Readers who frequent this column will recall my long-held dictum that everything cycles. Be the subject investments, economics, politics or otherwise, everything in this world has a tide that ebbs and flows, albeit on different schedules.

Nevertheless, it remains of utmost importance that in any of these areas, when the flow of tides change directions, we must adjust in turn. Doing so is far more profitable – and eventually far easier – than attempting to swim upstream.

Today there exist surprising crowds of people who have made names for themselves acting solely as antagonists, people who have little or nothing to say if they aren’t provided someone or something to rally against. Of these, Glenn Beck stands out as among the most vocal and probably the most recognizable.

And just what has made Glenn Beck famous? Rallying against unsound monetary policy, speaking out against progressive welfare programs, lambasting unaccountable government czars and, most noticeably, revealing in minute detail the background of a president unqualified for election and – in all likelihood – presently serving his last weeks with any real authority.

Do any of these arguments add value in any way? Do they put forth any reasonable alternative or call for real change? More importantly, do any of them matter if Obama loses re-election and the U.S. federal government tightens its fiscal purse strings?

A recent quote said of this election that “if Barack Obama were running unopposed, he’d have nothing to run on.” In other words, with a president devoid of any meaningful progress or accomplishment after three years in office, any re-election campaign waged by Obama is built solely on bashing Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Quite often we see the same thing in business. Instances abound where businessmen, spokesmen or pundits survive only because they have someone to struggle against. Theirs is not a constructive struggle; they are simply saying what people want to hear, following the path of least resistance.

A quick story: Around the time George W. Bush was coming into the White House, a caller into Rush Limbaugh’s radio show asked the conservative host what he was going to do now that he wouldn’t have Bill Clinton to speak out against. Rush responded that there would always be issues and events to discuss, and as time went on his subjects changed from those he had discussed during the Clinton years.

The point here is that the United States is presently undergoing a major shift, just as it was around the new millennium. In fact, this instance is likely much larger and further-reaching than was seen a decade ago. The U.S. is now in the midst of major shifts in the sphere of politics, finance, manufacturing and production, employment, military, entitlement spending and the list goes on.

The question now is which of those pundits who have spent the past several years building names for themselves can make the necessary shift from being critical to constructive in their commentary.

Far harder is it to avoid the flavor of the week, but instead to change with the times as required – regardless of popularity – when time calls for such a shift. After all, the one-trick pony can be amusing for a time, but when it ceases to serve a purpose it’s the first one sent to the glue factory.

Dock David Treece is a partner with Treece Investment Advisory Corp (www.TreeceInvestments.com) and is licensed with FINRA through Treece Financial Services Corp. He provides expert content to numerous media outlets. The above information is the express opinion of Dock David Treece and should not be construed as investment advice or used without outside verification.

Tags: Barack Obama, Dock David Treece, Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Treece Blog

This entry was posted on Friday, November 2nd, 2012 at 6:13 pm and is filed under Election 2012, Treece Blog.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

I was raised to believe that anyone could be president of the United States. Certainly in my lifetime, the ascendencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush seemed to bolster that theory.

But with the news that President Barack Obama is nearing $1 billion in campaign funds, with challenger Mitt Romney not far behind, I wonder how true that once-bedrock American belief is. Would either of my two sons ever be in a position to access $1 billion? By the time they will be old enough to run, 30 years from now, $1 billion will seem like a quaint little figure.

Would I ever want either of my sons to be president? To experience the rancor, the lies and the open hatred many of our politicians endure?

Would I want to open a newspaper every day and see attacks, lies and attempts to destroy their characters and neutralize any chance they had at effectiveness?

As the election nears, media bias is an ongoing and legitimate concern. As a working journalist, I pay close attention to how local media cover politics. The inexorable acrimony that divides so many Americans has become an accepted element of the discussion; that is clearly seen in the rise of such media outlets as FOX News and MSNBC. More people seem to gravitate to news sources that present the side they believe in, thus depriving themselves of opposing viewpoints and messages.

