SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Actually, Glenn Beck Is Not Father Coughlin

POLITICS NOVEMBER 20, 2010

Actually, Glenn Beck Is Not Father Coughlin

You haven’t truly arrived as a right-wing demagogue on the American airwaves until you’ve been compared to Reverend Charles E. Coughlin, the undisputed “Father of Hate Radio,” as one biographer described him. Those pegged as modern-day Coughlins have been, at various points in our recent history, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Sean Hannity, and Andrew Breitbart (who LA Observed described as “L.A.’s Father Coughlin,” which is a start).

But no one has been accorded the honor more these days than Glenn Beck, who devoted a segment on his Fox television show back in March to debunking what he called the “laughable” Coughlin comparison made “over and over again” against him by “the Left.” In the wake of Beck’s triumphantly anodyne palooza on the Mall in Washington D.C., the charge has been made with even greater frequency. Keith Olbermann started calling him “Father Cough-Glenn.” Bloomberg’s Al Hunt wrote a column comparing the two “mesmerizing broadcasters able to articulate the anger and frustration of a flock frightened by economic hard times.” And, in his new book about Beck—Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America—Dana Milbank devotes a chapter to placing the two men’sstatements side by side, showing that both railed against government tyranny (our own and others), floated crackpot theories, celebrated the founders and their works, warned of the predations of Europe and international bureaucrats, and heaped praise on an awesome deity. With Beck’s recent Coughlinlike indictment of George Soros as an unrepentant accomplice in the deaths of other Jews and a “puppet master” able to topple governments at will, it’s a surprise more commentators haven’t drawn the comparison.

But Beck is no Coughlin. Beck’s comments and work certainly aren’t defensible. But the comparison to Coughlin is not only flawed—it is historically illiterate, denying Coughlin, pastor of the Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Michigan, his rightful place as one of the most odious characters in American history.

Coughlin was a giant in the history of radio, both the prototypical televangelist (he raked in the bucks) and the first political loudmouth with a mass following: He drew 40 million listeners in the early thirties to his Sunday afternoon program, double the 20 million that Rush Limbaugh has claimed for his audience. But he didn’t just talk; he urged action—illegal and terrifying. By1938, increasingly unhinged and openly anti-Semitic, Coughlin was using his radio pulpit and his 200,000-circulation newspaper, Social Justice, to advocate for the creation of a violent hate group, the Christian Front. The group soon boasted members numbering in the thousands throughout the cities of Northeast. It has largely been forgotten that Coughlin’s “platoons,” as he called them, were responsible for a months-long campaign of low-level mayhem in New York City: They attacked Jews with fists and sometimes knifes. They boycotted Jewish-owned businesses (guided by a “Christian index” of shopkeepers) and sometimes smashed their windows in the German fashion. This ugly episode culminated when 17 Coughlinites were arrested by the FBI in January 1940 and charged with planning acts of terrorism against Jewish individuals and institutions (and those deemed their allies).

Although he didn’t have a role in orchestrating the plan, Coughlin, after a brief hesitation, gave his full-throated support to the “Brooklyn Boys,” saying in a January 21,1940, broadcast that “I take my stand beside the Christian Fronters … [and] … reaffirm every word which I have said in advocating [the Front’s] formation.” Beck hasn’t come close to scaling those heights.

 

The proximate cause of the Christian Front’s campaign in New York was Coughlin’s Kristallnacht address of November 20, 1938, perhaps the vilest in the history of American broadcasting. With the world unable to deny that the Nazi regime was prepared to commit mass violence against Jews, Coughlin argued with his phony Irish brogue (his parents had never seen the oul sod) that the atrocity was merely a “defense mechanism against communism,” which was the product of “atheistic Jews.” He sneered at the attendant publicity, “attributable to the fact that Jews, through their native ability, have risen to such high places in radio and in press and in finance.” In the end, he said America should avoid any “unreasonable reprisals” against the Hitlerite regime. “Let charity be the law of our conduct,” he concluded, “and let justice for all be our guiding star.” The Little Flower Choristers then took the microphone to sing the hymn “O What Could My Jesus Do More” with Cyril Dutherell at the console of the organ.

