Manion
-=-=-
jason doj 3?
==
an 1219
...The core of the book involves political and psychological issues, but you start off with somehistory that’s really crucial to set the stage. Our current political media environment began in the late 1990s, you explain, but the pattern was set more than a generation earlier. So how is that pattern expressed in the late ‘50s and ‘60s? How did it first emerge?
Once I started digging into this, I realized this really was the first chapter of the book, because there are things that we would consider to be the roots of, or the precursors to these dominant genres as we know them today. What was super helpful here on the right was the book by media historian Nicole Hammer, her book “Messengers on the Right” really traces this back through the 1950s.
She points to these radio show hosts that had these small followings, usually they were funded by sponsorships. They were almost like preachers — very fire-and-brimstone — talking about anti-desegregation movements, talking about how the United States needed to exit the United Nations.A lot of them were concerned about communists lurking inside the Supreme Court, or inside Washington and Congress. I’m talking about people likeClarence Manionand Dan Smoot. When you listen to these original broadcasts, they have a similar kind of clear, didactic, angry, imploring tone that is reminiscent of what we hear from our outrage hosts today.
These kinds of radio shows were really taking hold at the very same moment as our formative ironic satirists — those to whom we still refer today, and those to whom our top satirists today say, “They are the reason I got into this business” — when those individuals were engaging in their craft. We’re talking about the late 1950s into the 1960s, folks like Dick Gregory, Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl who pioneered an entirely new spirit of social and cultural commentary that was quite radical, not even liberal but radical in its orientation.The fact that those two moments coincided was something that just seemed like — this can’t be just a coincidence, that this is how these two things are articulating themselves, and that they look so similar to what we witness today in our bifurcated cable landscape.
I was struck that the outrage on the right was specifically reacting to social changes they don’t like, they feel threatened by, while on the radical side these same changes are opening up and exposing contradictions in the status quo that they probe and engage with.
They engage with them and start asking more questions about them. And the way that they’re exploring these issues is not to try to put these constructs back into boxes, but to really unpack them, and say, “Wait! Why do we even …” There’s a wonderful example I got from Ed Greenberg who’d been in The Committee and talked about the show The Cockettes, who were these sort of gender-fluid, cross-dressing men, and when he described it, he just described like just being mind-blown, thinking about “What is gender? Is gender a social construct?” To be thinking about that in the 60s like that, that is forward thinking — unpacking some of these things that we used to think of as fixed identities and exploring their truth value. That’s what I think satire is particularly gifted to do...
https://books.google.com/books?id=_pQ4DwAAQBAJ&dq=clarence+manion+radio+jbs&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Hayek: A Collaborative Biography: Part IX: The Divine Right of the 'Free' Market
edited by Robert Leeson
reed larson natl rtw w/ manion and jbs
https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=48861
Nicole Hemmer.Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics.Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press,2016.336 pp. $34.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8122-4839-5.
Reviewed by Seth Offenbach (Bronx Community College, CUNY)
Published on H-1960s (April, 2017)
Commissioned by Zachary J. Lechner (Thomas Nelson Community College)
Uncovering the First Generation of Conservative Media
Nicole Hemmer’s Messengers of the Right demonstrates that a history book can be both timeless and timely. This is a timeless book since it provides invaluable insight for any specialist who studies the 1960s and the post-World War II conservative movement and will likely be referenced and cited by scholars for many years. At the same time, nearly every page of this work is timely because it can be related to contemporary issues. In the Donald Trump era, with the rise of the so-called alt-right (or racist right) and Breitbart News, it is easy to see how "fake news” (or propaganda) websites are a continuation of earlier generations of conservative media. Messengersis the story of the first generation of conservative media, with the current crop of propaganda websites serving as the third generation. There are numerous connections between the different generations of conservative media, and many lessons from the past can be applied today.