How does this division and side-taking translate to local media? To investigate, Toledo Free Press commissioned researcher Mary McCartney to study the LexisNexis database and local media websites  (The Blade, Toledo Free Press, 13abc, WTOL/FOX and WNWO NBC)  to determine whether our hometown media have taken sides in Obama vs. Romney.

Our research studied the period from June 1, 2012 — the week Romney sewed up the GOP nomination with a Texas primary win — through Oct. 3, 2012, just after the first presidential debate. The focus was on which candidate dominated the reporting of each published or broadcast story — which candidate was discussed in more depth, with more words — than his opponent. Each story was determined to fall into one of three categories: Balanced, Obama or Romney. We focused on campaign-specific stories, discounting news coverage of Obama’s presidency if the story did not invoke the campaign. We included opinion columns and analysis pieces alongside news stories, under the belief that total presentation of each candidate was important.

We did not attempt to characterize the tenor of the coverage; judging slant, positive or negative, takes the conversation down a subjective road, far from any empirical analysis. Our study guides you through each media outlet’s volume of coverage. It is up to you to determine if that coverage is fair to your chosen candidate.

Television stations

The broadcast media were firmly entrenched in balanced reporting. All three stations relied on Associated Press reports for website pieces of any depth (as defined by word count); local reporting was limited to local candidate visits.

• WNWO NBC presented 34 Balanced stories, 34 Obama stories and 34 Romney stories, a perfect balance for a total of 102 stories. A check of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) database shows WNWO President/CEO Chris Topf has donated to the National Associaiton of Broadcasters Political Action Committee (PAC), but not to any specific candidate.

• WTOL/FOX Toledo included 11 Balanced stories, 17 Obama stories and 24 Romney stories, leaning GOP in its total of 52 stories. An FEC check shows WTOL General Manager Bob Chirdon has donated to the Liberty Corporation Federal PAC, but not to any specific candidate.

• WTVG 13abc offered 8 Balanced stories,  11 Obama stories and 8 Romney stories, leaning slightly Democratic in its total of 27 stories. FEC records do not show that WTVG General Manager John Christianson has donated to any specific candidate.

Adding it all up, Toledo’s TV stations offered 53 balanced stories, 62 Obama stories and 66 Romney stories for a relatively fair total of 181 stories.

Toledo Free Press

Although Toledo Free Press is certainly more conservative-leaning than The Blade, I was surprised to see the results of our study. Toledo Free Press presented 4 Balanced stories, 5 Obama stories and 12 Romney stories for a total of 21 articles. I was surprised because, working with Toledo Free Press Managing Editor Sarah Ottney and News Editor Brigitta Burks, we have striven to cover Obama and Romney appearances equally. Looking at the details, the source of the disparity is clear. Opinion pieces by conservative writers Tim Higgins, Thomas Berry, Gary Rathbun and Dock David Treece tip our content way in Romney’s favor. I do not apologize for any of our writers’ opinions, but it does help to be aware of the specifics in the gap in our opinion content.

The FEC database shows no donations from Toledo Free Press Publisher Tom Pounds or Toledo Free Press Editor in Chief Michael S. Miller.

The Blade

Given Blade Publisher and Editor-in-Chief John Block’s open endorsement of Obama (remember the 2008 Page One Blade photo of Block giddily reaching to embrace then-candidate Obama?), his 2008 donation to Obama for America and his attendance as one of very few guest list media people at the March 14, 2012 State Dinner for U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, combined with his newspaper’s stalwart liberal philosophy, it would not be surprising to see Obama dominate The Blade’s campaign coverage. And the numbers do show a disparity.

During our study, The Blade reported 56 Balanced stories, 86 Obama stories and 62 Romney stories for a total of 204 articles. The total contains some interesting trends by reporters, presumably covering specific beats. Blade reporter Jim Provance has been credited for 8 Balanced stories, 28 Obama stories and 9 Romney stories; reporter Tom Troy has a byline count of 22 Balanced stories, 25 Obama stories and 36 Romney stories. All other Blade writers had numbers relatively evenly divided between the two candidates.