Alone among Coughlin’s more than 60 affiliates—the priest had an audience of about 15 million listeners at this point in his career, author Donald Warren has estimated—WMCA in New York had heard enough. Management canceled his show after Coughlin refused to allow them to alter his scripts before he delivered them. (A Newark station promptly offered him airtime.) Coughlin’s militia—he had called for “a virile, closely woven Christian Front” to serve as “defense mechanism against Red activities and as a protector of Christianity and Americanism” and many chapters had formed throughout the five boroughs and in Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and other cities—was outraged. Hundreds began picketing the WMCA station in midtown Manhattan every Sunday, shouting anti-Semitic slogans, stopping traffic, and instigating fights with passing Jews (or those who seemed to the thugs to be Jews). The CF held street-corner rallies throughout the city, often at highly trafficked intersections in communities populated by Jews and Irish. (“Most members of the Front were Irish Catholics,” wrote scholar Ronald H. Bayor). In July 1939, James Wechsler wrote in The Nation of “several stabbings, a multitude of street fights, deepening tension in mixed neighborhoods … [which is] almost uniformly ignored by the press, partly because it fears to tread on Catholic toes and partly because it still believes in the silent treatment for anti-Semitism.”

But that changed in January 1940. J. Edgar Hoover was flown into town to announce the arrest of 17 Coughlinites who had hatched a delusional plan to overthrow the United States by committing acts of terror against Jewish life and property but also against U.S. elected officials and installations (the Customs House, post offices). The plot followed the form of the classic Irish rebellion. The rebels did not think they could possibly overthrow the government themselves. No, they hoped that the government’s draconian response in putting down their “revolutionary gesture” (as Irish historian R.F. Foster described the failed 1848 Young Irelander rebellion) would inspire the slumbering (anti-Semitic, they hoped) masses to rise up against their rulers. They would then set up a right-wing dictatorship and suppress the Jewish population. It didn’t work, of course. Even though the case against the Christian Fronters fell apart—the jury had a hard time believing that they had the means to pull off such a far-fetched plot—the group was forgotten as the United States entered World War II and the vast majority of Americans joined the fight against the Axis powers.

 

All, it seems, except for Father Coughlin. He left the radio airwaves of his own volition in 1940, but he continued to publish Nazi propaganda in Social Justice until the spring of 1942, when the U.S. government suspended his second-class mailing permit, charging that the paper obstructed the war effort in violation of the 1917 Espionage Act. Coughlin’s boss, Detroit Archbishop Edward Mooney, was roused to put his foot down and demand that Coughlin not fight the government’s action in court. He bowed to ecclesiastical authority. At least, that’s been the standard story for decades. Author Richard Sipe, a former priest who has written several books about the sexuality of Catholic priests, offers evidence that Coughlin stayed silent only after Hoover called him up and threatened to go public with “proof of Coughlin’s homosexuality.”

Coughlin lost his standing in American society (although not the Catholic Church, which allowed him to maintain his pastorship until his retirement in 1966) when he sided too openly with our avowed wartime enemies. But he never faced real punishment for his other sins: Coughlin didn’t merely use hateful rhetoric against Jews. He wasn’t just willing to use the American airwaves and mail system to foment violence against a minority of his fellow Americans. He celebrated the criminals who attempted to spark an American pogrom.

Yes, you can hear the strains of Coughlinism on the airwaves today. And, in many ways, Glenn Beck, with his fervent piety and wild-eyed talk of conspiracy, is closer to Coughlin than steakhouse Republicans like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Like Coughlin, he comes off as a somewhat unbalanced Seeker of the Truth who thrives on the scorn of his enemies.

But there is currently no Father Coughlin, properly understood, engaging an appreciable audience in our country today—no one urging or condoning violence to millions of followers. We should all hope that it remains that way.

Peter Duffy is an author and journalist in New York.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 24 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

24 comments

Great reasoning. From Duff'y implied history (and other sources you can Google) , Coughlin and the CF started out obnoxious but not odius--- and constantly escalated. Then "ALONE [my caps] among Coughlin’s more than 60 affiliates—the priest had an audience of about 15 million listeners at this point in his career, author Donald Warren has estimated—WMCA in New York had heard enough. Management canceled his show after Coughlin refused to allow them to alter his scripts before he delivered them." And Duffy takes it downhill for Coughln from there--- rather than disparaging the unjust, irresponsible actions of WMCA that made the good Father the object of ridicule, aided and abetted by FBI intervention.. Glen Beck has only been indirectly responsible for a pilot flying into an IRS office in Austin, TX=--- and a few enraged Tea Party type killings and beatings in PA and KY. So follow Duffy's advice. Mute your criticism of Beck until sometime after the Kristallnacht rally in 2013, with Beck and President Palin as the keynote speakers. An then look over your shoulder to see who the SS, I mean FBI, is directed to investigate. As Sinclair Lewis wrote over 70 years agp-- "It can't happen here". Heck, to even suggest it, proves you're a weido left winger (Albeit I swear I see more Nazi comparisons made by the Right than the Left).