It is a cliché to point out that there has been a tremendous growth of academic works which have complicated the story of the postwar Right.[1] Messengers demonstrates that despite this cliché, there is still more to discover about the birth of modern conservatism. Hemmer’s book focuses on “media activists” who produced newspapers, magazines, and television and radio programs. The individuals who founded these media outlets, such as William F. Buckley, Clarence Manion, and Henry Regnery, had the ultimate goal of laying the groundwork for a political movement that could help reshape American politics. These media activists “provided their audiences—readers, listeners, and viewers—with a different way of weighing evidence: a different network of authorities, a different conception of fact and accuracy, and a different way of evaluating truth-claims” (p. xiii). These activists were able to help shape a conservative identity that took root in the United States during the several decades following World War II.
Messengers focuses on the magazines Human Eventsand National Review and the radio program Manion Forum of Opinion. All three were founded between 1944 and 1955. Hemmer describes how the founders of these media organizations started their careers as politically active individuals who viewed themselves as outsiders. These individuals, primarily Manion, Regnery, and William Rusher (publisher of National Review), were active in GOP politics in the 1950s but eventually broke with President Dwight Eisenhower’s moderate Republican administration. By the end of the 1950s, they were engaged in a clear battle to pull the Republicans from the political center to the right.
Hemmer’s analysis shines brightest during her discussions of the hurdles conservative media activists had to jump over in order to make their voices heard. Specifically, she focuses on the “restrictions on speech in midcentury America” (p. 50). These restrictions stemmed from the belief, which was held by most members of the mainstream news media, that they were “objective.” Since the mainstream media described themselves as objective news-informers, this had the effect of delegitimizing the voices they deemed beyond the pale of appropriate society. Hemmer explains the challenges encountered by conservatives, both real and imagined, and how these conservative media activists were able to use their outsider status to their advantage—for instance, using it as a tool to raise more funds from companies and right-wing philanthropists (think the Koch brothers, but in the 1950s) who were ideologically and economically aligned with the Right’s political philosophy. Hemmer’s analysis of the media’s perceived objectivity and the power of the mainstream press is clearly applicable to today’s society, where alt-right fake news sites (or racist-right propagandists) view themselves as outsiders who are delegitimized by the mainstream media. The analogy to the 1950s is part of what makes this work timely.
By the end of the 1950s, Hemmer’s conservative media activists transformed themselves into political activists. Hemmer dates this transition from Soviet premier NikitaKhrushchev’s tour of the United States in 1959. Conservatives of the era were aghast at the welcome mat that Eisenhower and Vice President Richard Nixon laid out for “the butcher of Budapest” (p. 77). This event helped convince grassroots activists to get more involved in conservative politics. Shortly thereafter, the media activists began founding groups such as Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).These activists, Hemmer argues, differed from previous generations of conservatives. Because they were “national in aim, avowedly conservative in philosophy, and purportedly grassroots in nature, these organizations attracted thousands of members and through their activism, won conservatism a place on the national stage” (p. 82). They were, in short, more successful in organizing their movement, and they did this by mixing media and politics more effectively than any previous conservative group.
As conservatives gained political clout, the mainstream media began shinning a bright spotlight on the Right, which led to a national push-back. Specifically, mainstream media outlets wrote many alarming stories about groups such as the John Birch Society (JBS), which was a right-wing, anticommunist organization that saw conspiracy in many corners of society (most famously, the founder of the group accused Eisenhower of being a communist). This interest in the JBS, and the way the media tainted all conservatives because of their association with it, created problems within the conservative movement. The contemporary media’s intense focus on the alt-right in the wake of Trump’s electoral success is similar to the focus on the JBS in the early 1960s.