FEC records do not show any candidate donations by John Block during this election cycle. Block Communications Chairman Allan Block has donated to Romney for President Inc. and the National Republican Congressional Committee. He is also a contributor to Republicans Sen. Rob Portman, Rep. Bob Latta and U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel, and Democrat Rep. Marcy Kaptur.

WSPD 1370 AM

In tracking WSPD (disclosure: I host a pop culture radio show for WSPD, for no compensation), which features a conservative lineup led by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and local hosts Brian Wilson and Fred LeFebvre, an interesting trend emerges. Obviously, the station mentions Obama and Romney with a frequency too great to count during the course of four months. FEC records do not list any donations from General Manager Andy Stuart. But WSPD is the only local news source that consistently covers Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Johnson has been a guest on the station’s local shows and his platform has been regularly discussed in-depth on its airwaves.

To contrast, Toledo Free Press has mentioned Johnson once during the study period. Another review of The Blade for the four-plus months examined showed only three mentions of the Libertarian candidate. Two of those mentions were in passing; one article reported on the visit to Toledo by his vice presidential candidate, Jim Gray, and the main theme of the story was the candidate’s position on same-sex marriage. A study of local television websites shows a number of Associated Press articles.

Summation

Across all media reporting in Toledo, it appears the press tends to slightly lean in favor of the president, with an attempt at balanced reporting across all the organizations. There were 406 stories total: 113 Balanced, 153 Obama and 140 Romney. So while national media may clearly be divided by bias, at least locally, in this study, we can be pleased to have a relatively balanced media.

Unless you’re a Gary Johnson fan.

Michael S. Miller is editor in chief of Toledo Free Press and Toledo Free Press Star. Email him at mmiller@toledofreepress.com.

Tags: 13abc, Allan Block, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bob Latta, Brian Wilson, Dock David Treece, Fred LeFebvre, Gary Johnson, Gary Rathbun, George W. Bush, Glenn Beck, Jim Provance, John Block, Josh Mandel, Lighting The Fuse, Marcy Kaptur, Michael S. Miller, Mitt Romney, Rob Portman, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, The Blade, Thomas Berry, Tim Higgins, Toledo Free Press, Tom Pounds, Tom Troy, WNWO NBC, WTOL

This entry was posted on Friday, October 12th, 2012 at 12:00 am and is filed under Featured, Lighting The Fuse, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

In these times of strife and uncertainty, we are often told it is becoming more and more important for people to hold onto and defend their core personal values. Because, after all, nothing signals a mature mind more than fear of change.

One of the most common boogeymen for those who stand in defense of “tradition” is the media. They find threats to their way of life in most every corner of pop culture. And not just the ones with overt messages, like how some movies instill a desire to be kind toward people who are different from you.

No, many corners of pop culture have messages that are far more insidious than that — messages buried so deep that not only is it possible the creators never intended them, but they are so obtuse that only the truly dedicated (and possibly insane) could ever find them.

Rush Limbaugh, for example, recently made headlines (well, okay, made a few snarky posts on Twitter) by claiming there was clearly a connection between the name of Batman villain Bane and the now-infamous Bain corporation formerly headed by Mitt Romney. Now, superficially, this might seem like a ridiculous claim for a commentator to make, even on some conspiracy-obsessed blog — let alone saying it to a national audience.

But that’s just what the Vast Political Conspiracy™ wants you to think. In fact, upon closer inspection, I have discovered that this summer’s slate of movies is just full — full, I tells ya — of such hidden messages. And the truth must be told!

Take the wildly popular superhero epic “The Avengers.” It has a villain named Loki — a god. Now, are we really supposed to believe that in an era where atheism is rising to near epidemic levels in our youth, it was sheer coincidence that a major blockbuster cast a GOD as its lead bad guy? This is clearly designed to push young people further away from religion!

