Category Archives: Extremism

The Fertilizer of Resentment

 

One element that clever radio host constantly took advantage of was the sense of embattlement—that everyone was out to get you.  The pundits delivered this and the people loved it. There was a common feeling among people in America, particularly, in rural America, that the elites held them in contempt and eagerly ridiculed them. By the 1960s, according to Justin Ling, “this was a learned habit.

 

This sense of resentment was the common denominator of hordes of talk radio listeners. It was the water in which they swam. And as we have learned at least since Friedrich Nietzsche. Resentment is a shockingly powerful force, never to be under estimated.

 

The advent of FM radio opened up the radios for excellent music. But that did not kill AM radio. Far from it. Because that left AM radio open for those who wanted to produce political hate. National networks could be created for super cheap. This was a golden opportunity for those who wanted to use radio.

 

Paul Matzko wrote the book called The Radio Right: How a Band of Broadcasters Took on the Federal Government and Built the Modern Conservative Movement. He wrote about how in recent years trust in traditional media has declined sharply. As a result many people in North America no longer believe what they hear or see on traditional or mainstream media and have started to turn to “echo chambers” where they see themselves reflected. This has led in turn to the ideology of their group cementing the bonds of the group. According to Matzko this is not the first time this has happened.

 

In his book Matzko writes about the far right that was frustrated by what they saw as liberal bias in the mainstream media. This started with what many of them thought  of as a sycophantic relationship between the media and the administration of John F. Kennedy. The media saw Kennedy as their golden boy from Harvard, rich, liberal, educated, and haughty. The media liked this. The people who resented this turned in reaction to news and particularly commentary from a resurgent ultra-conservative mass media on the radio.  Truckers in particular, driving across the country took up the right-wing causes with passion and exuberance. I have taliked to some of them. Networks turned to television so radio provided a home for hundreds of popular right-wing radio programs, programmers and pundits. The more bombastic the better. There was not premium for moderation. Extreme opinions were in vogue.

It is also interesting that resentment has never stopped from being a critical force in the right-wing movement down to present times. It is constantly triggered by modern Fox News pundits like Sean Hannity and former Fox host Tucker Carlson.

There is no better fertilizer for political hate than resentment and the right-wing knew how to take advantage of that. And they still do. 

 

White Supremacy: The Engine of the Right

 

After the revival of right wing talk radio that followed the abolition of the fairness doctrine, there was a steep rise in radio stations that catered to and even created the New Right.  This phenomenon was under appreciated, but it was real. “it was a torrent. You could listen to right-wing radio for 24 hours.”

Here was an early sample of such right-wing opinion heard on  one of the right-wing  talk radio shows : “The NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] is using the American negro to advance some liberal white men’s political bias.” The racial element of course is not accidental. From the outset, white supremacy was a vital part of right-wing radio, just as it is today and just as it is on right-wing cable television such as Fox News, and of course the Internet which has come to supercharge racism among the right. White supremacy has been an engine of right-wing media and hence right-wing opinion.  As one commentator said on the CBC podcast the Flamethrowers,

That was new on national radio on a consistent basis in the 1960s. There were more than a dozen broadcasters that aired on more than 100 stations nation-wide by the 1960s. And for every one of the national guys there were dozens of local guys who were on 10 stations or 20 stations or 3 stations. ” They really were ubiquitous.

This was very profitable because these right-wing pundits didn’t need to bother with high production, research, or expensive programming. They loved to shoot from the hip. The listeners loved to hear them shoot from the hip. This was win-win for the owners of right-wing radio stations as the people soaked it up with irrational exuberance. All they needed to do was throw a bit of flame. It would inevitably find suitable timber and start a firestorm of some sort over some current right-wing issue close to the heart of its listeners.

Racist comments were particularly prevalent. And particularly popular. Racism is the unacknowledged driver of American right-wing talk radio. The entire right-wing movement has not acknowledged the significance of this ugly fact, but racism repeatedly shows its ugly racist side.

The Revival of Talk Radio and the Far Right

 

 

The Radio Right provides the essential pre-history for the last four decades of conservative activism, as well as the historical context for current issues of political bias and censorship in the media.

 

After the disintegration of the Fairness doctrine by the Carter administration in the US in the late 70s , and the revival of talk radio that quickly followed,  suddenly radio stations on the right and left had a lot of bandwidth to dole out to attract listeners. It was also possible to create a national network with very little investment.

National networks could be created for super cheap funds. This was a golden opportunity for those who wanted to use radio. And radio entrepreneurs did exactly that. They invested and some of them got very rich.

