Media Search:



Why is the Liberal Party in the doldrums? Its a question of geography – Sydney Morning Herald

One reason often suggested is demography: younger voters are increasingly alienated from conservative parties. Yet, it was ever thus: the Liberal Partys past electoral success was never based on capturing the under 30s. The loss of younger voters is actually a problem common to both major parties. If you are under 25, you are as likely to vote Green as you are to vote Labor; that trend is set to continue.

Peter Dutton meets locals in his north Brisbane seat of Dickson. Paul Harris

At least as important to the Liberals current woes as demography, is geography. The Liberal Party is today less representative of metropolitan Australia than it has ever been. Add to that the proportionately larger influence within the Coalition of the National Party whose electoral base has held firm while the Liberals bled marginal seats in the cities and the opposition today is overwhelmingly a party of regional voices.

This is evident in the makeup of the Coalition leadership. Not one of the six who occupy leadership positions comes from Sydney or Melbourne. The largest city represented in the leadership group is Brisbane (Peter Duttons electorate Dickson is on Brisbanes northern outskirts). The two Senate leaders (Simon Birmingham and Michaelia Cash) come from the smaller capital cities (Adelaide and Perth respectively).

Of the other three (Liberal Deputy Sussan Ley, and the Nationals leaders David Littleproud and Perin Davey) two hail from southern NSW and one from western Queensland. Most of the other senior frontbenchers also live in regional Australia, including Angus Taylor (Goulburn), Dan Tehan (western Victoria), Barnaby Joyce (New England) and Ted OBrien (Sunshine Coast). Of the 24 members of Duttons shadow cabinet, only seven slightly more than a quarter are from Australias three largest cities.

The weighting away from the large cities is even more pronounced in the opposition party room. Of the 56 Coalition members of the House of Representatives, only 16 represent electorates in Australias eight capitals (Sydney, 7; Melbourne, 2; Brisbane, 4; Perth, 2; Adelaide, 1; Hobart, 0; Canberra, 0; Darwin, 0). The aggregate population of the capital cities is about 17.5 million more than two-thirds of Australias 26 million people. Yet the capital city electorates represented by Liberal MPs are barely more than 10 per cent of the House of Representatives. Even taking into account senators, most of whom are capital-city based, the figures do not get a lot better.

By far the largest proportion of Coalition MPs comes from Queensland: 21 of the 56. As I well know, having represented the state in the Senate for 18 years, Queensland is predominantly regional in character. It is the only mainland state where most of the population lives outside the capital city. While the politics of NSW are dominated by Sydney and the politics of Victoria are largely about Melbourne, the politics of Queensland are not, primarily, the politics of Brisbane, which is often radically at variance from the rest of the state.

Modern Brisbane is a progressive city within a conservative state. While regional Queensland is the bastion of One Nation, Brisbane elects more Green MPs than Melbourne. Only four of the 21 Queensland Coalition MPs come from Brisbane. The other 17 more than 30 per cent of all Coalition MPs are from regional Queensland, as are most of the senators.

In Queensland, the Liberal and National Parties merged in 2008 to form the LNP. In that merger, the regionally based National Party was by far the strongest element, the Brisbane-based Liberals very much a minority. The LNPs animating spirit is less Sir Robert Menzies than Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

Although in Canberra, LNP MPs are allocated between the Liberal and National parties, at home they are expected to be unreservedly LNP. Dutton (who supported the merger) is proclaimed not as the next Liberal prime minister but the first LNP prime minister. If one aggregates the LNP MPs with the nine NSW and Victorian Nationals, the number of Coalition MPs who are actually members of the Liberal Party in their home state is fewer than half (26 out of 56).

The strength of regional Queensland in Coalition politics is a mixed blessing for Dutton. Obviously, it presents a mighty electoral bulwark. Yet the very strength of that bulwark steers the Coalition in directions which, while popular in the north, are often unpalatable to voters in southern capitals or in Brisbane itself. Since the Coalition has maxed out on the number of Queensland seats it can win, there is no further electoral dividend there. But the bulwark can be an impediment to reaching swing voters in the metropolitan south.