Not only that, but one of the most popular heroes of the “Avengers” group is the Hulk. A big, green out-of-control mammoth who runs wild throughout the city. It doesn’t take any imagination to see the metaphor here — he clearly represents the Green Party, running roughshod throughout the election and distracting from the real issues faced by heroes like Captain America and that proud capitalist icon, Iron Man!

Then there’s this “Magic Mike,” a movie about male strippers. Trying to corrupt audiences with a view of Channing Tatum’s taut, perfect abs is disgusting enough, but then you find there’s a character named “Big D*** Richie.” I mean, come on, people, do I have to draw you a diagram? This name is obviously biased against our nation’s wealthy! I mean, “Richie” — clearly meant to signify the rich — and he’s a “Big D***?” It’s RIGHT THERE, people! And you can’t tell me that the name is just a coincidence, they knew when they started production that the Occupy Wall Street movement would be engendering discontent toward America’s job creators. How did they know? They JUST KNEW.

It’s not just the movies aimed at adults that are afflicted by such travesties. Political agendas are inexorably woven throughout films aimed at our youth, as well. And I’m not just talking about the obvious, like how something like “Ice Age” is so clearly a slap in the face of creationism.

No, there are far more insidious messages. Like in “Brave.” The lead heroine/troublemaker is named “Merida.” If you squint and tilt your head a little bit, it reads eerily similar to “Miranda,” the rights read by police officers to suspects. Are we really supposed to take it as sheer coincidence that such a plainly rebellious figure was named in this way? She’s designed to encourage young viewers to disrespect police authority! It’s so clear!

And this “Madagascar” series. Oh, sure, it seems harmless enough. Buncha cute zoo animals. Aww. How sweet. But look at that title. Just LOOK at it. “Madagascar.” If you add just one letter and separate that into words, it becomes “Mad At Gas Car.” This is plainly — PLAINLY — propaganda against the internal combustion engine, designed to push the next generation away from oil and toward hybrids!

Oh sure, “paranoid,” you say. “Grasping at straws,” you say. “Making connections that were never, ever intended so I can rile up my audience,” you say. I know it’s real. And I won’t stop yelling about it just because little factors like “reality” or “common sense” get in my way. Now, off to see “Total Recall,” which I’m sure — sure — has something to do with Ralph Nader.

Tags: Batman, brave, Channing Tatum, Ice Age, Iron Man, Jeff McGinnis, Madagascar, Magic Mike, Mitt Romney, Occupy Wall Street, Pop Goes the Culture, Rush Limbaugh, The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hulk

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 31st, 2012 at 11:40 am and is filed under Arts and Life, Pop Goes the Culture.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Rush Limbaugh may have finally crossed a bridge too far, which I was beginning to think was not possible in the current GOP/Tea Party funfest. The GOP has been pushing more and more absurd social engineering policy instead of trying to address the economic problems that they created in the last administration under W, and have fought tooth and nail to keep the present administration from being able to even moderately attempt to address for fear that Obama may be reelected. Leading the absurdity as spokesman for old curmudgeonly white men everywhere, Limbaugh has been virtually unchallenged in his whacko world of lies and conspiracies until now.

It’s true that the hardcore Dittoheads are relatively unfazed by his comments, but the sponsors of the drivel that has flowed virtually unchecked from his mouth for decades have finally been awakened to the fact that his shrinking base is very much in the minority, and his antics could actually start to affect their bottom line. He’s led a golden life up until now that, if he had been a liberal commentator, would have drawn unending scorn of the conservative hypocrites that, in the name of “freedom,” feel obliged to tell everyone else except themselves how to live their lives. They would have pushed to have his large drug addled derriere locked up for life. The family values crowd would have been outraged at the number of wives he’d had. But we’re talking Rush here, and the same rules they would like everyone else to live by don’t apply to conservatives themselves. You need look no further than the fact that Newt Gingrich is still, although barely, in the race for the GOP nomination. It always reminds me of one of those old things my parents used to say when they couldn’t come up with a logical answer on short notice: “Don’t do as I do, do as I say.” As usual readers of my column will note, I’ve been a convert to the wisdom of old sayings as I age, but this one has always baffled me, and is one that I made sure not to use on my own children. In wisdom, it ranks right up there (or down there) with “Because I said so.” I’m not entirely sure I may not have used that one, but I am sure that it was more likely out of exasperation than a true belief in the wisdom of it.