- drofnats1

November 20, 2010 at 4:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One point--you say that Coughlin stoppered broadcasting 'of his own volition' in 1940. My understanding (from a biography I read years ago), was that he was ordered off the air by the Bishop of Detroit, who had gotten the post midway through Coughlin's career and never liked his broadcasts.

- sjberke1

November 20, 2010 at 6:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Could we have some clarification on radio audiences, number of listeners/followers, then and now? It's all rather gauzy. My understanding (meaning I well could be wrong) is that a radio audience today is the daily audience times the number of days in the week the show is broadcast. (Don't know if that's how they figured it back in the 1930s.) Thus a program with 2 million individual daily listeners broadcast five days a week is said to have an audience of 10 million, which in reality it does not have. (Newspapers tout daily circulation, a more accurate audience number I think. ) Two million is a not insubstantial number -- it's many more listeners than I have -- but it's well under 1 percent of the US population. Dan

- dbuck1

November 20, 2010 at 8:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Coughlin had a 40 million listener audience for his Sunday show, that is more than 1/3 of the total US population in early 1930s. Or perhaps more than half the adult population. Could that be true? 40 million every Sunday? How was that number determined? I'm not doubting he was a menace, but these kinds of stories always tend to exaggerate listener numbers. Dan

- dbuck1

November 20, 2010 at 8:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Coughlin actually believed the noxious tripe; Beck is but an actor, and a not very good one at that (he cannot suppress that smile). Still, many hang on Beck's every word, as though emanating from higher authority, and his potential for fomenting violence should not be underestimated. Also, Coughlin's popularity was constructed on a largely anti-Semitic Catholic platform; Beck is the gentile analogue, whose popularity is constructed on a largely racist and xenophobic evangelical platform. In Beck's telling, it isn't the Jewish banking cartel, but rather a long-dead gentile president and a very much alive black one who are the source for our current difficulties. No, it isn't secular justice that Beck and his audience demand for Jews; rather, for Jews it's a far worse fate that Beck and his audience expect to be rendered in the end, God's judgment.

- rayward

November 20, 2010 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For another TNR take on Father Coughlin, from 1936, follow this link to the Archives: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&hid=8&sid=a3f7f111-a814-4eb9-b3e2-6198a64c5561%40sessionmgr13 Not sure if that will work, but you can go to the archives and search Cohglin for a few more good pieces. I have heard the 40 million listeners and as I was growing up, every grandparent around told me they listened to the Father. But he could not deliver the 9 million votes in 1932, so while he had listeners, the followers were far less. Regarding Mr. Duffy's piece above, the shorter format does not allow him to go into the earlier days of Coughlin and his accomplishments. Coughlin is a far more complex person than Duffy's Demagouge. Coughlin himself claimed he was not Anti-Semitic and only took on the Jews after their attacks upon him. Famously publishing 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' after one attack. Pre-War he did support the Nazi Party, but almost every anti-communist did. If you remember anything about the 1930's in europe it was a battle between Communism and Fascism. There were no good guys on either side. Coughlin's rise was fueled by legitimate grieveances against many different policies and programs. Failed Banks always had the wealthy clients get their money out a few days before the closing. With Catholics among the folks who lost their money, you had the newspapers telling them how stupid they were to invest in such poor businesses, while Coughlin was arguing for government intervention, and insurance along the lines of FDIC. He argued against Prohibition and he argued this was discriminatory against Catholics who had no religious rules against Alcohol. And he pointed out how the Jewish Family the Bronfman's moved their Distillary to Canada to continue alchol production for Americans while many good German Families turned their breweries into Ice Cream Factories. That while the Jews met the letter of the law they acted to subvert it, while German families operated within the expectations of the laws of the land. Regarding Communism, when FDR recognized Soviet Russia he lost Coughlin. There was no greater threat to the Catholic Church than Communism and this was not negoitiable. Coughlin's fascisim can be compared to the accusations of commuism against FDR. Coughlin's wild claims about Jewish involvement were mis-guided, but common at the time. History showed how this battle between the Catholics and Communist turned out. And lastly, Duffy's damning condemnation of the Christian Front ignores the reality of 1930's America when gangs and thuggery were far more common. The United Automibile Workers, Ford Motor Company, among others had men at the ready to fight. There was great animosity among the Catholics and Jews. Would Duffy use the Jewish Terrorism against Christians and Muslims in Palastine as an example of Anti-Christianism? I watch Glenn Beck occaisionally and enjoy his perspective. Most of the press these days simply repeats half hearted statements from the government or coporatins without challenging these inane utterances. Glenn Beck reacts and engages these statements asking what they mean. Beck engages in conversation with our Government Leaders instead of stenography. Coughlin's challenges were similarly refreshing and provacative. In an age of Blogs, Email, Television, Radio, Jets and Cars and large cities, it is hard to imagine a time when people were not heard. The Radio Preacher did give voice to those who were not being heard.

