The age old debate on Immigration and what, if any, should that policy be. It has plagued administrations probably since Jefferson. In 1953 it was aggravated by the Cold War and the threat of espionage and subversive activities from the flood of Displaced Persons at the end of World War 2. Today it's a bit different, although by 1953's standards probably not all that much. In 1953 there was the creeping onslaught of people not from the traditional European locales, but rather from Asia, due in no small part to the Korean War.

So beyond the fear of espionage and subversion also came the fear of job loss. Those non-European Immigrants, it was thought, didn't have the same work ethic or understanding of the rules and would therefore flood the workforce with cheap labor and destroy the minimum wage and the unions.

To some people, that wasn't such a bad idea. But the bottom line was, Immigration was becoming a problem and some solution had to be arrived at before things got out of hand.

And so, as part of its series American Forum Of The Air from May 17, 1953, the subject "What Should Americas Immigration Policy Be?" was asked of Senator Herbert Lehman of New York and Representative J. Frank Wilson of Texas (both democrats).

Sen. Herbert Lehman: “What we now have on our statute books is not an immigration law but an anti-immigration law. The law as presently written is not a law to authorize immigration or to control immigration. But rather to prevent immigration, to discourage it, to make it difficult as possible for an alien to be admitted to this country, either as a visitor or a student or as a permanent resident. Under our present law every alien is assumed to be a potential spy a saboteur, a criminal or a subversive unless and until he can prove otherwise. Even naturalized American citizens are placed under this bar sinister and can be de-naturalized for any one of a number of acts which native born American citizens can’t perform without penalty. The heart of the law is the national origins quota system, a discriminatory plan based on repugnant theories of the racial superiority of the so-called Nordic Races. The law is further characterized by drastic penalties including deportation for aliens. Against aliens for such innocent acts as failure to carry registration cards, or failure to notify the Attorney General of a change in address. And the widest discretion is given to councils and immigration inspectors and other officials to bar, to exclude, to deport and detain aliens.”

So, the problem has never really been solved - on the one hand you have "No borders - no restrictions" and on the other you have "fuck 'em, kill 'em all" - neither of which is much of a solution.

At least in 2011 there isn't the fear of being overrun by Communist agents posing as students. But there are those gun-toting militias . . .

(Harry Dexter White - Assassination by innuendo, death by Digitalis)

(thanks to those of you helping out)

The name Harry Dexter White probably rings no bells today, but in the late 1940's and early 1950's he came to epitomize the Red Scare and Communist infiltration of the U.S. government. White was an Economist and senior official of the Treasury Department, he was a primary participant in the Bretton Woods conference, leading to the formation of the World Monetary Fund and The World Bank. He was a New Deal Democrat and supporter of Roosevelt's ideas on Internationalism as well as the views of vice-President Henry Wallace. White considered himself a Progressive.

In 1939, defecting Soviet agent Whittaker Chambers was alleged to have implicated a "Mr. White" as a Soviet agent operating within the government, although there was no confirmation of it at the time and the accusations were considered absurd by even J. Edgar Hoover.

However in November of 1945, defecting Soviet agent Elizabeth Bentley implicated White as a source of leaked information to the Soviets and upon further investigation triggered an investigation of White.

Meanwhile, Truman had nominated White to direct the International Monetary Fund, which passed the Senate on February 1946. White resigned the position in 1947 shortly after the Attorney General ordered an investigation of Bentley's charges.

White was eventually called on to testify and he denied any involvement with the Communist party or any acts of espionage. His testimony would go no further as he suffered a heart attack after the first day of hearings (August 13, 1948) and later died as the result of an overdose of Digitalis (August 16, 1948).

Afterward, White was accused of all sorts of espionage (since the dead can rarely defend themselves anyway) and generally considered something of a poster-boy for all things having to do with Communist infiltration of government. Much of it later proved to be untrue, although some documents later discovered in the former Soviet Union did attribute White to some activities, the extent of his espionage was not as ruthless and endangering as originally thought.

This interview, from Meet The Press on November 22, 1953 features Chief Counsel for The Senate Internal Security Committee Robert Morris, questioned on the fallout (some five years later) of the Harry Dexter White Affair. As the search for Communists continued.