Super Tuesday has come and gone, and for the life of me, I must have missed the “super” part. Everything seems to be just as it was before as far as determining who the GOP nominee will be. Once again, Romney failed to get any kind of meaningful victory, and so the universe’s longest slog toward obscurity continues. Even though I still believe that the powers that be will ensure that Romney will be the eventual nominee, no one else seems to be giving any quarter. Even poor old Ron Paul is hanging in there. Romney reminds me of the Stepford candidate, who will say anything he thinks his present audience will want to hear. This can and has been wincingly painful on a number of occasions. His southern strategy this week was a perfect example. Seeing Mitt say “Hey y’all” and talk about his supposed breakfast of cheesy grits was especially cringe-inducing to me. At this stage of the campaign, I doubt if anyone, including Mitt, knows who the real Mitt Romney is. His answer about what Rush had to say about Ms. Fluke was especially weak: “Those weren’t the words I’d have chosen.” I don’t think that probably won him a large number of the women’s vote. Besides, you have to question the decision-making skills of anyone who would strap their dog to the roof of the car for a 450 mile vacation trip to Canada.

Rick Santorum, meanwhile, is jockeying for the Great American Theocracy vote. He has completely subverted the will of the Founding Fathers by ignoring the separation of church and state doctrine that was a bedrock issue by the framers of the Constitution. He’s badmouthed JFK and says that people who believe they should send their kids to college are snobs. He’s been somewhat successful being the anti-Romney, but I don’t think he’s going to seal the deal with a majority of the voters as the best choice to lead our country back to prosperity. Gingrich did a better job than Romney in carrying his home state, but if anyone believes the president of the United States can lower gas prices to $2.50/gallon, well then I have some moon acreage I’d like to sell you. I hardly think a sufficient portion of the masses are going to believe that. Ron, so long, it’s been good to know you. And so it drags on until November.

Tags: Dittoheads, Don Burnard, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, The Hot Corner

This entry was posted on Friday, March 16th, 2012 at 3:08 am and is filed under Opinion, The Hot Corner.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Oops, he did it again … last week, Rush Limbaugh created a media firestorm by referring to Sandra Fluke, a woman who testified in front of Congress about insurance companies and birth control mandates, as a “slut” and “prostitute.” Limbaugh then double-downed the following day when he suggested Fluke make a sex tape, “if taxpayers are going to pay for her birth control.”

Limbaugh has apologized but a reported 35 businesses have pulled their advertisements/money and two radio stations have dropped his show. In my career, I have been involved with a couple of these boycotts, so I have learned how they happen and where they go wrong. So I wanted to offer you the “boycott blueprint” for any media comments that offend you in the future.

1. Just cause: The most important thing in executing a boycott is the reason for the boycott. What has been said that has motivated you to leap into action? Who did it offend/hurt and why was it said? Limbaugh’s recent comments are the perfect just cause.

2. Organize: Once you have the reason, it’s time to find others who are equally offended by the host’s statements. To find offended parties one may want to use Facebook or Twitter.  Once your initial group is formed, it’s time to talk to bigger groups who would be offended — churches, political parties, unions, etc. Professional tip: The larger the group, the faster and easier the boycott will be. Getting multiple groups will increase the speed of this process.