- CRS9TNR

November 20, 2010 at 10:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CRS9TNT, Talk about rewriting and sanitizing history. Coughlin started out as a leftist populist (he endorsed FDR in 1932; & as I recall, FDR won that election), but moved ever rightward on the populist dial until he became a full-blown, odious anti-Semitic demagogue. Duffy's correct on that point. Blaming Coughlin's anti-Semiticism on Bronfman's Canadian distillery is positively hilarious. Bronfman did American drinkers a favor. I salute him, tho I was not alive during prohibition to enjoy his business acumen. Dan P.S. Still, doubtful Coughlin had 40 million listeners.

- dbuck1

November 20, 2010 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, CRS, just taking one comment in your diatribe seriously for a moment, if Coughlin "only took on the Jews after their attacks on him," why did they attack him in the first place? There must have been a reason, surely. Or do Jews just go for people without provocation, out of a compulsive desire for hostility, or something?

- ironyroad

November 20, 2010 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Trying to ameliorate Coughlin's anti-Semitism describing it as a reaction to Bonfman's prohibition-era Canadian distillery is not only ludicrous on its face, the chronology is wrong. Coughlin's break with FDR and his virulent anti-Semitism did not happen until after Prohibition had ended in 1933. A precis of Coughlin's anti-Semitic eruptions, from the Holocaust Museum website, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005516 By the way, best I can tell, trawling the Internet on this lovely Saturday afternoon, is that the 40 million number came from John Spivak, a radical journalist and opponent of Coughlin. There's no indication how Spivak arrived at such a number; I can only guess he plucked it out of thin air, more as a graphic example of how dangerous he purported Coughlin to be than as anything based on science. Now, here's the interesting part, and brings us back to Glen Beck, who has used his fame to promote investment in gold, which benefits him perd=sonally. In Spivak's book Shrine of the Silver Dollar, he charged that Coughlin was privately hoarding silver while telling his followers to lobby the government to put the country on the silver standard. Maybe Glen Beck is not Charles Coughlin, but he's on his way. Dan

- dbuck1

November 20, 2010 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If you remember anything about the 1930's in europe it was a battle between Communism and Fascism." Wow, so Hitler was right about that all along. I guess you learn something new every day.

- samkamin

November 20, 2010 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CRS9TNT: "And he pointed out how the Jewish Family the Bronfman's [sic] moved their Distillary [sic] to Canada" If Coughlin "pointed this out", then he was not simply a despicable hate monger and anti-Semite; he was an ignoramus: Samuel Bronfman was a Canadian who founded the Distillers Corporation in Montreal in 1924 and subsequently acquired Joseph E. Seagram & Sons of Waterloo, Ontario. The family did not own a distillery, or anything else, in the US before Prohibition.

- JPKatz

November 20, 2010 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A good complement to this article is this excellent essay by Sean Wilentz: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/18/101018fa_fact_wilentz

- basman

November 20, 2010 at 11:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have never read a good biography of Coughlin: Any recommendations?

- stanmvp48

November 21, 2010 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stanmvp48: I recommend "The Politics of Unreason, Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790-1970" by Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab. Harper Torchbooks. Chapter 5, "The 1930's: Extremism of the Depression," pages 150-208. The Chapter contains 163 "Notes" citing books, articles biographies, MA and PhD thesis, monographs, etc. This book is an excellent place to start.

- LawrenceGulotta

November 21, 2010 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have not had a chance to read all the comments and linked articles yet. My parents were secular Jews, children of recent immigrants from Eastern Europe, who grew up in the Midwest in the 1920s through 1940s. I was struck how appalled, horrified, and terrified by Coughlin when they talked to me of him and his broadcasts.

