Rachel Maddow’s Ultra Problem

Rachel Maddow’s hit podcast and soon-to-be Steven Speilberg-developed movie, Ultra, attempts to spook listeners into believing that an American fascist movement is ever looming by recounting the tales of extremist groups in the 1930s and 1940s. Unironically, the podcast tries to connect these groups with McCarthyism and anti-communist sentiment while drawing thinly veiled parallels to MSNBC’s current political enemies.

According to Maddow, the threat then was from the Ultra-right. However, she encounters a significant problem when delving into details—many of the show's main characters were politically closer to her and her MSNBC audience than said enemies. The podcast commits egregious mislabeling by branding all villains as members of the ultra-right-wing. These absurd labels obscure understanding the motivations and values of the story's villains, particularly the recurring character, Father Charles Coughlin.

Maddow describes Coughlin as the “most influential right-wing media figure in the country.” She argues there is “a direct throughline from him [Coughlin] to modern, ultra-conservative radio and TV personalities in the United States.” Maddow consistently frames Coughlin as the public face of America’s flirtation with fascism during that era. While there is some truth to this, Maddow awkwardly avoids addressing Coughlin’s view of government and the politics of his message.

One such awkward example is repeatedly found when the podcast refers to “Father Coughlin’s magazine” without mentioning the name of the magazine. The title Maddow and company have such a seemingly hard time pronouncing was named Social Justice.

Here Father Coughlin himself defines what exactly he means by the words social justice:

Coughlin stood against the godlessness of communism but defined his movement with his hostility to “American capitalism” with the purpose of “breaking down the concentration of wealth, of eliminating the abuses which have been identified with capitalism, and of building up legislation for social justice…”¹

Maddow strangely avoids mentioning the political party that Coughlin launched, the National Union for Social Justice. The principles of Coughlin’s party reveal his political orientation and the passions he sought to exploit. Maddow et al. want us to believe this was America’s brush with fascism while ignoring what guided it. Coughlin merged with Francis Townsend, who is credited with developing the movement for Social Security, and Huey Long’s following, known for the “Share Our Wealth” movement to support his new party with fundamentals such as:

• Every citizen willing to work should receive a “just, living, annual wage.”

• Nationalizing public resources.

• “Upholding the right to private property but controlling it for the public good.”

• Establishment of a government-owned Central Bank.

• Maintain the cost of living on “an even keel.”

• The “right of the laboring man to organize in unions” and the government's duty “to protect these organizations against the vested interests of wealth and intellect.”

• In the event of war, a “conscription of wealth as well as a conscription of men.”

• Preference for the “sanctity of human rights to the sanctity of property rights, with the government chiefly concerned for the poor, as the rich have ample means to care for themselves.”²

Coughlin attempted to make his political philosophy clear and distinct from his competition; one can judge where he lands on the subject of socialism versus capitalism:

Coughlin was one of the most vocal supporters of FDR and the New Deal in 1932. Philosophically this makes perfect sense. Today, Coughlin would fit comfortably under titles like Democratic Socialist and also with the modern understanding of “Social Justice.”

As is typically pointed out, Coughlin was a detractor of FDR by the 1936 election. This is one common reason he is mislabeled as conservative. But Coughlin’s attacks did not come from the Ultra-right as Maddow would have you believe. In Coughlin’s view, FDR had betrayed the principles of the New Deal legislation that Coughlin supported:

In 1935 Coughlin outlined his ideological separation from FDR on account of his support for The Banking Act of 1935 which to Coughlin's chagrin failed to nationalize banks:

Coughlin departed from FDR because he compromised “with the economic theories of the old deal:”³