3. Contact the station: You are organized and motivated; now it’s time to convey your anger toward the persons in charge at the radio/TV station. When asking for a meeting, make sure that all station higher-ups are in attendance. The No. 1 solution immediately and almost always offered is an on-air apology. In certain cases, management may agree with your just cause and suspend the host(s) for the comments. If the local management fails to meet your needs, contact the corporate offices, ask for titles like regional vice presidents, program directors, etc. Professional tip: Apologies and suspensions often boost ratings for the show and the station. If all you wanted was an apology or suspension, please stop reading.

4. Listen: If your concerns are not addressed to your satisfaction, start jotting down every company who advertises, locally and nationally, on the offending program. Holding a sign outside the station may get your group television coverage, but going after the advertising money is the crucial element. TV and radio stations are businesses first, and they need advertising money to operate. Solely boycotting the station always backfires, because it generates interest and interest translates into ratings. Boycotting the companies that advertise on the station is the most efficient way for your group’s message of discontent to be heard and acted upon (although there is a risk — one prominent Limbaugh advertiser, Carbonite, has seen its stock plunge dramatically since it announced it left Limbaugh’s show).

5. Contact sponsors: Once you know who’s advertising, the next step is to reach out to the person actually responsible for making the advertising decisions for each company. Inform the decision-makers of what happened and how your group has been handled, treating them like a future partner. Encourage them to reach out to the media entity and express their concerns. They may offer to remove their advertising from the show, but that means the station will reschedule their commercials, making its money during another program. Professional tip: Please remember to treat the advertisers with the greatest amount of respect, as they have done nothing wrong but marketed their businesses on the offensive show.

6. Contact media: Now that you’re organized and have given notice to the advertising businesses, it is the time to take your case to the public via the local media. News releases should be sent to every media entity stating the history of what happened and your group’s intentions. Ask for the public’s help with phone calls, emails, tweets and Facebook.

7. Take it national: If the above steps have not yet worked, taking the story national often will help.

8. Update: Here’s another crucial step: keeping the public notified of your success and momentum.  Constantly update the public as to what businesses have pulled their advertising, etc. You may want to start a Twitter #Hashtag like #StopRush.

9. Warning — Do not fail: If you fail to get the show removed, you may have inadvertently crowned a new king. Nothing breeds ratings success like controversy and outrage. Rappers are often judged by how many bullets they have survived; the same goes for local media.

Limbaugh’s ratings will be through the roof if he survives this latest controversy, as people are tuning in to hear what he will say next. That’s why TV/radio personalities say such controversial things — to generate interest, which equals ratings. There is a fine line between what’s accepted and what’s not. The broadcaster who can toe the free speech line the longest will be the richest as well.

When you cross the line, as many feel Limbaugh did, you face what he’s facing now.

Jeremy Baumhower tweets @jeremytheproduc.

Tags: Facebook, Jeremy Baumhower, Media Watch, Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke, Twitter

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 8th, 2012 at 7:25 pm and is filed under Community, Media, Media Watch.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The 4th of July is to freedom what Christmas Day is to faith; a day set aside to recognize and appreciate something we should recognize and appreciate every day.

I am a patriot, and I refuse to let any ideological shadings dissuade me from that identity. I do not equate love of country with any political alliance; patriotism should transcend conservatism, liberalism and all points in between. That is not an espousal of blind faith. It is a commitment to the values of liberty and opportunity, which provide freedom of choice and freedom of voice.

As the editor of a newspaper that regularly receives invectives from left and right adherents (I was once confronted by a University of Toledo library official who described Toledo Free Press as a “right-wing rag,” just minutes before a UT communication professor told me he was disappointed that one of his former students was running a “liberal union mouthpiece paper”), I am sensitive to political perceptions and strive to offer a balanced opinion section. Any publication that publishes Don Burnard and Stacy Jurich on one side and Thomas Berry and Dock David Treece on the other should be able to claim it is offering the podium to a wide range of ideologies.