While the mainstream press delegitimized the Right by associating it with the JBS, Hemmer also describes the role of the federal government in opposing the rise of conservatism.This is explained in chapter 6, which is Hemmer’s best chapter, titled “The Muzzle.” It analyzes how the Fairness Doctrine, which “sprouted from a tangle of legislative and regulatory roots, a labyrinthine history that bedeviled broadcasters, Congress, and the FCC,” made it harder for conservative voices to be heard on the air (pp. 113-114). While the practical logistics of implementation of the Fairness Doctrine were a mystery, its purpose was to ensure that broadcasters covered important political and national issues from “multiple perspectives” (p. 114).In 1963, with many Americans afraid of the rise of the JBS and other right-wing organizations, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided to issue a clarification ruling about the Fairness Doctrine. This clarification convinced several radio stations to drop the Manion Forum and Dan Smoot Report (conservative radio programs) from the air for fear that the stations would be required to give away free airtime to liberal groups to create “fairness.” Hemmer’s chapter is convincing, though it leaves much room for future historical inquiry into how and why President John Kennedy and the federal bureaucracy, including the FCC and Internal Revenue Service, tried to silence the right in the early 1960s.
Despite these problems, the media activists continued to expand their influence and reach. Specifically, they gave Senator Barry Goldwater national recognition and then helped him win the Republican presidential nomination in 1964. Hemmer describes how Goldwater’s campaign was “one in which media activists emerged as powerful political brokers, advisers, sloganeers, strategists, and intermediaries between the candidate and the base” (p. 165). The passionate support for Goldwater translated into a lot more money for the rapidly growing pool of conservative media activists. This was, as Hemmer describes, both a blessing and a curse, as the marketplace of conservative media quickly became saturated, which caused donations from the grassroots to dry up. Hemmer’s research on the fundraising apparatus is top-rate, and her footnotes will be of great use to scholars studying the funds which underwrote postwar conservatism.
The rise of modern conservatism was further complicated with the election of Richard Nixon to the presidency in 1968. The media activists whom Hemmer analyzes were divided about whether to support Nixon; however, Hemmer notes that he was the first major-party nominee to woo them, which helped sway their support. But by 1972, they were enraged by his policies, especially his decision to visit the People’s Republic of China. Thus, they played a role in convincing Representative John Ashbrook (R-OH) to oppose Nixon in the primary campaign of 1972. Ashbrook was sorely defeated. Messengers discusses the opposition to Nixon and Ashbrook’s fascinating campaign in about four pages, leaving future historians room to expand on and analyze the topic more fully.
Finally, Messengershas two basic concluding chapters. The first begins with chapter 11, “The Contraction,” where Hemmer describes the decline of the first generation of conservative media activists. She includes several interesting stories about the decline of the Right along with detailed circulation numbers. The problem, as she describes it, is that in the early 1970s the media activists were angry about the political climate in the country and clear about what changes they wanted to see, but they had lost touch with both populist anger and Washington insiders. This idea that the first generation of conservative activists struggled mightily in the early 1970s, despite having a Republican president, requires more historical attention. Hemmer’s analysis is interesting. Despite seeing much evidence of this problem in various primary sources, it is the first time I can recall reading about it within the secondary literature. I look forward to future scholarly debate about the topic.
Messengers’s other concluding chapter is chapter 12, “The Comeback,” which describes the rise of the New Right in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Hemmer identifies Richard Viguerie, Terry Dolan, Howard Phillips, and Jerry Falwell as the leaders of the New Rightand she defines this group as being an oppositional, pro-life, pro-guns movement which helped propel Ronald Reagan to the presidency and then began criticizing many of his decisions once in office. This, not surprisingly, drove the first generation of media activists, who are at the heart of Hemmer’s study, crazy, since Reagan was the ideological president they had long been craving. Unfortunately for them, they no longer had the support or stature to oppose the New Right’s leaders.
Hemmer’s work does not explore the history of religious conservative broadcasters such as Carl McIntire and Billy James Hargis. She does offer a useful explanation as to why they are absent, specifically, that the media personalities rarely coordinated or worked together. Still, as she declares, they shared many audience members and studying them would have made this a more complete book.[2] Hemmer was able to include a fascinating number of lesser-known conservative activists who are rarely mentioned in the secondary literature. DB Lewis, the National Federation of Conservative Organizations, and Walter Harnischfeger are examples of just two individuals and a group that Hemmer integrates into her book but which few other historians have.