- skahn

November 21, 2010 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony - Father Coughlin was promoting a Christian Approach to politics and organizing around those principles. In addition he was an Isolationist who wanted America to focus on the problems at home. He was advocating for inflation and relief from Creditors. Each item taken seperately was not threatening to the Jewish community. As a whole it was. Coughlin in a common argument would argue there were Jewish Members in his audience who agreed with his policies. Coughlin published a pamphlet arguing he was not an Anti-Semite, but that was not effective. The attacks on Coughlin from the Jews were mostly valididated later. DBuck- I am not sure what qualifies some Anti-Semitism as Odious and other as run of the mill. The Holocuast Museum classifies Coughlin's Antisemitism in the same vien as Henry Ford and Ezra Pound which I would not argue with. There is a Coughln Biography from a Notre Dame Professor that concludes he was anti-semitic. Coughlin's example of the Jewish Distillers is taken from one of his speeches. In it he argues that the Canadians were just as bad as Al Capone during prohibition. It's hard to argue against this, unless you think Colombia should be free to produce Cocaine because it's legal in Colombia. It probably isn't a good topic for religous analysis, but morality was a large part of prohibitions motivations. Regarding the Silver Dollar, that is pretty thin acusations. Fatehr Coughlin was investing in Silver while advocating it's use to back the Dollar. Coughlin wasn't able to move markets, but that accusation stuck. Even today I have meet people who hoard silver in their house. There are better criticism of Coughlin than this material. StanMVP - You can purchase old Coughlin books on-line at Amazon.Com. They have his speeches from 1934-35. Interesting for the rhetoric and details in his speeches, but a little thin and hard to read. You can pick up 'Voices of Protest' by Alan Brinkley cheaply at a used book store. The Don Warren Book really isn't worth much, it documents tha American Bund connection, but has too much bias and too little academic reasearch. Yes you are correct at how appalled the Jewish Community was by Coughlin. I have had a few Jewish folks tell me that they avoid Royal Oak becuase of the stories they have heard. Here is one of my points in how the details of Coughln are lost in the caricitures of his anti-semitisim. Duffy points out that Bishop Mooney silenced Coughlin, while he smears Coughlin as a Homosexual, his analysis is simply incorrect. Mooney did not force Coughlin to accept the governments mailing policies, it was Coughlin's mistake in calling a sitting President Stupid. Why did Coughln call FDR Stupid? What Anti-semitic action was the rabidly right-wing Coughlin pursuing. Coughlin added his voice to the protest over FDR's nomination of Hugo Black, later a great justice, but at his nomination a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Coughlin was correct to criticize a former Klansman for Supreme Court, but it didn't matter. Coughlin was silenced. After his retirement from Radio in 1937 there was really no agitiation from Coughlin for 40 years. Not exactly a rabid anti-semite or fascist. Someone who argued for the common man.

- CRS9TNR

November 21, 2010 at 8:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CRS9TNR: Father Coughlin did not retire from radio in 1937. Far from it. Lipset and Raab write, "Father Coughlin publicly announced that if Lemke did not receive at least 9,000,000 votes, he would stop his radio broadcasts. The November election gave the Union Party candidates less than 900,000 votes, and on November 7, Father Coughlin told his radio audience that he was leaving the air. " "Coughlin's absence from the airways was short lived. He returned to a regular weekly broadcast on January 24, 1937. From then on, his politics took on an increasingly aggressive and more overt fascist-like posture. In mid year he announced the formation of Social Justice Councils, from which all non-Christians (Jews) were to be excluded." May 23, 1938--Social Justice, Fr. Coughlin's magazine, listed Mussolini as its "Man of the Year." July 1938- Social Justice reprints "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." September 1938--runs articles in Social Justice justifying Hitler's demands for the Sudetenland; endorsed Chamberlain's actions at Munich; attacks Churchill and Edan. 1939--Social Justice defends the persecution of the Jews by Fascists and Nazis. 1939- After the outbreak of the war on September 1, Father Coughlin strongly attacks any efforts to aid the allies, while at the same time he blamed the war and efforts to get the US into it on the Jews. Even after the US entered the war in 1941, Social Justice continued to hold the Jews responsible for the conflict. 1940-1941--Larger radio stations on which he had been broadcasting refused to renew his contracts, and he was forced to cancel his 1940-1941 series. Spring 1942- The Postmaster-General of the US banned Social Justice from the mails as seditious. "To avoid a sedition trial against the radio priest, Archbishop Mooney of Detroit was asked indirectly by the Attorney-General to silence him and agreed to do so. On May 1, 1942, the Archbishop told Coughlin to "cease all public pronouncements for the duration of the war under penalty of DEFROCKMENT. Father Coughlin acquiesced, and his political career was over." CRS9TNR: You may advocate any opinion you wish, but you may not have your own facts. See pages 170-171 in "The Politics of Unreason, Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790-1970" by Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab. Harper Torchbooks. Chapter 5, "The 1930's: Extremism of the Depression."