In an ongoing attempt to understand the evolution of our country’s political divide, I have been reading M. Stanton Evans’ book, “The Liberal Establishment,” which attempts to offer a “true idea of the direction in which our present rulers are taking the once-free society of the United States.”

In his introduction, Evans defines liberalism as “a belief in increased centralization of power in the federal government and in economic ‘planning’ aimed at the creation of a welfare state”; as a foreign affairs approach that problems can best be settled by reasoning with the agents of global conspiracy” and as a “moral relativism” in which the “highest virtue is ‘tolerance’ of anything and everything … there are no fixed standards of right and wrong.”

Evans describes conservatism as a “resistance movement” that struggles to overcome media and social bias: “It was assumed that Liberal ideas were the only ideas, and that suggestions to the contrary were beneath the trouble of refutation, were even, in some versions of the Liberal argument, a form of avarice or dementia.”

Evans outlines five elements of the “Liberal Establishment”: academics and colleges; “upper-brow magazines” such as The New Yorker; the book publishing industry; a “sizable segment of the clergy”; and the motion picture and television industry.

He is particularly critical of the president, writing, “He advances Liberal Establishment programs with agility and zeal; he is acclaimed and glorified by Liberal Establishment spokesmen.” He further describes the president as “a product of American politics at its most technical and antiseptic level, equipped with first-rate antennae for divining issues, assuaging interests and counting votes.”

Evans writes about his concerns that the country is drifting toward socialism and in part blames adherence to the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes.

“In its leading premise that government should control the economic activities of its citizens, Keynesian economics incorporates the central objective of the socialists,” Evans writes. “The avowed purpose of Keynesian fiscal and monetary manipulations is to transfer resources away from those who lend money to those who borrow it and earn it as wages … the goal is to ‘redistribute the wealth’ through the intricate workings of money and credit.”

Evans maintains that “federal aid” is a means to control Americans and make more of the country’s citizens and industries reliant upon the government. Not surprisingly, Evans is worried about the trillions of dollars in debt the country owes and the fact that the government is imposing a “per-family debt” on Americans. He maintains that constant spending causes deficits and inflation, as “the government pumps new money into the economy without a corresponding increase in productivity.” He discusses the dangers for Americans with devalued or disappearing pensions, which ties into a threat to such government aid programs as Social Security and Medicare. Social Security, he writes, is “On the edge of insolvency. There is no money in the ‘fund’; all Social Security revenues go into the general fund of the United States and are spent just like other tax money. Clearly, there is trouble ahead for Social Security.”

Evans saves some of his sharpest criticism for the news media and “managed news.” He accuses the president of employing a “carrot and stick” approach to controlling media. The carrot consists of exclusive scoops, special access and positive recognition. The stick is a denial of access.

It may not be remarkable that Evans’ thoughts are echoed daily on nearly every conservative talk radio program. What is notable is that every word of his “Liberal Establishment” philosophy was published in 1965.

I wanted to conclude that nearly 50 years after Evans wrote his book, the message hasn’t changed one iota; it’s the decline into anger and contempt that separated his era of rhetoric from ours. But then Evans concludes with a strikingly extreme statement: “Liberalism does not resemble socialism so much as it does that ‘revolution without a doctrine, ‘Nazism, and its Mediterranean in-law obsessed with the majesty of power for power’s sake … an excellent case can be made for the position that Liberalism is a genteel American version, not of socialism, but of fascism.”

That brings Evans’ work in line with our modern vitriol, making him less a prophet and more a progenitor of the Glenn Becks, Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of our time.

Michael S. Miller is editor in chief of Toledo Free Press and Toledo Free Press Star. Email him at mmiller@toledofreepress.com.

Tags: Dock David Treece, Don Burnard, Glenn Beck, Lighting The Fuse, M. Stanton Evans, Michael S. Miller, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Stacy Jurich, The Liberal Establishment, Thomas Berry

This entry was posted on Friday, July 1st, 2011 at 12:00 am and is filed under Lighting The Fuse, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.