DOWNLOADS: 1586

PLAYS: 12

Embed

This program, part of the NBC Radio series "Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow from September 9, 1951 offers some fascinating predictions on the upcoming election in 1952, including one prediction that Dwight Eisenhower, not yet a declared candidate for either party, would go with the Republicans and the other that Harry Truman would not run for a second term.

The other was the observation that Sen. Joe McCarthy would start to lose his grip on the reign of terror he was waging all over Washington. As Publisher/editor William T. Evjue of the Capital Times of Madison Wisconsin put it:

William T. Evjue (editor, Capital Times, Madison Wisconsin): “The nation has waited for more than a year for Senator McCarthy to prove his charges. 567 days have elapsed since he first made his charges at Wheeling, West Virginia, that he held in his hand the names of 205 card carrying Communists in the State Department who were known to Secretary Acheson. In those 567 days Senator McCarthy has failed to produce proof against a single person. In his desperation to keep the offensive, he has made even more reckless and irresponsible charges, including the charge that General Marshall is part of a conspiracy to sell this nation out to the Communists.”

That one took little longer to materialize. But for the most part, the predictions were pretty spot-on. I'm wondering how our current batch of pundits will fare sixty years from now?

DOWNLOADS: 761

PLAYS: 56

Embed

(FDR - taking the right-wing brickbats in stride)

From April 28, 1935, his seventh Fireside Chat since taking office in 1933. FDR took the opportunity to lay out his plans for Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. The Social Security plan hadn't been voted on yet and was about to be introduced, along with a flood of relief and New Deal legislation. In 1935 these were new ideas that hadn't flown before.

FDR: “The program for Social Security that is pending before Congress is a necessary part of the future unemployment policy of the government. While our present and projected expenditures for work relief are fully within the reasonable limits of our national credit resources, it is obvious that we cannot continue to create governmental deficits for that purpose, year after year after year. We must begin now to make provision for the future. And that is why our Social Security Program is an important part of the complete picture. It proposes by means of old age pensions to help those who have reached the age of retirement to give up their jobs, and thus give to the younger generation greater opportunities for work. And to give to all, old and young alike, a feeling of security as they look towards old age. The Unemployment Insurance part of the legislation will not only help to guard the individual in future periods of layoff, against dependence upon relief, but it will by sustaining the purchasing power of the nation, cushion the shock of economic distress.”

Then, as now, any sort of social legislation that involving the common good was viewed with skepticism by the right-wing. This one was no different. Charges of Socialism popped up in the media, not to mention to aborted takeover attempt of the government by business and Wall Street interests in 1934.

FDR had his hands full. But he was able to weather the storm and the pundits and create many Programs that are in place today (although, it should be pointed out that a number of programs, including Social Security have withstood attempts at gutting during the Reagan years). Not listening or caving in to special interests or the hysterics proved to be the wise choice in the long run. The interests of the American people were what concerned him.

Something we could use a bit more of, especially today with the Health Care battle raging.

DOWNLOADS: 1462

PLAYS: 774

Embed

(Martin Luther King - born 83 years ago)

It's always tempting to ponder what the world would have been like had things gone differently. Had Gandhi not been assassinated, had neither Kennedy been assassinated, had Martin Luther King not been assassinated.

What sort of world? Had the goals been fully realized, had the plans continued, had the voices remained clear and not faded into memory. Had they all eventually gone peacefully in their sleep at the end of perfect days. Tempting to think about.

But life is never as it seems and fate always has different plans.

This weekend we're celebrating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, born on January 15, 1929. The world has changed immeasurably since the day he was born - due in no small part to him being in it.

No doubt there will be countless playings over the next few days of his landmark "I have a dream" speech - the film footage, scratched and faded will seem from another time. The famous phrases heard over and over will probably seem less potent now than they did that day in 1963. Pundits, the shrill, the painfully misguided and the Agenda Grinders will give their interpretations and the original intent will be distorted, if not the words themselves.

Rather than play that particular speech, I thought I would play something probably less known. In fact, something considered lost for a quite a while.

During Christmas I ran a holiday sermon delivered as part of the Canadian Broadcasting Company's Massey Lecture Series. The 5 part series devoted to lectures and sermons done by Dr. King. Today I am running Lecture #4 - "Non-Violence And Social Change".

Dr. Martin Luther King: “Life is sacred. Property is intended to serve life. And no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man.”