- LawrenceGulotta

November 21, 2010 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If you remember anything about the 1930's in europe it was a battle between Communism and Fascism." Wow, so Hitler was right about that all along. I guess you learn something new every day. samkamin: I don't think you have learned anything.

- LawrenceGulotta

November 21, 2010 at 10:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is the cut-and-paste function disabled on this thread?

- ironyroad

November 22, 2010 at 1:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok, now it's ok. CRS9: your comment "He was advocating for inflation and relief from Creditors. Each item taken seperately was not threatening to the Jewish community. As a whole it was." is meaningless drivel without some example of what you see as "inflation" (especially as one of the key problems was actually a deflationary spiral after 1931) and who these "creditors" were, and an explanation as to why those items in the aggregate were threatening to the Jewish community. In any case, I'm glad you have backed away from your assertion above that the Jews attacked Coughlin without justification (although you appear unable to to cite the actual reason other than in the vaguest generalities).

- ironyroad

November 22, 2010 at 1:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Coughlin published a pamphlet arguing he was not an Anti-Semite, but that was not effective." I'll bet. As for my use of the word odious, it's the perfect word, from the Latin "to hate." Odious sums up Coughlin's career. Dan

- dbuck1

November 22, 2010 at 7:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Samkamin & Lawrence, here's a link discussing briefly fascism in Europe. Iconic Photos, pretty good site. http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/ This photo discusses Portugual's 1974 Revolution, among others that year.

- CRS9TNR

November 23, 2010 at 9:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LawrenceGulotta - A mistake on my part. I took Coughlin's self-imposed retirement of 1937 as his final acts. You are correct, he went on until 1942. However, he lost most of his major markets and was dogged from 1937 until 1942 by almost everyone. His new Bishop wanted to review his speeches, along with the radio stations and the government. From 1937 on he was considered more of a crank and has-been. A few items for consideration. After publishing the Protocols a couple of months later he provided equal space to a local Jewish Leader to offer the proof of their fakery. Pretty sure that the May 23, 1938 Social Justice named Mussolini Man of the Week, not Man of the Year. Yes, Social Justice supported the German Annexation along with England's Prime Minister Chamberlain. There were many that got that one wrong. Coughlin did remain a Preist and until his death in 1979 had no other noteworthy outburts beyond his parish sermons where he occaisionally railed against communism. Until you have read his speeches, particularly his early material, you are missing important perspectives on the labor movement, economic policies regarding bank insurance, old age insurance, unemployment insurance and government's role in helping to aleviate these conditions. There was another significant religous figure like him shaping government policy, until Martin Luther King in 1960. And really no one since.

- CRS9TNR

November 23, 2010 at 10:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peter Duffy, Well, it turns out Glen Beck is drifting more in the direction of Charles Coughlin than perhaps you imagined. Glen Beck and Fox's News crude attempt to use The New Yorker to smear George Soros is whistled foul by Hendrik Hertzberg in the current New Yorker, here: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/11/29/101129taco_talk_hertzberg Excerpt: ====== Call us oversensitive, but when our efforts are shanghaied like a nineteenth-century sailor and forced to work as a deckhand aboard a ship of lies, we can’t help getting our hackles up. You don’t have to be a professional semiotician to see that the Glenn Beck promo is intended to leave the impression that George Soros, the hedge-fund investor and funder of anti-totalitarian and liberal causes, is an anti-Semite; that he was somehow complicit in the Holocaust; and that he is an enemy of Israel. These are lies—lies told by innuendo, but lies all the same. The promo’s shard of truth is that “The World According to Soros” was indeed published in The New Yorker. Its author was Connie Bruck. (“Bruc” is a Fox flub, not a Fox fib.) The quotes from it, though accurately transcribed, are made to function as lies by being placed in an utterly mendacious context. Bruck’s article is the “source” of these smears only in the sense that the brooks of the Catskills are the “source” of New York City’s sewage. =========================================== Dan

- dbuck1

November 27, 2010 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close