There were a lot of people who resisted the apparent political consensus the political parties had reached in the 1950s.  These people resisted that consensus. Some Americans thought the political elites were just ganging up against them.

Especially at night they reached homes, cars, and particularly truckers. The first time I heard about this phenomenon was from a trucker I knew He told me how he loved to listen to Rush Limbaugh. At the time I knew nothing about Limbaugh.  Later I learned a lot about him.

This opened the way for ordinary grass roots citizens who were unhappy with the political consensus of the 1950s to call in to a radio show and voice their opinions and gain some satisfaction from that engagement. These people felt connected to each other and a national movement. Their yearning to belong was deeply satisfied. AM radio did not have a lot of range during the day, but at night clear channel stations could pump out 50,000 watts. They were called “flame throwers” as a result.  That was an apt description for what they did.

Homes, cars, and truckers could be reached easily and cheaply across the country. This was a massive audience. And unlike television they did not have to sit passively and watch. They could participate—by calling in. They could join in. They were not longer passive consumers, they were active participants.  Long-distance truckers could drive right across the country listening to talk radio all the way. And it was interesting. I have listened.  The hosts knew how to generate interest.  They were masters of engagement. Unlike social media giants they did not need algorithms.  These people were the livestock for those algorithms. As Matzko said, “that sense of interconnectedness across time and space is very powerful for social movement organizations, and political movement organizations.”]  Not only that, in my opinion that was a vitally significant force establishing the bonds for religious organizations—i.e. political religions that were created. Such social connection could create a very valuable asset—true believers! All that was needed was a spark.

And there were sparks.

The right wing pundits knew how to produce sparks; the left wing pundits were too boring for that.

Creating True Believers

 

Many of the radio broadcasters of the far right talk shows  originally  were clergy, including Carl McIntire, Billy James Hargis, Clarence Manion, and many others. An umbilical connection between religion and politics was also nourished. The more conservative the religion the better. Conservative politics met conservative religion and the offspring were often inbred monsters.

Many of these religious pundits did not agree on religion, except that what united them was opposition to hated liberal theology. They wanted that old time religion. They also hated the superior John F. Kennedy at least until he died. Then they forgave him for his sins. Their politics was grassroots conservative activism on a huge scale. Kennedy multiplied the audits of radio stations after he worked hard to introduce the fairness doctrine.

 The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), was first introduced in 1949 and it was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. It sounded good in theory but was sometimes difficult in actual circumstances.

It was a dog a dog whistle for the conservative right. It did actually tamp down right-wing radio until Jimmy Carter, an evangelical liberal, which seems very odd these days, brought in de-regulation of the airwaves and allowed right wing radio to be born again. This formed the foundation for the golden age of right-wing hate ushered in under the near divine regime of  Saint Ronnie Regan. It also reinforced the views of the conservatives that modern media was biased against them, not an entirely fictious belief.

Paul Matzko tells in his history of talk radio showed how Kennedy reacted to the hatred by sending tax auditors to harass conservative broadcasters who reacted with more and more venom.  He relates how, by 1963, Kennedy was so alarmed by the rise of the Radio Right that he ordered the Internal Revenue Service and Federal Communications Commission to target conservative broadcasters with tax audits and enhanced regulatory scrutiny via the Fairness Doctrine. Right-wing broadcasters lost hundreds of stations and millions of listeners. Not until the deregulation of the airwaves under the Carter and Reagan administrations would right-wing radio regain its former prominence and then it did so with a vengeance when it discovered its magic elixir–hate.

 

Building the Right-wing movement

 

The advent of FM radio opened up the radios for excellent music. But that did not kill AM radio. Far from it. Because that left AM radio open for those who wanted to produce political hate. Radio also benefitted from the dismantling of government restrictions on broadcasting.

 

Paul Matzko wrote the book called The Radio Right: How a Band of Broadcasters Took on the Federal Government and Built the Modern Conservative Movement. He wrote about how in recent years trust in traditional media has declined sharply. As a result, many people in North America no longer believe what they hear or see on traditional or mainstream media and have started to turn to “echo chambers” where they see themselves reflected. This has led in turn to the ideology of their group cementing the bonds of the group. According to Matzko this is not the first time this has happened.

In his book Matzko writes about the far right that was frustrated by what they saw as liberal bias in the mainstream media. This started with what many of them think of as a sycophantic relationship between the media and the administration of John F. Kennedy. They saw Kennedy as their golden boy from Harvard, rich, liberal, educated and haughty. The people who resented this turned in reaction to news and particularly commentary from a resurgent ultra-conservative mass media on the radio.