The lecture talks about the recent (1967) riots and the current role of non-violence in the Civil Rights Movement. It's not a sermon and not a speech delivered to a crowd. It's a talk, given by him in a small room in a radio studio - one on one, spoken from the heart.

DOWNLOADS: 458

PLAYS: 22

Embed

(Jerusalem 1948 - Same as it ever was - Same as it ever was)

With the recent news of the attempted kick starting of talks between Israelis and the Palestinians, I was reminded just how long this entire odyssey has been going on - a lot longer than many people have been on the planet, for one thing.

But it seems there was a time when the U.S. had actually considered sending troops over to the region, acting as a sort of buffer between factions. The notion that we'd still be over there, some sixty years later gives pause as to how it could end up with us now in Afghanistan. When, during the election John McCain entertained the possibility of the U.S. being in Iraq for a hundred years, everyone recoiled. But in retrospect, it appears we're rather good at suggesting those sorts of things. Thank God we don't act on our instincts all the time.

But in 1948, with the British getting ready to leave the region and fighting between Jews and Arabs going full tilt, the Chicago University Roundtable hosted a discussion, featuring several pundits (aka: "experts"as they were called at the time) to venture an opinion on whether our involvement in the Middle East was a good idea or not.

The opinions ran the gamut, although it's interesting to note that no one actually from the region (i.e. Arab or Jew) was included. So there is something of a strange bias to be had going into this discussion, one of an "armchair" viewpoint rather than one actually on the ground, with the possible exception of Arthur Creech-Jones who was Colonial Secretary in charge of Palestine at the time. But times have changed. I don't think this type of discussion would take place today (unless it was Fox). But it's interesting to see what factors formed an opinion some sixty years ago.

John A. Wilson: “First, Palestine cannot survive economically if it’s carved into two zones. Second, a policing and occupying army does not bring a country together. It rather pulls it apart. Let’s look at the other countries which have been carved apart and held apart by force. Germany and Austria have been arbitrarily divided into zones, cutting off the normal and traditional flow of goods. Four enforcing armies hold Germany apart and prevent normal economic life. In Asia, Korea is in exactly the same situation, cut by an arbitrary line into two zones. A drastic surgical operation divided India into a Muslim state and a Hindu state at a cost of perhaps a quarter of a million lives. Partition is bad economy in Germany, Austria, Korea and India. It will be bad in Palestine. Imagine American and Russian military contingents inside Palestine. Would they bring the country together? Or would they push it further apart? How soon could they leave? It is not a pleasant outlook. American and Russian troops eyeing each other in Palestine for our lifetime. Everyone who argues a population increase in Palestine has done so on the basis of potential water power there. Well certainly, a Jordan Valley Authority like our TVA would be a marvelous asset to Palestine.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: 1028

PLAYS: 12

Embed

(Need you ask?)

Every so often I will run across some talk show from the past that points out just how naive we all were as a country, many years ago.

On October 5, 1958 the Open Mind program hosted a discussion on the future of television in politics and how advertising could possibly be used to make or break a candidate or issue. Fifty years ago, remember?

Bear in mind, TV wasn't as all-encompassing as it is today. Stations routinely went off the air at midnight. Color was new. Video tape was new. Most homes had TV's that were, at the most 17" and usually encased in a massive console. There were virtually no live on-the-spot reports and there were lots and lots of talking heads.

So, when Open Mind brought on Professor Eric Goldman (author of the book "Rendezvous With Destiny"), John Elliot Jr. from the BBD&O Ad Agency and Lloyd Whiteburke, an advertising consultant. The conversation about the possibilities that Television could influence a political campaign were very real.

Lloyd Whiteburke: “There’s no FTC, no Federal Trade Commission in political advertising. If a product is falsely advertised, as you all know, the Federal Trade Commission will seek an injunction against the advertiser and have that advertising changed and penalize the advertiser. The only person penalized for buying a candidate who is not what he represents himself for is the voter. And he’s got four years to wait to throw him out, throw out this candidate. So it imposes a tremendous sense of responsibility on the advertising fraternity to make darn sure that something isn’t done, that isn’t correct for which the FTC does not have call. And that’s why some of the practitioners do, in the course of their work, say things and do things that are perhaps not exactly right. And we have to watch that and we have to police our own . . . “

Television was still in its infancy. The 1952 Presidential campaign, being the first to utilize Television in a prominent way, was recent history. The Kennedy-Nixon debates were still two years off and cable was only an idea.

I don't think anyone could have imagined what it would all become.