The echoes of Nicholas von Hoffman

(Washington Post image)

Do you recognize the name Nicholas von Hoffman? His name was once pretty recognizable, then it faded. You might say he was "ahead of his time" in the same way as Garner Ted Armstrong. These two offered commentary in the media in a way that has become ubiquitous now. But those were pre-Internet times, quite long before. 

I was part of a group that enjoyed listening to Garner Ted Armstrong as we made trips along eastern North Dakota. That was the '70s. As a departure from radio we might punch in an 8-track tape. Mercy! So that dates me. Fun and interesting times to be sure. But we were not showered with histrionics of commentators in an unrestrained way. There was restraint. Thoughts were condensed. There was a sense of decorum and it just seemed to be understood. 

Who wanted to listen to extended "talk" back then? Everyone was appealing to a mass audience. This meant a limited attention span or more confined interest. Sometimes today when I get sick of the cacophony of ideological-based talk, I'll retreat to a show like Kelly Clarkson or Jenna Bush, but only briefly. Such fare is undoubtedly wholesome. I admire what they're doing but it's a failed experiment for me. So I return to the panoply of gossip-type or spin-oriented talk coming out of politics. 

But the cacophony aspect, the limitless aspect, the drone-on aspect? It seems a pastime with liabilities. Tune in at 7 p.m. to catch what's new with the "Russia investigation?" And after prolonged breathless anticipation, where did that get people like me? Seems like something was afoul with Trump's behavior, yes, but the conclusion landed in the mud. Rhetoric just blew aside our normal senses. What was that all about? 

Surely it seems Russia and Putin "had something" on Trump and exerted influence toward some pretty bad stuff. Russia paying the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers? K.T. McFarland rushes on Fox News to say "it was just a preliminary report." Jared Kushner having a "back-channel to Russia?" Can't we sort through all this and find some real suspicious stuff in connection to Trump, Kushner and others? The media drones on with "talking heads" trying to persuade us one way or the other. 

Are these program "guests" really looking at things in an unfiltered way? Well, some are but many are not. CNN had a "talk radio" host appear and guess what he does? Histrionics and hand-wringing, all with the purpose of defending Trump. Does the person really hold this view? Or, is he just "reading" his audience and calculating how to give them red meat? CNN had a guest named Ferguson who was right in this mold - could be abrasive and rude. 

Garner Ted Armstrong

So, I bring up Garner Ted Armstrong because his radio show of the '70s was a precursor to the present-day din. He was not a "shock" commentator. But unlike his peers he didn't just gravitate to a safe and bland middle of the road. He had beliefs. 

And now let's proceed on to Nicholas von Hoffman. I'm 65 and if you're close, name rings a bell. Yes, from the "60 Minutes" program on CBS. He was in a segment that actually seemed novel at the time: a clearly-labeled liberal and conservative butting heads. 

Let's make an analogy with Canada geese (believe it or not): they were once rarely seen in the skies over our Stevens County, and we'd gaze skyward in fascination when we saw them. That situation sure changed, to where the late Doug Rasmusson, another fellow ahead of his time, described them as "sky carp." Doug was a self-published author. He would love the Internet. 

 

Through mists of time

I have to confess: upon having von Hoffman's name enter my thoughts, I couldn't instantly remember if he was "right" or "left." I did remember one clear thing about him: he was caustic in how he described Nixon on occasion of Nixon's descent from power. This did not prove that von Hoffman was a liberal. Nixon crashed and burned with lots of across-the-aisle criticism or condemnation. 

OK, von Hoffman was liberal. Hooray. And he got in trouble for how he commented about Nixon at the end. I remember watching the TV contemporaneously: the commentator compared Nixon to a dead mouse. 

Von Hoffman jousted with James Kilpatrick on the "60 Minutes" "point-counterpoint," remember? So Kilpatrick was the righty. Remember how the movie "Airplane" lampooned this feature? "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say 'let 'em crash.' " A little spooky to remember that now, in light of how the Republican crowd began suggesting in the pandemic that elderly people would maybe have to accept the sacrifice of death in order to allow everyone else to keep on with normal life. Life imitates art? 

Von Hoffman gained some infamy by comparing Richard Nixon to a dead mouse on a kitchen floor. "The question," he said of RN, "is who is going to pick it up by the tail and drop it in the trash." I remember thinking that was pretty pointed, but I didn't consider it justification for firing. Well, from my viewpoint as a boomer, I associated Nixon with the tragically prolonged nature of the Vietnam war. There was no forgiveness for that. 

But von Hoffman was removed from his spot. Von Hoffman's commentary also included: "We've got to get that decomposing political corpse out of the White House." 

Now, why would these comments be returning to my head now, on November 14, 2020? Why?

 

"Morris Mojo" podcast for today, Saturday

I invite you to visit my "Morris Mojo" podcast where again we weigh politics, the period of time between the election and inauguration. "We're in Bizarro world." The permalink:

https://anchor.fm/brian-williams596/episodes/Were-in-Bizarro-world-emfqok

 

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com