(Clarence Manion - an eye for interesting "tableware")

I had always wondered just when it was the conservative movement took a dramatic, screeching shift to the right. What was that moment, who was the spark. I have on a number of occasions heard that the catalyst was a fellow named Dean Clarence Manion (the Dean comes from his tenure as Notre Dame Law Professor) and it was Manion who gave us Barry Goldwater and was quoted as saying Ronald Reagan was the perfect example of the Modern Conservative Movement.

But I had never heard him speak - as I am sure most readers haven't either. So needless to say, when I discovered this disc (sadly not complete and partially deteriorated) I was pretty excited to hear just who this guy was.

I wasn't disappointed.

Clarence Manion: “Now we have heard a lot about American equality. We have been twitted with it by our subversive enemies. Taunted with the alleged hypocrisy of what we profess to be equality and which is, in their jargon ‘not equality at all’. We hear a lot about the rich and the poor and the exploiters and the exploited,, and the malefactors of great wealth and the underprivileged and the this and the that. Let’s see what the doctrine of America is as it is stated and set forth in the blueprint. All men are created equal, they are equal in God’s sight. And for that reason and for no other reason that I can ever find in any law book, they are equal before the law of the land. Equality before God and the equality before the laws of this country. That is the sum and the substance, the beginning and the end of American equality.

”

I have heard some strange interpretations of the Bill of Rights, but this interpretation nails it on the head why there is so much misguided righteousness floating around. It all came from someplace.

Unfortunately, there is only part one and two and the address goes on, I suspect for at least another half hour, but the rest of it is missing and I don't think recorded. So we don't get to hear the summation of this argument and I'm not going to venture to guess where it goes. Important to at least hear part of where so much of our confusion comes from. And just how ingrained it is. Remember, this address was made on December 17, 1951, almost sixty years ago.

That is a very long time to misrepresent something.

(Edward R. Murrow - the timeless voice of conscience)

I doubt there is anyone remotely interested in history who hasn't heard a commentary on the state of life in America from Edward R. Murrow.

But in case you haven't, I've included a commentary he made from one of his Red Scare era broadcasts of August 29, 1951. The state of affairs in 1951 are pretty much the same as they are now.

Edward R. Murrow: “There seem to be fewer radical, nonconformists than there used to be. Rebels seem rather to have gone out of fashion, which is perhaps only a reflection of the current hysteria which confuses unpopular or minority views with subversion or disloyalty.

His was a voice of calm resolve and keen insight.

And sixty years later, it still is.

(Tricky Dick - even early on)

When the Red Scare was picking up steam just after World War 2, then-Congressman Richard Nixon co-authored with Congressman Karl Mundt of South Dakota a bill that would have prevented known Communists from seeking employment in government jobs, force members of the Communist Party of the U.S. to identify themselves and generally round up anyone thought to be or suspected of being a Communist or engaging in "anti-American" activities. Kind of broad and pretty loose as far as interpretation was concerned. The Bill, known as the Mundt-Nixon Bill passed the House but died in the Senate where it was eventually given new life as The McCarran Act of 1950.

But in 1948, flush with their success in the House, the sales pitch took place via the airwaves, and one such debate over the pros and cons of the bill was held as part of the University Roundtable, a Sunday interview/Public Affairs program run on the NBC Radio Network. This debate from June 6th featured Representative Charles Kersten (R-Wisc.) and University of Chicago Legal Professor Malcolm Sharp.

It was lively, but like most discussion programs of the period, remarkably civil.

Rep. Charles Kersten: “The Mundt-Nixon bill is a measure to meet this international phenomena, this international conspiracy. It has not remained merely a conspiracy but has gone into action to such an extent within the last few years so as to overcome the independence of about eight European countries and threatened the independence of other countries.”

Malcolm Sharpe (U of Chicago Law School): “I’m opposed to the bill because it seems to go much further than is necessary in view of what I conceive to be the present danger presented by this small group in this country, with its traditions so different from those of Europe. It’s great wealth. It’s freedom from the ravages of war. It doesn’t seem to me that the danger’s anything like what you people in Washington say it is. Seems to me you’ve got a little excited down here. Out in the Great Plains of the Middle West, I have some difficulty in getting alarmed. It seems to me, on the other hand, that the bill is a violation of our traditions. It goes a long way in the direction of what’s called “thought control”, it sets bad precedence which some time of crisis are apt to affect almost any minority you can think of. In some unpredictable way we’re a very volatile people.”