Overall, Messengersis an excellent historical account of how the conservative movement grew from a fringe group of former political activists into a mainstream movement that captured the White House. Hemmer’s primary source research, which took her to numerous archives and exposed her to large quantities of conservative media content, will propel the field. The study is also important because it is a political work about conservatives, written by a liberal academic, which neither demonizes nor canonizes conservatives and their ideals. Hemmer’s analysis and writing is evenhanded throughout the manuscript, which is not always the case for scholars who study modern conservatism.
Additionally, Hemmer’s topic is very topical and will help people better understand the changes taking place in the United States today. Since Trump’s election in November 2016, many academic groups, including the Organization of American Historians and The Chronicle of Higher Educationhave begun putting together lists of works explaining the rise of “Trump’s America.” Hemmer’s work is mandatory historical reading for anyone putting together such a syllabus.
Notes
[1]. Geoffrey Kabaservice, Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party, Studies in Postwar American Political Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Joyce Mao, Asia First: China and the Making of Modern American Conservatism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015); D. J. Mulloy, The World of the John Birch Society: Conspiracy, Conservatism, and the Cold War (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2014); Michelle M. Nickerson, Mothers of Conservatism: Women and the Postwar Right (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012); Sandra Scanlon, The Pro-War Movement: Domestic Support for the Vietnam War and the Making of Modern American Conservatism (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2013).
[2]. For more information on the rise of the religious Right, one could read: Ronald Lora and William Henry Longton, eds., The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999); Daniel K. Williams, God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); and Neil J. Young, We Gather Together: The Religious Right and the Problem of Interfaith Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).
clarence Manion(July 7, 1896 – July 29, 1979) was an Americanconservativeradio talk show host and dean of theNotre Dame Law School. He hosted the radio showManion Forumwhich later aired on television.
He died from complications of a stroke on July 29, 1979, in South Bend, Indiana at age 83.[1][2]
References
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Clarence Manion, a Conservative And Ex‐Law Dean at Notre Dame". The New York Times. 1979-07-29. Retrieved 2016-10-22.
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Clarence E. Manion dead at 83; host of radio forum". Archives.chicagotribune.com. 1979-07-29. Retrieved 2016-10-22.
External references
- Hemmer, Nicole (2016). Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780812248395.
Authority control  |
- 1896 births
- 1979 deaths
- American political commentators
- American talk radio hosts
- Conservative talk radio
==
obit
Ind., July 28 (AP) Clarence E. Manion, former dean of the University of Notre Dame Law School and founder of the conservative Manion Forum on radio and television, died today at St. Joseph's Hospital. He was 83 years old and has suffered a stroke two weeks ago.
Mr. Manton, who also practiced law in South Bend, was a professor of constitutional law at Notre Dame for 25 years and dean of the school from 1941 to 1952. In 1953, President Eisenhower appointed him to head the Inter‐Governmental Relations Commission, and the next year he founded the weekly Manion Forum radio commentaries, which were later televised.
Survivors include his widow, Virginia, and a son, Daniel, a Republican State Senator from South Bend. Services will be held Tuesday.
==
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_ManionClarence Manion - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manion
:{:(style="border-color:rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:1. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6cwLX5rCUFMJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manion+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
- https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Manion+clarence+manion+radio+jbs&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB07X2l7HeAhVjk-AKHQVLDREQHzAAegQICRAF
Missing: ~~jbs~~ | Must include: jbs
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-dame.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-dame.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-dame.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-dame.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-dame.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-dame.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-dame.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-dame.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-dame.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-dame.htmlClarence Manion, a Conservative And Ex‐Law Dean at Notre Dame ...
https://www.nytimes.com/.../clarence-manion-a-conservative-and-exlaw-dean-at-notre-d...
