Was the 1960s campaign more civil than it is today?

Was the 1960s campaign more civil than it is today? That's the question Glenn was asking the audience on radio this morning as he reviewed a report from Paul Wilson and the Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute.

In the report posted on TheBlaze, Wilson explains:

During the 1960 presidential campaign, Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy was attacked for his Catholic faith, then viewed by many as subversive and un-American. Anti-Mormon bigots are now targeting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his Mormon beliefs, which are now viewed by many “progressives” as a “transparent and recent fraud.” But in those 50 years, the role of the media has changed significantly.

June 2012 study performed by American National Election Studies (ANES) found that 43 percent of liberals would be “less likely” to vote for a Mormon candidate for religious reasons. An essential point, given how often news outlets highlight Romney’s religion.

In 1960, major media outlets refused to tolerate religious bigotry, characterizing it as “bilge” and calling its practitioners “small-minded and prejudiced persons … not representative of America.” In 2012, supposedly “mainstream” outlets have given opponents of Mormonism a platform to call the church the “Salt Lake City empire of corporate greed,” obsessively labeled Mitt Romney as Mormon, and even engaged in anti-Mormon bigotry themselves. These anti-Mormon voices have been amplified by the liberal echo chamber.

The difference is more than 50 years – the difference is politics. In 1960, media outlets defended Kennedy, who was part of a faith whose members traditionally voted Democratic. In 2012, those same media outlets are attacking Romney, who belongs to a faith whose members typically support conservative causes and vote Republican.

How did the media treat Kennedy differently back in 1960? Glenn read a passage from the New York Times on radio this morning:

As the campaign opens, there will always be in any election and between elections small‑minded and prejudice persons who have a newer rocket compulsion to feel superior to somebody or an urge to blame some racial or minority group for their own individual failures or misfortunes.  But these people are not representative of America.  They have rarely determined elections in the past and they will not determine the one that is coming.  Millions of Catholics, protestants, Jews and people of no formal faith will testify in a prejudice of faith cannot be endorsed in this country without doing political damage to the persons or candidates who endorse it.

But what is the New York Times saying now? Glenn explained, "They're calling Salt Lake City the empire of corporate greed. They're talking about magic underwear.  They're talking about, they're bashing baptism for the dead despite the fact that it's in the New Testament."

Glenn discussed the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead for anyone who didn't understand.

"You're just allowing that person to choose.  If you believe in that ‑‑ see, I mean, I think this is the most compassionate thing.  If you believe in it, that it's a gateway, that Jesus said you've got to be baptized, okay, great.  You've got to be baptized.  Okay.  Good.  So what happens to all those people, are they just going to burn in the fires of hell that went before, before Jesus?" Glenn asked.

Glenn explained that the ritual is just offering the deceased a choice, and that in no way does "baptism for the dead" force anyone to be converted to Mormonism or Christianity in their belief system.

"Let's say you don't believe in the religion and we baptize for the dead.  You don't believe in it.  It's nonsense.  How did his baptism hurt you in any way?" he added.

"You don't agree with it, so what's the big deal?"

Glenn, not wanting to limit the discussion to Mormonism, asked the audience to look at how Rick Santorum was treated by the media.

"Let's make this about religion.  Because look at what they called Santorum.  Santorum was (called) a cultist, too," he said. "He was a Papist and a cultist."

"When it's a situation with Rick Santorum or are something, the religion's scary.  It's this reason to fear him," Stu said, adding that when people bring up Jeremiah Wright the media decides to ignore it - even when he says radical things like the government developed HIV to kill African Americans.

"But that's not scary," Glenn joked.

Stu added, " But Rick Santorum wants traditional marriage.  Fear him."

"I mean, the double standard is well covered but absolutely crystal clear in this case," Stu explained. " And, you know, here we have a situation where a guy is trying to run.  It's not like this is some weird thing that might happen in the future.  Mitt Romney is running for president right now.  He's one of two guys who might win it.  And this is a story in which they continue to trash him, they continue to mock his faith. "

"If you really think that you can't vote for somebody because he's black, because he's Catholic, because he's Mormon, you really have nothing going on in your life.  And boy, are you going to be surprised on the other side of life.  You're going to be surprised.  We're in this together, gang," Glenn concluded.

 

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.