Barnaby Joyce in his seat of New England. Supplied

The politics of regional Australia are very different from the politics of metropolitan Australia. The average voter is typically older, poorer and more wary of change someone who is more likely to see reform as a threat than an opportunity. Regional Australia is less culturally diverse. Its social attitudes are less liberal. It is more dependent upon the old economy of mining and agriculture than the digital and services economy of the big cities. It often feels disempowered, and that sense of disempowerment can sometimes provoke a defensive parochialism. It represents a shrinking proportion of the population.

Although much has been written about the flight from the Liberal Party of inner-city elites in the context of teal victories in wealthy electorates such as Wentworth, North Sydney and Kooyong, the Liberal Partys deeper problem as was evident from the Aston byelection is its loss of touch with suburban Australia. That has always been the core constituency of successful Liberal governments: Menzies forgotten people, Howards battlers, Tonys tradies.

The domination of the Coalition by conservative regionalism is an important cause of its alarming disconnect from suburban, big-city dwelling, more liberal, multicultural Australia. And increasingly, the Tweed River is replacing the Murray as the key fault-line of non-Labor politics.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. .

Visit link:
Why is the Liberal Party in the doldrums? Its a question of geography - Sydney Morning Herald

Liberals release recommendations to address housing crisis – country94.ca

Susan Holt is leader of the New Brunswick Liberal Party. Image: Submitted

New Brunswicks Liberal Party has released a new report with ways it says will help address the housing crisis.

The report includes 25 action items directed at the government under six focus areas, including:

The action items were putting forward are inspired and shaped by folks across the province, and were optimistic that by bringing everyone to the table government, developers, non-profits, and New Brunswickers we can ensure everyone has a place to call home, Liberal leader Susan Holt said in a news release.

The report comes as the province works to develop a housing strategy which is set to be released in June.

Liberal housing expert Benot Bourque says the province is changing and diversifying but our housing sector is not changing with it.

We need to start re-imagining and building housing developments now so that we can be a leader well into the future, said Bourque.

You can read the full report by clicking here.

Regional news director for Acadia Broadcasting's New Brunswick radio stations. A self-described weather geek who wakes up way before the sun to keep you informed.

Follow this link:
Liberals release recommendations to address housing crisis - country94.ca

Police officer charged with obstruction for allegedly leaking information to Proud Boys leader – WAPT Jackson

A police officer was arrested Friday on charges he lied about leaking confidential information to a leader of the far-right Proud Boys extremist group and obstructed an investigation after group members destroyed a Black Lives Matter banner in the nation's capital.An indictment alleges that Metropolitan Police Department Lt. Shane Lamond, 47, of Stafford, Virginia, warned former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio that law enforcement had an arrest warrant for Tarrio related to the banner's destruction.Tarrio was arrested in Washington two days before Proud Boys members joined a mob in storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Earlier this month, Tarrio and three other group members were convicted of seditious conspiracy charges for what prosecutors said was a plot to keep then-President Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election.A federal grand jury in Washington indicted Lamond on one count of obstruction of justice and three counts of making false statements. He is scheduled to make his initial court appearance on Friday.Mark Schamel, an attorney for Lamond, didnt immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment. Schamel has previously said that Lamond's job was to communicate with a variety of groups protesting in Washington, and his conduct with Tarrio was never inappropriate.Lamond, who supervised the intelligence branch of the police department's Homeland Security Bureau, often contacted Tarrio about Proud Boys' planned activities in Washington. Prosecutors say the two men communicated at least 500 times across several platforms over a period nearly a year and a half. Lamond began using the Telegram messaging platform to give Tarrio information about law enforcement activity around July 2020, about a year after they started talking, according to prosecutors. By November of that year, he was talking about meeting Tarrio during a night out. In December 2020, Lamond told Tarrio about where competing antifascist activists were expected to be. Lamond, whose job entailed sharing what he learned with others in the department, asked Tarrio whether he should share the information Tarrio gave him about Proud Boys activities, prosecutors said.Jurors who convicted Tarrio heard testimony that Lamond frequently provided the Proud Boys leader with internal information about law enforcement operations in the weeks before other members of his group stormed the Capitol.Less than three weeks before the Jan. 6 riot, Lamond warned Tarrio that the FBI and U.S. Secret Service were all spun up over talk on an Infowars internet show that the Proud Boys planned to dress up as supporters of President Joe Biden on the day of the inauguration.In a message to Tarrio on Dec. 25, 2020, Lamond said police investigators had asked him to identify Tarrio from a photograph. Lamond warned Tarrio that police may be seeking a warrant for his arrest.Later, on the day of his arrest, Tarrio posted a message to other Proud Boys leaders that said, The warrant was just signed.Text messages introduced at Tarrios trial appeared to show a close rapport between the two men, with Lamond frequently greeting the extremist group leader with the words hey brother.For the trial, Tarrios attorneys wanted to call Lamond to testify to support claims the Proud Boys leader wanted to avoid violence, but were stymied by his lawyer's contention that Lamond would claim Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

A police officer was arrested Friday on charges he lied about leaking confidential information to a leader of the far-right Proud Boys extremist group and obstructed an investigation after group members destroyed a Black Lives Matter banner in the nation's capital.

An indictment alleges that Metropolitan Police Department Lt. Shane Lamond, 47, of Stafford, Virginia, warned former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio that law enforcement had an arrest warrant for Tarrio related to the banner's destruction.

Tarrio was arrested in Washington two days before Proud Boys members joined a mob in storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Earlier this month, Tarrio and three other group members were convicted of seditious conspiracy charges for what prosecutors said was a plot to keep then-President Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election.

A federal grand jury in Washington indicted Lamond on one count of obstruction of justice and three counts of making false statements. He is scheduled to make his initial court appearance on Friday.

Mark Schamel, an attorney for Lamond, didnt immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment. Schamel has previously said that Lamond's job was to communicate with a variety of groups protesting in Washington, and his conduct with Tarrio was never inappropriate.

Lamond, who supervised the intelligence branch of the police department's Homeland Security Bureau, often contacted Tarrio about Proud Boys' planned activities in Washington. Prosecutors say the two men communicated at least 500 times across several platforms over a period nearly a year and a half.

Lamond began using the Telegram messaging platform to give Tarrio information about law enforcement activity around July 2020, about a year after they started talking, according to prosecutors. By November of that year, he was talking about meeting Tarrio during a night out.

In December 2020, Lamond told Tarrio about where competing antifascist activists were expected to be. Lamond, whose job entailed sharing what he learned with others in the department, asked Tarrio whether he should share the information Tarrio gave him about Proud Boys activities, prosecutors said.

Jurors who convicted Tarrio heard testimony that Lamond frequently provided the Proud Boys leader with internal information about law enforcement operations in the weeks before other members of his group stormed the Capitol.

Less than three weeks before the Jan. 6 riot, Lamond warned Tarrio that the FBI and U.S. Secret Service were all spun up over talk on an Infowars internet show that the Proud Boys planned to dress up as supporters of President Joe Biden on the day of the inauguration.

In a message to Tarrio on Dec. 25, 2020, Lamond said police investigators had asked him to identify Tarrio from a photograph. Lamond warned Tarrio that police may be seeking a warrant for his arrest.

Later, on the day of his arrest, Tarrio posted a message to other Proud Boys leaders that said, The warrant was just signed.

Text messages introduced at Tarrios trial appeared to show a close rapport between the two men, with Lamond frequently greeting the extremist group leader with the words hey brother.

For the trial, Tarrios attorneys wanted to call Lamond to testify to support claims the Proud Boys leader wanted to avoid violence, but were stymied by his lawyer's contention that Lamond would claim Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

See original here:
Police officer charged with obstruction for allegedly leaking information to Proud Boys leader - WAPT Jackson

Deputies ordered to answer questions about knowledge of gangs in LA County Sheriffs Department – Daily Breeze

A Loyola Law School report published on Jan. 13, 2021, traces a 50-year history of deputy gangs within the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. Many of those involved have tattoos that show their involvement. A new report from the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission released March 3, 2023 details deputy gang activity and makes several recommendations to new Sheriff Robert Luna for eliminated these groups from the Department. (Courtesy of Loyola Law School)

The Los Angeles County Office of Inspector General announced on Tuesday, May 16, it sent letters to multiple sheriffs deputies ordering them to submit to questioning about their knowledge of deputy gangs within the department.

The letters, dated Friday, warn that failure to cooperate with the OIGs investigation into deputy gangs is grounds for decertification of a peace officer.

Your cooperation is being sought because we believe you may have information regarding one of two groups that may be law enforcement gangs, commonly referred to as the Banditos and the Executioners, the letters state. The sheriffs department is in possession of evidence that the Banditos and Executioners are exclusive, secretive and may qualify as law enforcement gangs pursuant to Penal Code section 13670(b), including by discriminating in membership based upon race and gender in a manner prohibited by this section.

The letter warns that absent an assertion by you of your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, failure to answer may adversely affect your employment with Los Angeles County or your status as a certified peace officer.

It also instructs deputies to bring a photograph of any tattoos they may have on their legs, or any that resemble those that have been associated with the Banditos and Executioners.

The letter includes a list of questions likely to be asked, including a description of any tattoos they may have, and the names of other deputies they believe to be associated with internal gangs.

According to Spectrum News, which first reported on the letters, the missives were sent to 35 deputies. The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which is the union representing deputies, sent text messages to its members Monday instructing them to contact the union before responding, Spectrum News reported, adding that the union told members it was negotiating with the OIG on the issue.

The issue of alleged deputy gangs has long plagued the sheriffs department. Previous Sheriff Alex Villanueva insisted during his time in office that he immediately cracked down on such groups, and he denied they were actively operating within the agency.

For background, see: Former top aide to Villanueva says he belonged to alleged Grim Reaper deputy gang

New Sheriff Robert Luna, however, ran on a platform of transparency and vowed to fully cooperate in investigations into the alleged gangs.

Read more here:
Deputies ordered to answer questions about knowledge of gangs in LA County Sheriffs Department - Daily Breeze

The 1950s Hollywood Blacklist Was an Assault on Free Expression – Jacobin magazine

Screenwriters have always been the sharpest thorn in the side of movie executives, the motion picture labor union with the greatest propensity to strike. The current walkout is their eighth, not including a threatened strike in 1941 that secured their first collective bargaining agreement with the studios.

The Screen Writers Guild (SWG), founded in the early 1930s, was by far the most activist labor union in Hollywood; constituted the bulk of the membership of the Hollywood Communist Party; stood in the forefront of what was called progressive politics in the 30s and 40s; and represented the majority of those blacklisted during the 40s and 50s.

The current writers guild, Writers Guild of America, though not politically radical, is fierce in defending its financial rights. And its ongoing strike provides a perfect occasion to look back on the blacklist era, which torpedoed the careers of countless workers in Hollywood and indelibly shaped the output of movie studios.

Blacklisting is a venerable weapon in Hollywood. In the 1930s, executives wielded it to weaken the SWG. In the 1920s and 1930s, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) used it to punish competing unions during brutal jurisdictional contests.

But the most famous motion picture blacklist began in November 1947, when movie executives fired five of the unfriendly witnesses under contract and pledged not to rehire them or the other five until they had purged themselves of their Communist taint. This blacklist grew from the famed Hollywood Ten to nearly three hundred following the early 1950s hearings.

There was no list, per se. The studio bosses derived their information about whom to exclude from three sources: the indices of the hearings transcripts of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); a list of over three hundred names collected by the American Legion and distributed to the major studios; and Red Channels, a compilation of 151 names collected by American Business Consultants, the brainchild of three former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and one of the leading smear-and-clear organizations that mushroomed during the late 1940s. The only way to get off the blacklist was to appear before the HUAC, apologize for joining the Communist Party, laud the committee, and name names.

During the 1950s, one found oneself blacklisted if fingered by an informer (who was coached to name as many names as possible). If the named person did not appear before the committee, or they did appear but invoked the Fifth Amendment, they would be fired or blacklisted in the future. That is, one had to be publicly alleged as a Communist Party member.

Yet the dragnet affected not just Communists or even radicals, but left-leaning figures of all stripes. Liberals feared retribution should their scripts be read as too progressive. One said he was always looking over his shoulder as he sat at his typewriter. Liberals who had been politically active, like Edward G. Robinson, had to turn cartwheels to absolve themselves of their past deeds.

The blacklist was created and policed by executives. Red-hunting government institutions the FBI, HUAC, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Joseph McCarthys subcommittee), and Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security could only expose and intimidate. (The blacklist should not be conflated with McCarthyism. It preceded and outlasted McCarthy, and he did not concern himself with the media.)

The executives were not ideologically anti-communist; they sought to avoid censorship by the government and boycotts by such organizations as the American Legion and Catholic Church. But the blacklist only ended when the producers became convinced that open hiring of blacklisted people did not negatively impact box office receipts.

The foundation for the Hollywood blacklist was laid on May 9, 1947, the day when two members of HUAC opened executive sessions at the Biltmore hotel in Los Angeles. The committee had actively participated in Hollywood red-hunting since the late 1930s, with little to show for it. The Cold War, however, reinvigorated the domestic red scare (there had been two previously, 191721 and 193941).

The committee interviewed fourteen friendly witnesses and studio head Jack Warner, who supplied the congressmen a list of suspected Communists employed by his studio, many of whom were liberals. Though Eric Johnston, the president of the producers associations, had pledged the full cooperation of the industry, committee chairman J. Parnell Thomas (R-NJ) publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with the movie executives. In July, Thomas sent two of his investigators to Hollywood to intimidate the producers into complying. When that did not work, Thomas authorized the serving of subpoenas.

On September 22, 1947, the Hollywood Reporter divulged the names of forty-two motion picture personnel who had received subpoenas from HUAC. Nineteen were labeled unfriendly (unlikely to cooperate) by a few publications. Those nineteen and their lawyers met regularly for the next month to plan a strategy. They decided to challenge the right of the committee to subpoena them or ask them questions about their union and political affiliations. They also decided that each would write a statement to be read when they were called to the stand.

Finally, they made what turned out to be a disastrous decision: they would not refuse to answer any questions, but would use the occasion to attack the committee that is, they would answer those questions in their own way. This tactic obfuscated their core position the committee was violating their First Amendment rights and provoked the kind of behavior from some witnesses that gave ammunition to movie executives who wanted to make a show of collaboration.

The solid wall of opposition that the unfriendly witnesses had been told to expect from industry leaders crumbled immediately when the first witness, Warner, the president of Warner Brothers, testified on October 24, the initial day of the hearings. He crawled before his questioners, telling them: It is a privilege to appear again before the committee to help as much as I can in facilitating its work.

He claimed that he had been aware for over a decade of Communist working in the industry and that he had fired many of them. Warner then reeled off a list of those he had heard or read were Communists. (Of the fourteen he cited, three were not party members.) Louis B. Mayer, who testified a few days later, insisted that the producers could handle the Communist problem. The last studio boss to testify, Walt Disney, complained about Communist efforts to organize his cartoonists and agreed that there was a Communist threat in Hollywood.

The behavior of some of the unfriendly witnesses, which would provide the producers with grounds for instituting a blacklist, was demonstrated on October 29, 1947, by John Howard Lawson, the first one called to the stand. Set off by Thomass interjections and refusal to allow him to read his prepared statement, Lawson grew incensed and argumentative. Thomas ordered the sergeant at arms to remove Lawson from the witness chair.

Though only two of the other ten unfriendly witnesses screenwriters Dalton Trumbo and Lester Cole expressed anger, and only Trumbo was ordered to leave the stand, the die had been cast. Johnston followed Lawson to the stand, stating that he welcomed the investigation and hoped that it would expose Communists in the industry.

At first, industry leaders masked their concern when the Hollywood Ten were cited for contempt of Congress. Producer Samuel Goldwyn announced: I believe that the entire hearing is a flop; I think the whole thing is a disgraceful performance. Paul V. McNutt, an industry counsel, said: The truth is there are no pictures of ours which carry Communist propaganda and we do not care how many so-called experts the Committee employs to try to find out. The search will be fruitless.

Eric Johnston, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, told the Ten, as long as I live, I will never be a party to anything as un-American as a blacklist. But some producers, like MGMs Eddie Mannix, had decided that the Ten had to go not because they might be Communists, but because they had become of great disservice to the industry.

One month after the hearings ended, while the members of the House were voting to hold the Ten in contempt of Congress, movie company executives and studio bosses met at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel to decide how to deal with them. Two of the major studios, RKO and Fox, had already opted to fire the three witnesses under contract: Edward Dmytryk, Adrian Scott, and Ring Lardner Jr. MGM was close to doing the same with Trumbo and Cole.

For executives, the big question was how to handle the overall issue of communism in the industry. No transcript of the meeting has come to light, but anecdotal evidence indicates that the majority of those present did not want to inaugurate a blacklist. However, Johnston and the two special counsels, McNutt and James Byrnes, insisted that the only realistic course of action was to publicly announce the firing of the five under contract and to state that none of the ten would be employed until they had purged themselves of their Communist taint. Only Goldwyn, Dore Schary, and Walter Wanger objected to terminating those under contract. Those in favor agreed that they would draw the line at the Ten and institute a policy of self-regulation.

The so-called Waldorf Declaration announced that the Ten, by their actions have been a disservice to their employers and have impaired their usefulness to the industry. Therefore, We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ and we will not re-employ any of the ten until such time as he is acquitted [of contempt] or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Communist. Furthermore, We will not knowingly employ a Communist or a member of any party or group which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force of by illegal or unconstitutional methods. Finally, the executives promised to invite the Hollywood talent guilds to work with us to eliminate any subversives, to protect the innocent, and to safeguard free speech and a free screen wherever threatened.

Despite the fact that seven of the Ten were screenwriters, SWG joined the other talent guilds in cooperating with the executives. A Motion Picture Industry Council (MPIC), consisting of representatives of the producers, guilds, and trade unions, was created to bring the Communist problem to the attention of all studios, publicize the industrys efforts to purge itself of subversives, clear repentant Communists for reemployment, and criticize HUAC witnesses who refused to play ball with Congress.

The blacklist was now in full effect.

There matters stood for three years. Two of the Ten, Lawson and Trumbo, were tried for contempt of Congress. The other eight, to save the expense of multiple trials, agreed to accept whatever verdict was rendered. When Lawson and Trumbo were convicted, they appealed and launched a national campaign to rally support to their cause.

On April 10, 1950, the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari, and the Ten began turning themselves in to federal authorities to start serving their one-year sentences. (Herbert Biberman and Dmytryk were given six-month terms.)

When HUAC formally announced it was reopening the hearings in March 1951, the producers promised their full cooperation and stated that those witnesses who did not deny their Communist affiliation would find it difficult to get work in the studios. One other thing had changed, to the detriment of those who refused to cooperate: they had no support network.

There was no Committee for the First Amendment (and no support from liberals); the most democratic union in Hollywood, the Conference of Studio Unions (an industrial union that represented several crafts in the industry), had suffered a massive defeat at the hands of IATSE and executives; Congress had passed the virulently anti-union Taft-Hartley Act; the Communist Party in Hollywood had been severely reduced in size; and national party leaders were in jail, on trial, or in hiding.

This time around the committee modified its approach, focusing on Communists rather than communism in the industry. And subpoenaed witnesses, having learned their lesson from the October 1947 hearings, recognized they had only two options if they wanted to avoid a prison sentence: invoke the Fifth Amendment and be fired; or cooperate fully with the committee, admitting to membership in the Communist Party, apologizing for this membership, providing the names of other members, and praising the committee.

Larry Parks, the leadoff witness, who had not been adequately coached, initially refused to supply names; by the time he did so, he had effectively ended his career. The friendly witnesses who followed rattled off hundreds of names. (One screenwriter, Martin Berkeley, provided over 150.) When Dmytryk decided to follow the formula of the Waldorf Declaration and recant, he met with members of the MPIC, who prescribed the path to his return to work: coauthoring a lengthy apology in the Saturday Evening Post, testifying anew before the House committee, naming names.

The MPIC also had to contend with a different type of list the gray list made necessary by the publication, in 1950, of Red Channels: The Report of Communist Influence in Radio and Television. The book, a compendium of 151 names (mainly actors and actresses) and the subversive organizations to which they lent their prestige, was published by three former FBI agents who put out Counterattack, a magazine exposing Communist influence on movies.

Shortly after it appeared, Ronald Reagan, president of the Screen Actors Guild, received permission from the board of directors to enlist the MPIC to protect the actors and actresses named in Red Channels. The MPIC plan allowed any employee under suspicion of subversive activities to write a statement of facts to clarify their position against communism and explain their relationship to any allegedly communist-linked organization. The MPIC would then direct the letter to the producer or studio of the writers choice but would not evaluate its quality or credence.

In addition to the blacklist, the movie executives produced nearly fifty anti-Communist movies as a sop to HUAC members who lamented the paucity of such films. And finally, the studio heads stopped making social problem films in August 1948, Variety reported that studios are continuing to drop plans for message pictures like hot coals.

Blacklisted writers had it somewhat easier than actors or directors: they could write under pseudonyms or behind fronts. But even when screenwriters scripts won Academy Awards The Brave One (1956), Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), and The Defiant Ones (1958) the producers refused to bend. The blacklist continued through the 1950s, stifling the range of acceptable topics covered in movies and contributing to the conformity and conservatism of the 1950s.

One can count on two hands the movies that challenged United States society and McCarthyism during the 1950s (Bad Day at Black Rock [1955], Its Always Fair Weather [1955], High Noon [1952], Johnny Guitar [1954], Silver Lode [1954], Storm Center [1956]). Biblical epics, marriage comedies, upbeat musicals, and alien movies predominated. The television industry was even more repressed, featuring family sitcoms and banal Westerns.

The major crack in the ranks occurred in 1960, when, first, Otto Preminger and, subsequently, Universal Studios announced that Trumbo would receive screen credit for Exodus (1960) and Spartacus (1960). One by one, on their own merit, many of the blacklistees returned to work. A significant number, however, found it difficult to regain their footing in the industry.

The producers associations never stated that the blacklist had ended, because they consistently maintained that there had never been a blacklist in the first place. The producers position was voiced in a 1980 interview by Reagan, now the Republican candidate for president. He told journalist Robert Scheer that the industry had responded to Communist domination of several unions and Communist efforts to take over the industry. They had gotten into positions where they could destroy careers, and did destroy them. There was no blacklist in Hollywood. The blacklist in Hollywood, if there was one, was provided by the Communists. (This claim, that anti-communists were blacklisted by Communists during the 1930s and 1940s, is demonstrably false.)

In some ways, Hollywood has never recovered from the blacklist era. The writers guild, for example, essentially became a dues-collecting, welfare organization rather than a highly politicized union. The militant, democratic Conference of Studio Unions has not been replicated.

Fortunately, the media industries have changed so much that a new blacklist is unlikely. Still, one lesson everyone should have learned is the precariousness of the First and Fifth Amendments when the government announces a national security crisis. Another is the necessity of defending those who come under attack.

More here:
The 1950s Hollywood Blacklist Was an Assault on Free Expression - Jacobin magazine