Truckers in particular, driving across the country took up the right-wing causes with passion and exuberance. Networks turned to television so radio provided a home for hundreds of popular right-wing radio programs, programmers and pundits. The more bombastic the better. There was no premium for moderation. Extreme opinions were in vogue.

 

Charles Coughlin and the birth of Populist Radio

 

 

The story in the CBC podcast The Flamethrowers  about right-wing extremism began with someone I had never heard of before and he was a Canadian. He was a Canadian priest Charles Coughlin — a populist crusader who wound up espousing conspiracy and hate 100 years before Rush Limbaugh got his medal of freedom from Donald Trump. What he did was crucial. He proved how potent radio could be.

 

This may sound crazy, but Right-wing radio flexed its muscle with a boycott of Polish Ham. Much later the Kennedy government in the US almost wiped right-wing talk radio off the map.  Right-wing radio began with loud, brash, infuriating zealots. In fact such have always swum in its waters.

 

According to producer Justin Ling, these “broadcasters would fan the flames of a new populist ideology; they give a voice to a swath of Americans who felt like they never had one. They energize and then they radicalize the conservative movement.”  That movement was home to ordinary conservatives and conspiracy peddlers and everything in between. Father Coughlin started off in Canada but graduated to Detroit. He was of the ‘go big or go home’ mindset. That influenced many that came after him.  Father Coughlin set the mould for those that followed.

 

About a hundred years ago, in the 1920s, talk radio was launched from what now seems a very unlikely source a firebrand Catholic. He claimed he got a “welcome present from the Ku Klux Klan.” Although the Klan reserved its most venal vitriol for black Americans it had other groups in its sights. As Ling said, “they had more than enough hate in their hearts to attack immigrants, especially Catholics who were flocking to Detroit to work in the new auto plants.” When he arrived in Detroit he was greeted with a burning cross courtesy of the KKK. That did not scare him off. Coughlin made arrangement to deliver talks on the radio, a relatively new media at the time. He knew he needed to raise money for his church which had massive debt for its huge church and was not raising enough from donations to sustain it. The situation was dire and at the same time the local KKK group was uttering bellicose statements about the church. He had a deep rich voice with near musical cadence that was very powerful on the radio.

 

In 1929 America, like the rest of the world experienced a crash. The 1920s, called the Roaring Twenties, were when wealthy people leaped enthusiastically in to popular endeavors such as Speakeasys. In time this led the country into financial disaster and common people were desperately unhappy about it. Coughlin stepped out of fiery preacher role and became the “conduit for a real and very understandable anger.” He rode a populist wave of anger. He became the voice of outrage and had spectacular success on the perfect medium for anger—the radio.

 

In the language of today he was a populist—he was anti-communist but also anti-capitalist. He supported some unions, but not the more radical unions. He was not that far left. As Ling said, “Coughlin’s audience was estimated at 40 million listeners. At that time that was a third of America. Limbaugh at his height would have only about 1/20th of America.” Meanwhile money poured into the church and he arranged for it to build a huge iron cross, one the KKK could not burn.

 

Coughlin turned to a politician he could support. It was someone who distrusted the political class like he did. So, he turned instead to someone who distrusted the bankers and big business. This was a champion of everyman. This political leader was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the author of the new deal. Coughlin was clear, “It is either Roosevelt or ruin,” he said.

 

FDR was a shrewd politician and “he saw in the radio priest, a new way to meet the masses.” Coughlin saw in FDR a vehicle for his new social justice calling.  Ling said, “As President, FDR recognized the visceral yet intimate power of radio. Through his fireside chats he entered into America’s living rooms as a trusted guest.” Coughlin inspired the President who followed suit. As Ling said, “Coughlin is no longer that small town Catholic fighting anti-Catholic bias.” Later Coughlin abandoned FDR when he started making deals with the bankers rather than throwing them out as he done earlier. Later, when FDR made a deal with Stalin (and Churchill) Coughlin was furious. “Coughlin was vehemently anti-Communist.” He changed his slogan to “Roosevelt and ruin.”