Bears a strange resemblance to SB 1070, doesn't it?

Well . . .that's another can of worms.

("will pick fruit, trim trees, clean toilets - all the jobs you wouldn't be caught dead doing")

(Note: This is a repost from February - the Newstalgia House computer is still dead and we're trying as quickly as possible to get back up and running, but in the meantime . . . since the Health Care Bill has passed a major hurdle and become a historic landmark, there are other issues going on in our country right now. And as was evidenced by the 100,000+ rally yesterday in Washington, Immigration and its reform is the next big issue to tackle. It's no recent problem. It's been with us longer than the issue of Universal Health Care, and battle lines are clearly being drawn as we speak. As soon as is humanly possible, I will be posting speeches and documentary material pertaining to the Immigration question going back to the 1930s in an effort to try and provide you with historic perspective on a very thorny and passionate issue for a lot of people. And as soon as we get back up and running, I will bring those to you. Bear with me. - Gordon)

Ever since we actually became a country we've been tackling the issue of what to do about the unannounced, the undocumented, the illegal. That group of people which, in lieu of the Red Scare (now that it's gone) has given whole other groups of people something new to attach fear and hysteria (and a goodly amount of hate) to - illegal aliens and the immigration issue.

In retrospect the issue flairs up every few years, usually in the context of bad economic times. The desire to lay blame usually goes to the easiest targets; people you know nothing about and yet (we're led to believe) are seemingly everywhere. Just like Communists in the 1950s.

It was the same in 1988, when this documentary first aired (January 10, 1988). CBS Radio ran an installment of their Newsmark series on the then-burning issue of illegal aliens in the U.S.

John Blackstone (CBS News): “Whether we see them or not, these undocumented workers are part of this society, but for most of us their lives remain a mystery. According to Government figures, undocumented workers contribute $23 billion a year to the U.S. economy. And while some blame illegal aliens for American unemployment, the General Accounting Office report released in 1984 says undocumented workers do not take jobs from American citizens. To most Americans, the illegal immigrant is more a statistic than a real face.”

Twenty-two years later, the fingers of blame are pretty much pointing in the same direction with hate and fear achieving the same results.

(Korea: Police Action - swore up and down we'd be there a few weeks)

Note: This is a repost from last November, but the misfires linger on.

Our legacy of Foreign Policy misfires is long and involved and certainly not the exclusive property of the last twenty or so years. Although it does make you wonder how long we've been screwing up and has it always been this bad.

There was that matter of Korea and the Domino Theory of Communist takeovers in the Far East put forth by the Eisenhower Administration. There was also the matter of the Red Scare and how the Marshall Plan was a dismal failure guaranteed to make the U.S. a weaker superpower. There was the blame game where the United Nations was a dismal failure, also guaranteed to make the U.S. a weaker superpower and how we needed to divest ourselves of that body.

But nowhere in all the arguments, even going back to 1950, was there an alternative to what we were doing and doing badly.

Everybody agreed something was wrong and something needed to change drastically over how we were dealing with the rest of the world and both sides of the political aisle varied wildly over what the solution was. This exchange between Senators William Benton (D-Connecticut) and George Malone (R-Nevada) offer ample proof. The program was The American Forum Of The Air, broadcast on July 9, 1950 - the subject: "Do We Need A New Foreign Policy?". The ensuing shouting match said it all.

Sen. George Malone: “We have not yet had a definite Foreign Policy. I note that your subject today, do we need a new foreign policy? I say definitely we do, because we have never yet said and the President has not said in Korea whether or not the integrity of Korea is important to our ultimate safety. He (President Truman) has said he has got us in it on account of the United Nations and half of the world is not with us in the United Nations. Eastern Europe, Russia, Communist China. We better make up our minds just what our foreign policy is and let the American people know it and let the other nations know it. So we can come out. Now if he has any ideas at all, if he has any ideas, I say he ought to let us know what they are.”