Jul 29, 1979 -Manion, Clarence E. ... Law School and founder of the conservative Manion Forum onradio and television, died today at St. Joseph's Hospital.
Missing: ~jbs~ | Must include: jbs
http://www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741
http://www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741http://www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741http://www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741http://www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741http://www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741http://www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741http://www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741http://www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741http://www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741Clarence Manion papers, 1922-1979, (Archival material, 1922 ...
www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741
:{:(style="border-color:rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:1. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:m0-JP2DwDBQJ:www.worldcat.org/title/clarence-manion-papers-1922-1979/oclc/28496741+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Missing: ~~jbs~~ | Must include: jbs
http://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xml
http://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xmlhttp://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xmlhttp://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xmlhttp://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xmlhttp://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xmlhttp://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xmlhttp://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xmlhttp://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xmlhttp://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xmlClarence Manion Papers - Notre Dame Archives - University of Notre ...
archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xml
:{:(style="border-color:rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:1. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ky73EkqlDLQJ:archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xml+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
- https://www.google.com/search?q=related:archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xml+clarence+manion+radio+jbs&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB07X2l7HeAhVjk-AKHQVLDREQHzADegQIBBAF
:{slick willie II with db stone abc:(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:
:{:(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:
:{now Bb:(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:http://www.breitbart.com/author/cmanion/
https://www.google.com/search?q=related:archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xml+clarence+manion+radio+jbs&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB07X2l7HeAhVjk-AKHQVLDREQHzADegQIBBAF
https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/christopher-manion/
https://www.google.com/search?q=related:archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/mnn.xml+clarence+manion+radio+jbs&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB07X2l7HeAhVjk-AKHQVLDREQHzADegQIBBAF
Let’s say Trump wins with 279 electoral votes. For Hillary’s “sh*t agitators,” that means 279 juicy targets.
Over the years, most electoral slates comprise dependable backers of their party – which is the problem that the media will immediately create, and then exploit.
Now let’s suppose, that, on the day after the election, all those electors firmly intend to cast their vote for Donald Trump.
That doesn’t mean that they will.
After all, many of those hard and party activists constitute the very establishment that Trump ran against in the primaries as well as the general election. Well, they might be persuaded to have second thoughts.
The identity of electors is public knowledge.
The Clinton Sh*t Kickers can take a variety of approaches to persuade electors in the various Trump states to come to their senses, reconsider, and either vote for Hillary (on the basis of new, “shocking” revelations regarding Trump), or throw their vote away and throw the election into the House of Representatives, safely run by Paul Ryan or Nancy Pelosi.
In those forty days before December 19, an avalanche of “public” (read: Establishment) pressure will focus on a small number of people who will be totally unprepared and unprotected.
But even that campaign might not work. So what other avenues of persuasion are available?
Enter Obama.
In this enterprise, the National Narcissist will not stand idly by. He has the key to that escape hatch. It’s called the NSA.
Don’t think for a moment that the man who corrupted the “incorruptible” FBI cannot corrupt the NSA, which is full of criminal hackers recruited by clandestine overlords who routinely and secretly break the law simply because they can.
Quickly, the digital dossiers of those 279 Trump electors will be on the desk of Michelle Obama’s library in her private White House quarters, the same desk on which over 100 FBI files of those on Hillary’sEnemies Listmysteriously turned up some 20 years ago.
279 electors. “All we need is ten,” David Axelrod might observe: he might even say so in public, sending a simple message to those electors: “is there anything in your past that you might want to keep private? We have it all, you know.”
Ah – but let us further suppose that the GOP has fielded 279 resilient and stalwart citizens who refuse to be blackmailed, who have nothing to hide.
Okay, enough of that.
Christopher Manion earned a Ph.D. in government from Notre Dame University, and has taught in departments of Politics, Religion, and International Relations at Boston University, the Catholic University of America, and Christendom College. For many years he was the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, chaired by the late Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).