 

Coughlin started his own political party and then turned to the dark side. He blamed Jews for their own persecution. He also adopted various conspiracy theories such as the one that Jewish bankers were part of an international cabal. He also cited the conspiracy theory of the elders of Zion which claimed falsely that Jews were part of a international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. He claimed that Jews and Communists together were determined to take over America. Coughlin gave up on left wing causes and turned instead to supporting Hitler and the Nazis. He came to be called “the father of Hate radio.” [Though some called Rush Limbaugh that]

 

Coughlin began to be abandoned by his erst while supporters. Many called out his mistaken litany of facts that were not facts at all. Federal regulators warned him that they would not allow the airwaves to be abused in that manner. As Ling said, “In today’s he was cancelled and de-platformed.” The radio star was done, but his influence lived on to be used by other pundits from other political persuasions. Especially, those on the political right.

 

As Ling said, “Coughlin was radio’s first real political celebrity. He weaponized bombast but met his listeners where they were at. He sat in their living rooms and echoed their concerns. He helped to propel presidents to power. He tried to have a say in running the country from behind a microphone.”  Coughlin unleashed the power of hate. That was his crucial contribution. He was soon followed by many others.  The genie of political radio was out of the bottle and would never get back in. as Ling said, “Coughlin fell into conspiracy theories and hate as a way to energize and galvanize his support, and he would not be the last.”

Once politicians, pundits, and frauds saw the power of hate, others followed as surely as night follows day. I was amazed to learn it was all started by a Canadian Catholic priest.

 

Extremism: Alive and Not well in America

 

Driving through a large part of the United States from the northern State of North Dakota south to Texas and then west to Arizona, as we did this year, it did not take long to realize that extremism is alive and not well in this country. While there is ample extremism on the left and the right, it clear that most extremism lives and thrives in the right wing.

I heard an interesting interview with Cynthia Miller-Idriss an award-winning author and scholar of extremism and radicalization in the US.  She is the founding director of the Polarization and Extremism Research & Innovation Lab (PERIL) at the American University in Washington, DC, where she is also Professor in the School of Public Affairs and in the School of Education. She has testified a number of times before the US Congress on issues relating to extremism. She has also been a frequent commentator on these issues for various media outlets. She is a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Tracking Hate and Extremism Advisory Committee and the author of a number of books including recently Hate in the HomelandThe New Global Far Right.

One of the problems that Miller-Idriss alerts us to is the fact that American federal law does not yet have a crime of domestic terrorism. As a result, American law enforcement has to try to squeeze the charges they want to lay against an accused into boxes that really are not the best fit.

The fact that in the new American Congress there were participants in the insurrection on January 6th ,  means that American democracy is still in jeopardy. Michael Fanone who was a police officer engaged in resisting the violent insurrection on Capitol Hill that day said we need political leaders who will clearly denounce political violence.

When the January 6th insurrectionists invaded the  Capitol Hill police officers and 60 Metropolitan police officers were injured resisting the political violence, that was clearly an act of domestic terrorism. They were resisting a violent attempt to impose a political goal, namely, to stop the election of Joseph Biden.  Many of them were chanting “Stop the Steal,” or, even worse, “Hang Mike Pence” while engaged in violence against the police authorities who were defending the Capitol and the elected political representatives. By any definition of “terrorism” these violent acts would qualify as domestic terrorism. They were using violence for a political end. That is what constitutes terrorism. Clearly their political aim was to support the case of Donald Trump with whom the rioters and Trumpsters were aligned. Yet many Republican leaders have not denounced that violence of the far right.

The future of America still seems clouded with violence. And that comes mainly, though not exclusively on the right. All political leaders of all stripes ought to object strongly to any political violence, especially from their own side. If we can’t do that the future is grim.

The Brazilian Trump

 

 

We were in Arizona on the anniversary of the Trump insurrection on January 6th.  Watching the news of the election in Brazil it really seemed like deja vu all over again.

Rumours were spreading not just faster than the truth but even faster than lies. In Brazil, on January 8, 2023 there were furious, and in some cases, violent protests after Lula defeated Bolsonaro, aptly called “the Brazilian Trump.” Like Donald Trump’s supporters, Bolsonaro’s supporters believed that the election was stolen from their boy and they were “as mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore,” to copy what was said in the movie Network.

As Mac Margolis, Washington Post commentator said, “this was carbon copy and paste Donald Trump.” This is the same thing Anne Applebaum, a columnist for The Atlantic said when she pointed out how populist political leaders around the world were learning a lot from each other. Populist leaders around the world are being encouraged by each other and the rest of us had better taken notice. As Margolis pointed out, in Brazil rumours spread quickly on social media and since they were lies, they spread at the speed of light. Truth is much slower. Margolis called it “anti-incumbent fury.” This is now happening across South America. Actually, it is happening around the world.