60 years later and the arguing doesn't look like it's ending anytime soon. Meanwhile, there's the body bags . . .

Help keep this thing going. Newstalgia, Crooks and Liars, Late Night Music Club - everybody depends on you. So . .

This first week in May of 1954 saw the beginning of the infamous Army-McCarthy Hearings regarding Communist infiltrators within the Military. This broadcast, from May 5th, wraps up the days proceedings from May 4th, which was Day Nine in the seemingly never-ending hearings.

This was one of the first gavel-to-gavel live Senate hearings to be broadcast on radio and television. The first was the legendary Kefauver Crime Committee Hearings, and the audience for those hearings went through the roof.

Likewise with the Army-McCarthy Hearings, some four years later. These hearings were epitomized by the now-famous showdown between Chief Counsel Welsh and Sen. Joe McCarthy several weeks later that ended in the quote "Have you no shame, Senator?".

These days, with C-Span, we take hearings like this for granted. But in 1954 it was a first glimpse for many into the inner-workings of Capitol Hill.

So here is Day 9 as reported by George Herman and Griffing Bancroft of CBS Radio with excerpts from the days proceedings (for those who missed it live).

In 1952 the issues surrounding the Presidential election of that year were a bit different, only because we had the all-pervasive Cold War hanging over America's collective head.

But aside from that, not much has changed. In 1952 we were stuck in Korea, an undeclared war that, as of March 1952 had already claimed some 103,000 lives. A Foreign Policy that was woefully short-sighted. Corruption in Government, and an Internal Security System that many felt left us ripe for "enemy takeover".

In 1952 we were hot in the midst of a Cold War and everyone employed by the Government was under suspicion of taking orders from The Kremlin. It was disclosed that over 16,7000 Federal employees were under investigation by the FBI and the list of "undesirables" was growing.

And of course, the argument was this never would have happened if there was a Republican in the White House. All the country's ills were laid solidly at the foot of Harry Truman and his Commie invested Administration on Capitol Hil.

At least that's the way Republican Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois put it. Countering the partisan blast was and Oklahoma Senator Robert Kerr, a Democrat who casually reminded listeners that the Republicans were a notoriously backward thinking party and that their hearts were solidly in the 19th Century (some things never change).

The irony was that Everett Dirksen sought to paint the Republicans as a party of Peace, saying that in the previous 90 years (from 1952 which meant roughly 1870), not one single American had died as the result of war fought during a Republican Administration. Oh. Well, I guess the Spanish-American War of 1898 during Republican William McKinley's tenure wasn't actually a war and the sea battle in Manila Bay which lead to U.S. control over the Philippines had nothing to do with war either. Or the land-grab wars involving all the tribes of our indigenous folk during Republican Ulysses S. Grant's Administration in the 1870's wasn't really considered anything remotely war-like. No. Those must've been peace missions gone awry.

At any rate - the arguments are the same and on this episode of American Forum Of The Air, which was broadcast on March 3, 1952, it makes it abundantly clear Politics and the two party system don't really veer much off course, no matter what. We just don't have Joe Stalin and the Kremlin to deal with anymore - they've been traded in for the Taliban and airport security.

The faces and names change. The rhetoric may be a bit more off-the-wall now than it was in 1952, but then consider what people were used to then and it may be the insanity is the same then as it ever was.

That's what politics and looked and sounded like in 1952.

As the Cold War grew in intensity, Communist infiltration of our trade unions became the main topic of conversation in the late 1940's. To many, Communists and the Union movement were synonymous. So as an answer to the suspicions, many union leaders took to the airwaves in an attempt to calm the fears of an increasingly nervous public.

This broadcast of the radio discussion program America United, first aired on October 30, 1949, featured a panel of Executive members of the CIO, who were gathered for their annual convention in Ohio. The topic of conversation was the outlook for Labor in 1950. But the subject quickly morphed into Communist infiltration.

Allen S. Haywood (VP: CIO): “American labor doesn’t want to have anything to do with totalitarianism.”

The Red Scare was making itself felt in every aspect of American life, and the American Labor Movement was most hard hit. In a couple of years it would be the Army's turn. But for now Labor was in the fish tank.