For 10 years, Christopher Manion was a weekly columnist and contributing editor at The Wanderer newspaper. He has been a contributing editor and music critic for Saturday Review and High Fidelity magazines, and his op-eds and book reviews have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, The Journal of Economic Development,the National Catholic Register, and Western Horseman.
He is on the boards of the American Foreign Policy Council and the Population Research Institute, founded by the late Rev. Paul Marx, and was a founding Fideicomisario (Trustee) of Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala. He is a Knight of Magistral Grace in the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta. He and his family reside in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia.
==
dunno if related
==
The network was a conservative dream made real
To understand Fox News today, you have to place it in the context of the growth of right-wing media over the past half-century. When the network went live 20 years ago, it was the fulfillment of a decades-long dream for conservatives, who had been eyeing television for decades, believing it was key to changing both the political and media landscape.
But TV continually confounded them. In the 1960s, a few conservative radio programs, like the Manion Forum and The Dan Smoot Report – hosted by Clarence Manion and Dan Smoot — had complementary television shows, but they reached tiny audiences and were short-lived.
Why was television so hard to crack? Bias was the pet theory of many conservatives, including D.B. Lewis, a dog food manufacturer who sponsored the Manion and Smoot shows in California. He believed the main barrier to conservative programming was the networks’ unwillingness to syndicate controversial right-wing shows. There was something to the idea — or, at least, local station owners believed the same thing. They refused to sell Lewis time for Smoot and Manion’s programs, fearing they would alienate their established audiences and drive away advertisers.
The right’s frustration over this blackout led to the first attempt to establish a conservative television network. The project, undertaken in 1965, was the brainchild of David Dye, a businessman from Lubbock, Texas. Believing that all media was "dominated by liberal and internationalist managements," Dye founded Medias Unlimited, whose main purpose was to organize conservative shareholders to take over a major network....
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/4/13518350/republican-party-turmoil-fox-news-ailes
==
INVISIBLE HANDS
PHILLIPS-FEIN
Col U R Hofstader says rw: ...wldest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstiotions, the most bizarre apocalytic fansties" p x
pol economy has provided victories, not cult conserv?
du pont bros opposed prohbition b/c liq tax would make inc tax lower; also worried about investigation of wwi profittering. one quit nat'l labort bd b/c stikes prolif (1800 involving 1.4 mil workers). one vp complained his black servants quitting for better oppourinuites p4. ot really old $, made miost ww1 and 20's. du ponts met w pals to create org to ally w/ Am Legion and KKK to defend Const p 10, Am Liberty League; 1st ok w/ FDR but split on SS (lawyer defende milk co from unfair siezing // now? pal of EKodak head
NAM became big ~ to new deal, ~ union; lost members b/c of GD, but by '37 spend 1/2 on PR to bost free enterprie, but also went after unnions opposed Wagner Act and publized Mowhawk Valley Formula 15.
GM, goodyear chrysler and Rep Stell stocked tar gas (some machine guns: sen report 1939 "indusrial Munitions".
by 40's nam caLIMED THOUSANDS "sentinels" to prosletze for mkt 15.
USCoC supported fdr's nra; Read FEE and Mullendore latter wantdto fight new deal) . So scared ND tools wd be used ~ segrration. du ponts had co unions, big progits in WW11. piere du ont gave $ to black educ but favored segreration
Wm G Sumner social darwinist 26 but discredited by GD 39. FEE not so much pro biz as pro mkt 27
lots of strikes 1945-6
Mises thot supply-demand perfect way to get socal order w/o coersion 34. LSE say hayek as challenge to keynes, but latter could make big pile of $ in mky in 30 min and write the rest of day 35 (bloomsbury Cir)
Austrians see mkt as too complex to mess w/ [systems thinkers?] did not carethat much it wd prduce stuff tho they thot it wd) but led to freedom. 3 co 86's road to serfdon before U of Chic, reader's digst
Mont Pelerin Piere Goodrich not relateds to co) FEE Grede was JBS. Gen (PI) Robt E Wood (wwi and panama canal; had plan to raise 400K for ctr revo ussr p 83)pres of Sears, milliken and be hutchenson (united fruit).
Ike thot gov shd restain excesses of corps 57, so called a collectivist or worse. NAM et al shocked he was not ~ new deal
r Welch vp of NAM in 58 started JBS
Lockheed started ~ commie ed pgms for workers
AEI phylis S aftr MA radcliffe. congress found nely all $ from GM, ford, chysler and con ed 61 and du pont bro. flondered by GE exec took over (later gen dynamics) who hired barody, who built web of funders. pitched that left bain trusts not an acient, so need ~. in 62 added GE, socony obil, US steel, krewsge and lilly fdn P&G. tried to cast unions as monoply, royal? and did not raise waG4ES.
Rand thot helping poor dangrous to capitalism 68
Pew, pres of Sun Oil alarmed at eur stle xian socialism (niebuhr) funded Spiritiual Mobilization; graham and hrgis also wanted to combine biz w/ xian; fiflield LA megachurch? soc darwiist and racist. argued that salvation was incentive like profit) // AR that altruism cd lead to gov't interention 74
xian efforts funded by chryslr, colgate, gm, gulf oil , sears USsteel. later under uk gerald heard, got into spiritualism and LSD 76. shut down 1961
billy g anti commie
WFB sr oil man in mexico during revo. caholic. jr 2nd bk defended McC. Roger Miliken pal at yale; lost mill vote, shut down, cts ruled ~ 24 yrs later)
Radio: Manion Forum ran 20 xyears? fear is essential" on nat'l rev bd
unions: 47-73 wages rose, creating a middle class 88, but many strikes in 50's; co wd progandize, fire organizers or move pplants (mex too expenseive b/c of tariffs for a while). SS made for higher emploer taxes but weakened hold on workers.
GE merger by JPM to reduce competition, but ceos swope and young pretty progresive (swope maried by Jane Addams) 91. hired PFR co to promote liberating " elecrical consciousmess" logo like firend. swope supported fdr. but next wave ceos came up during 20's, nat'l wave of strikes only a mo after VJ day, crested in 46. GE stikers controlled plant. cops on horse and cyles "Cossacks" grabbed flag (lots ofvets, Am alegion supported, mayors, rest onerss fed, so caved.
LR Boulware hired b/c his facs did not strike; college educated, never worked in fac. boosted co image w/ charity; new atragy to not negotiate: look at mkt Iahem) and set terms, take or leqave, thus unions never win concesions 100-1. also made co into free mky school, gave scripts on how to respond to complaints. tried o xtend to community , buyt clergy hard sell. oldrr mgr ent to hinterlands and college kids who never worked gotten and inc entive structure 103.'
late 50's CTT NAM and rwi supported ~ union efforts. w/ ike NLRB went right and cahnged rules: legal to ay tie up election results.
claimed not wages but gov control the aim of unions. right to work swpt western sytates
electr unions split over ow much politics to do. In f/u strike, GE had secs pose as union wives.
RR paid by GE 125,000 to give speeches to employees, got more pol. progresive tax idea of karl marx, slavery on installment plan 114
for year, deport for workers, interrogste 1:1 for hours about membership, captive aud during working hrs to sermonize 105.
BG supported cu tariffs to protect Az co's,in 50's member of NAACP
Kohler strike '47 wounded 2 kia, Manion backed co. BG brought UAW head to testify 3 days tho no evience behind violence, PR coup. Manion opposed Brown v, manion suggested book ghosted by bozell; went to co's to subscribe. bozell kin of wfb catholic, so claimed rw not mechanistic economic theory but non-mat'l. 128 welfare state make us into dependent animal w/o us seeing 129