.
-
- Contrast the coverage given to Carter with that given
to President Bill Clinton. Since the Washington Democrats loved Clintonís
wife, Hillary, and thought Bill was "sexy," he basically got
a free ride. Granted, the Post did give coverage to the Monica Lewinsky
scandal, Graham would rather have ignored it except for the fact that Michael
Issikof, a reporter for the Post-owned Newsweek, relentlessly pursued the
story, much to the chagrin of Graham and her Washington socialite allies.
-
- It is noteworthy that the Post did not pursue the weightier
matters of government misdeeds. The paperís coverage of the Waco
massacre was standard fare, which was nothing more than a rewrite of government
handouts. When others noted that John Danforth's re-enactment of the governmentís
assault on the Branch Davidian site was seriously flawed because of the
weapons and ammunition used to the re-enactment suppressed gunbarrel flashes,
the Post said absolutely nothing.
-
- Misdeeds from the Clinton Administration from outright
lawbreaking in raising campaign funds to the USAís unprovoked attacks
on Serbian civilians, the Post gave us silence. (This time, the Post did
not need the fig leaf of the Gulf of Tonkin incident ñ which itself
was contrived by Lyndon Johnson ñ to justify US attacks on another
nation.)
-
- The list goes on. On the editorial page, the Post has
been a relentless voice for squashing individual rights in the name of
state power. It was one of the first newspapers to call for the total ban
on handgun sales to private individuals, and it has been a constant voice
calling for more regulation, higher taxes, and the erosion of what is left
of the federalist system as outlined in the US Constitution.
-
- Granted, the Post has become a wonderfully chatty newspaper
since Graham took over. Readers can see the latest idiocies from Sally
Quinn, who has fawned breathlessly over the "sexiness" of nearly
every communist dictator who has lived. We can read the latest screed for
promoting abortion rights in the Postís "Lifestyle" section,
and readers can be entertained by Herblockís latest political cartoons
that have been beating the drum for the Leviathan State for a half-century.
What we wonít read in the Post is anything that smacks of promoting
individual liberties. (Like other leftists, Graham and her cohorts have
held that rights really are privileges granted by the state, which is why
the "rights" definition has been applied to things like welfare
payments, government financing of abortions, and gun control.)
-
- Grahamís death will do nothing to change the Post
or any other statist organ of modern journalism. No, by promoting growth
of the state and by helping to suppress individual liberties, Graham helped
set modern totalitarianism into motion. Her newspaper at every turn sought
to re-define the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and any other document that
outlined a responsible and limited state.
-
- What, then, in Kate Grahamís real legacy? Look
to Waco, where government employees from former Attorney General Janet
Reno to the grunts emptying their clips into a room full of women, children,
and elderly people suffered no consequences whatsoever from their evil
deeds. They did not have to fear being exposed by the press since Graham
and her allies had already decided that Orwellís Big Brother had
it right all along: Slavery is Freedom, War is Peace, and Ignorance is
Strength.
-
- Yes, we can open the Post and read Sally Quinnís
claim that Carterís National Security Advisor had left open his
fly or that Hillary Clinton wants to be another Pamela Harriman. What we
wonít read is how the expansion of the state has swallowed liberty.
We can read of the "stars" who were regulars at Grahamís
famous Georgetown dinner parties, as Graham remained the ultimate socialite
until the end. However, those who most seek to deprive individuals of their
God-given rights were Grahamís dinner party guests. I guess she
must have felt right at home with that bunch.
-
- July 24, 2001
-
- William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], is assistant
professor of economics at North Greenville College in Tigerville, South
Carolina. He is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment