Sandy Hook

Sandy Hook

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Menace from the Right: The John Birch Society – Part 3

Structure and Membership

Ironically, the JBS’s structure strongly resembled that of the Communist Party. It was made up of cells of 20 members each. In fact, Welch did not hesitate to state his admiration for Communist methods and felt free to borrow from them because he was on the “right side of the battle.” (14)

The Society was a semi-secret organization, which took orders from a well defined leadership position occupied by none other than Robert Welch. He was authoritative; those members who ceased to feel total loyalty could either resign or steps would be taken to force them out.

Besides Welch and the original 11 men he met with in Indianapolis,* the leadership included – in descending order of importance – a cabinet of administrative advisors and assistants, Committee Enforcers, and the paid organizers and chapter leaders. There were no elections; Welch appointed each individual to his particular position throughout the entire organization. (15)

Welch had no intentions of forming a representative type organization; he felt that it would lend itself too easily to infiltration, distortion and disruption. He demanded that the Society operate “under complete authoritarian control.” (16)

The membership was composed of dedicated, active, mostly overwrought Rightists from the grass-roots level of our society. There were varying figures suggested for the number of members, but although the Society kept its numerical count a secret, the most frequently quoted estimate was around 50,000. (17)

Members were motivated by the sincere conviction that most of the leaders of our economic, religious, educational and political institutions were conscious or unconscious agents of the Communists. “The activities of the Society, directed largely through the monthly Bulletin, were designed to expose, dramatize, and if possible, thwart what they perceived to be instances of Communist subversion within these major institutions, both locally and nationally.” (18)

The Society was convinced that the Communists had influenced so much of American politics that there was little hope for the existing political system.

Psychological Make-up

The personality of a typical member was authoritarian and aggressive. He was usually frustrated by the vast societal changes that surrounded him, and he had an abiding suspicion of anything or anyone that tended to be intellectual. He had a basic feeling of inferiority, but wasn’t aware of it and would never admit it if he were.

In a setting where alleged defenders of traditional institutions and values looked upon bureaucratic leadership with distrust, where they looked with fear toward Communism, where they saw themselves being bypassed, an organization like the John Birch Society had considerable social-psychological appeal. (19)

In his paper in the American Federalist, R. B. Cooney wrote, “The pseudo-conservative is a man, who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition.” (20)

Part 4, will examine the similarities and differences between the John Birch Society and the Tea Party.


14. Mark Sherwin, The Extremists, 1963, p.60.
15. Arnold Foster and Benjamin R. Epstein, Danger On the Right, 1964, p.22.
16. Cooney, “John Birchers on the March,” American Federalists, p.13.
17. Forster and Epstein, Danger on the Right, 1964, p.11.
18. J. Allen Broyles, “The John Birch Society: A Movement of Social Protest of the Radical Right,” Journal of Social Issues, xviii, p. 51.
19. Broyles p. 54
20. Cooney, p.16


22 comments:

  1. "Welch had no intentions of forming a representative type organization"

    Paranoid monomaniacs rarely do. Thanks for running this -- it's fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, K. I do appreciate that as I'm pretty exhausted at this point - a much bigger deal than I expected.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Leslie,
    Wow. I appreciate your hard work, this is tremendously informative. Until reading your series I'd dismissed them as a group of right-wing whackos (I know, which they are) but I had no idea of the number, the organized cells-and the outright almost diseased paranoia.
    Great work!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you, Oso. Welch was a certified paranoid, among other things. He really needed to be in a padded cell.

    One more part which will compare the JBS with the crazies of today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's remarkable how similar the John Birch Society was to what the Republican Party has become. John W. Dean describes conservative Republicans' authoritarian ways in his excellent book, Broken Government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You forgot to mention their average IQ of 40, which drops when turned into collective IQ.

    ReplyDelete
  7. SW: They have indeed. Excellent point. I will look for Broken Government. Thanks.

    JR: Well, all those big money backers can't be too stupid or they wouldn't have made all that money.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually, some of your comments about how the JBS operated are not accurate.

    First of all, there has been only one limited survey of JBS membership (in 1965) so no one can accurately describe their characteristics.

    Second, while the JBS was designed (on paper) to appear like an authoritarian body, with top-down direction, its actual day-to-day operations appear to be quite different.

    I know it is fun to portray them as some fanatical group of automatons who followed every pronouncement made by Robert Welch -- the reality is much more nuanced. Welch listened to the advice of his National Council and Executive Committee. JBS members often ignored "instructions" from HQ and still remained members. Very few persons were ever purged from the Society -- and those who were, usually were racists, anti-semites, or persons who attempted to takeover local chapters for their own purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ernie: Do not come here and tell me where I'm wrong without backing up your own claims. This series is 95% based on a paper I wrote in 1964. Since then, I'm sure new facts have been uncovered but in '64 these sources were what was available and they were totally reliable and respectable.

    "Very few persons were ever purged from the Society -- and those who were, usually were racists, anti-Semites, or persons who attempted to takeover local chapters for their own purposes."

    If you're trying to claim that the JBS isn't antisemitic or racist, you're barking up the wrong tree. There's just too much evidence to the contrary.

    I suspected early on that you are an apologist for this outfit and now I'm even more convinced. Your website provides no information about you, what your credentials are or anything else. You seem to lurk around the shadows as if you were an undercover agent just looking for any mention of the JBS. Granted, you have some interesting documents at your site, but I - like most responsible writers - want to know about the person providing the information.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I remember you saying that research used to be your field (or maybe still is) you are proving it with this series.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks, Holte. Yes, research and libraries with some writing. Had my own independent research business for about ten years. I enjoy it to this day.

    ReplyDelete
  12. PS - Great job on the whole series. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Last night I found a source that supports Ernie's statement re racism and antisemitism in the JBS. So, I was wrong and I apologize. I will address this in the final (thank Gawd) part.

    ReplyDelete
  14. TC: Thank you. I will never do anything like this again.

    ReplyDelete
  15. With respect to your comment that "I suspected early on that you are an apologist for this outfit"

    -- I am such an "apologist" that the Birch Society has banned me from posting messages on its website after I posted a message quoting from FBI documents which revealed that J. Edgar Hoover and senior FBI officials described the Birch Society in FBI memos as "extremist", "irrational" and "irresponsible".

    AND here is the text of the message which a JBS official (Jim Capo) posted about me just before I was banned:

    "Please don't waste your time with Ernie...He has been trolling Birch sites and references in the news for years. He will probably be blocked from this forum again shortly. Here are just some of the red flags in his latest con job:

    1. No links to source data. No reprints of material gained from FOIA requests that would have brought these titillating FBI files into his hands. (Charges that are only in Ernie's or his handler's imagination cannot be refuted.)
    2. "Birchite", as in Trotskyite, is a term coined by and used by the communists and their collaborators to describe the John Birch Society. It would be rather shocking for the penultimate anti-communist in the FBI to simply parrot this communist slur. But, maybe Hoover was a secret communist too, and the praise given to him by the JBS was just part the diabolical plot to mislead good Americans.
    Final word: When Ernie can show us what he has done to stop the advance of tyranny in this country, or tell us what group out there is doing a better job fighting it, then we'll consider paying attention to him. Until then, he will retain his status as a certified troll."

    With respect to your self-serving assurance about the accuracy of material from your 1964 paper -- that is totally worthless.

    With respect to "racism" and "antisemitism" in the JBS -- there have been incidents, but the organization is not racist or antisemitic. Many of the Society's most prominent members, authors, and speakers have been Jewish or African-American. In addition, the only actual official investigation ever conducted of the Birch Society (by a California Senate Subcommittee controlled by Democrats) explicitly stated that it was not racist or anti-semitic.

    Furthermore, ACTUAL racists and anti-semites have a long record of denouncing the JBS. Among the earliest critics, for example, were Elizabeth Dilling and Lyrl Clark Van Hyning. In later decades, virulent anti-semites and Hitler-admirers such as Eustace Mullins, Ben Klassen (Church of the Creator), William Pierce (National Alliance and formerly American Nazi Party), and many others denounced the JBS as hopelessly naive and ineffective and "controlled opposition".

    I'm sorry that you have such little respect for facts -- but, apparently, you utilize the same lowest-common-denominator reasoning as does the Birch Society. Your actual purpose appears to be demonizing them JUST AS they attempt to demonize and de-legitimize their opponents and critics. You are just two sides of the SAME COIN.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ernie: I guess you didn't see my acknowledgement and apology above.

    I've also seen this hideous site:

    http://jewonstormfront.blogspot.com/

    When I wrote the 1964 paper, which is what this series is mostly about, I used every resource I could find that was available at that time and I don't think anyone, but maybe you, thought they were worthless. It was a 5000 word paper which obviously wouldn't work with a blog, so I edited out quite a bit of it. In the original I used other sources as well as the Blue Book and The Politician.

    Since I wrote that paper I don't think I've given much thought to the JBS to be honest. I have a feeling you've spent years focusing in on them and no doubt have many more resources at your disposal.

    FYI, I worked in academic libraries for years. Was even in charge of a university architecture library while I was in school and became the assistant to the dean at another in a different city. I moved on to a newspaper library where I managed a staff of 22. At that time in the media accuracy was highly valued.

    Eventually I had my own independent research business and worked part time at another newspaper. During this time I wrote a column for a marketing magazine.

    I have been a member of SLA, the Association of Independent Information Professionals, the Assn. of Prospect Researchers for Advancement and several other professional organizations.

    My mother was a top notch reference librarian, was head of reference at a state library and received numerous acknowledgements in books by people such as Harriot Arnow and Leland Crab, among others. She eventually left to become the associate librarian in a major university library. She instilled in me a love for history and research and the importance of accuracy.

    I don't wish to brag, but I have a damn good reputation as a researcher.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, I saw your disclaimer.

    The problem is reliance, predominantly, upon secondary instead of primary sources and the assumption that the way that the JBS was constructed on paper is precisely how it operated in reality.

    If you carefully examine the earliest reports, articles, and books about the JBS you will notice that most of them repeat the same information over and over again and most of them are based upon, ultimately ONE source, namely the Anti-Defamation League.

    Significantly, none of the three major ADL reports on the JBS [1964 = "Danger on the Right"; 1966 = "Report on the John Birch Society"; and 1967 = "The Radical Right" -- all written by Benjamin Epstein and Arnold Forster] have footnotes or a bibliography.

    Consequently, researchers are expected to simply accept the analysis and assertions made by the ADL.

    Much of the original information about the JBS was inaccurate or it consisted of gross exaggerations and caricatures, and, frankly, some of it was outright malicious lies -but the Birch Society itself bears a large part of the responsibility for this because in its formative years it usually avoided publicity and then in subsequent years it refused to allow scholars to have access to its membership for fact-based surveys. It also has refused access to its archives for historical research.

    So where does that leave a serious researcher who wants to be fair, accurate, and truthful?

    For example, how would one go about actually substantiating or proving YOUR assertion about a "typical member" that:

    "The personality of a typical member was authoritarian and aggressive. He was usually frustrated by the vast societal changes that surrounded him, and he had an abiding suspicion of anything or anyone that tended to be intellectual. He had a basic feeling of inferiority, but wasn’t aware of it and would never admit it if he were." ???

    OR how would one explain all of the inconvenient factual evidence which falsifies this assertion by you regarding Robert Welch?

    "He demanded that the Society operate 'under complete authoritarian control'."

    A caricature is defined as follows:

    "A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject's distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect. The art of creating such representations."

    What you have written in your series of articles is more in the nature of caricature.

    There are many VALID reasons to reject the Birch Society and all it represents. But use of caricature is what allows the JBS to easily discredit its critics by pointing out obvious errors and then attributing them to malice.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Postscript:

    Incidentally, have you ever noticed that virtually none of the original books and articles about the JBS ever bothered to refute the actual substance of what was published by the JBS? [The one major exception being Harry Overstreet's chapter on the JBS in his 1964 book, "The Strange Tactics of Extremism"].

    Think about that for a moment.

    The Birch Society published millions of words in its monthly Bulletin, and in its magazines (American Opinion, Review of the News, The New American) but its critics never bothered to attack the EVIDENCE presented by the Birch Society for its statements and conclusions.

    Why do you suppose that JBS critics PREFERRED to focus exclusively upon what they described as the noxious aspects of the JBS organizational setup and the alleged characteristics and behavior of its members -- in exactly the same manner as YOUR articles?

    Why not devote some of that energy to carefully examining and refuting the assertions made by the JBS?

    I'll answer my own question: The answer is because carefully examining and refuting JBS assertions is a VERY labor-intensive process and would require considerable fact-based research.

    I can't tell you how many times JBS members and supporters have told me something like this: "Nobody has found any errors in our publications" -- and they were accurate in the sense that few JBS critics ever attempted to address the specific details contained in JBS publications.

    This is why the JBS usually demolishes its critics -- and it is also why they despise me -- because I use the VERY SOURCES THEY RECOMMEND to refute their standard dogma.

    Now, I would be the first person to acknowledge that JBS adherents will NOT normally acknowledge error -- even when sources they recommend as knowledgeable, reliable and authoritative are used --- but at least they cannot successfully claim that criticisms are based entirely upon ad hominem attacks or "smears".

    As an illustration --- when I saw Jim Capo's message about me with its snide innuendo about me and my "handlers", I sent him an email and I offered to provide him with copies of any FBI documents he wanted to see for himself IF he would publicly apologize to me on the JBS website for his previous unkind and mean-spirited comments.

    Needless to say, he never responded to my offer.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm going to let what I've written stand and without apology. This is not meant to be a book or a scholarly article. In 1964 there was no access to original sources, which I prefer, as you have compiled on your site. This is what we knew then. I'm not writing about "now" except in Part 4, the final article - thank God - where I compare the JBS to the Tea Party. It is based solely on my observations and personal opinions. No need for sources, thank the good Lord.

    ". . .the Birch Society itself bears a large part of the responsibility for this because in its formative years it usually avoided publicity and then in subsequent years it refused to allow scholars to have access to its membership for fact-based surveys. It also has refused access to its archives for historical research."

    And this is what I faced in 1964. I think my sources were pretty scholarly.

    BTW, there is little difference in what I've written from what Rachel Maddow said on her show - where she credited you. In my mind, she and her staff are the only decent researchers in the media.

    Maybe you didn't see the footnotes - they are there in abundance. I didn't include the bibliography simply because I've lost those pages. I figured if anyone wanted to find these books and articles, they had enough to go on with the author's name, title, publication and page numbers.

    I do resent the charge that what I've written is a "caricature." The only caricatures I see are in the JBS and the TP.

    I appreciate your comments and the information that you have provided. I will include a link to your site in Part 4. If I'm ever foolish enough to write a book on the JBS, I will keep them in mind. But I can almost guarantee that this is not even a remote possibility.

    This has been a far, far bigger project than I anticipated. Every Time I checked one fact, I'd have 10 more to check and each of them would have ten more and so on.
    I thought I could simply retype certain portions of the original and be done with it. Much more research was needed. To be very candid, I'm sick and tired of the whole thing and would be very happy if I never Hear "John Birch Society" again. This is not my life's mission.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My comments appear underneath yours preceded by three asterisks (***) but due to length, I will divide this into two replies.

    PART ONE

    "I'm going to let what I've written stand and without apology. This is not meant to be a book or a scholarly article. In 1964 there was no access to original sources, which I prefer, as you have compiled on your site."

    *** Not sure what you mean by this comment. The "original sources" WERE available to check [for example all JBS publications were available at their American Opinion bookstore chain and other locations, plus one could approach JBS members to inquire into their beliefs and how the JBS actually operated, and there were books, articles, conference papers, doctoral dissertations and master's theses which were (unlike ADL books) heavily footnoted, and thus checkable etc. That is why I mentioned Harry Overstreet's 1964 book because he made a good-faith attempt to actually examine and refute assertions in JBS literature]

    "This is what we knew then. I'm not writing about "now" except in Part 4, the final article - thank God - where I compare the JBS to the Tea Party. It is based solely on my observations and personal opinions. No need for sources, thank the good Lord."

    *** I think your comment is very troubling. Highly derogatory statements should always be sourced carefully -- even if you wish to diminish their significance by describing them as "observations and personal opinions". God's 9th Commandment still obtains.

    ". . .the Birch Society itself bears a large part of the responsibility for this because in its formative years it usually avoided publicity and then in subsequent years it refused to allow scholars to have access to its membership for fact-based surveys. It also has refused access to its archives for historical research."

    "And this is what I faced in 1964. I think my sources were pretty scholarly."

    *** OK, tnlib -- this may be the crux of our dispute.

    *** NONE of the sources you used in your footnotes were "scholarly" except for J. Allen Broyles' article in the academic journal Journal of Social Issues (which actually originated as his doctoral dissertation).

    *** In 1964, there were many master's theses and doctoral dissertations plus articles in academic journals about the JBS -- and they often provided very useful data not available in newspaper and magazine articles and they certainly were more substantive than unsubstantiated works such as those published by ADL which as I previously mentioned did not have footnotes or a bibliography--so couldn't be verified.

    *** Let me put it this way: Suppose somebody writes a highly defamatory and inflammatory article about YOU. Would you be ok if the author decided to use ONLY material from your political opponents -- and never bothered to independently research what they said about you and your beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  21. PART TWO

    "BTW, there is little difference in what I've written from what Rachel Maddow said on her show - where she credited you. In my mind, she and her staff are the only decent researchers in the media."

    *** Rachel makes mistakes too -- sometimes because of her political bias -- but I agree that she normally does a good job of using PRIMARY source evidence and verifying her sources.

    "Maybe you didn't see the footnotes - they are there in abundance. I didn't include the bibliography simply because I've lost those pages. I figured if anyone wanted to find these books and articles, they had enough to go on with the author's name, title, publication and page numbers."

    *** Not only did I see your footnotes, but I have read every single one of them (decades ago!) and I still have copies of most of them. I've already commented upon the ADL publications. Let me also note that Mark Sherwin's book also contains NO footnotes or bibliography. AND the Janson/Eismann book ALSO has NO footnotes or bibliography.

    *** So please tell us how you (or anybody else) is supposed to check and verify whatever statements they make? Is THIS truly the quality of evidence you rely upon when highly derogatory statements are being made? How is THAT different from relying upon Birch Society statements that are not properly sourced?

    I do resent the charge that what I've written is a "caricature." The only caricatures I see are in the JBS and the TP.

    *** Well, if you prefer to substitute another word for "caricature" -- then perhaps there is another word that we could agree upon to better capture my objection. My point remains that nobody bothers to address the SUBSTANCE of what the JBS presents. Instead, everyone prefers to use SECONDARY sources who present their unsubstantiated PERSONAL OPINIONS as though that is high quality factual evidence!!!

    "I appreciate your comments and the information that you have provided. I will include a link to your site in Part 4. If I'm ever foolish enough to write a book on the JBS, I will keep them in mind. But I can almost guarantee that this is not even a remote possibility."

    *** In closing -- I repeat my earlier observation. I think all of us should be careful to not presume the worst about our perceived political opponents. We have an obligation to use high-quality and easily verifiable factual evidence -- PARTICULARLY when highly adverse or derogatory statements are being made. To me, that is simply fair play.

    "This has been a far, far bigger project than I anticipated. Every Time I checked one fact, I'd have 10 more to check and each of them would have ten more and so on.
    I thought I could simply retype certain portions of the original and be done with it. Much more research was needed. To be very candid, I'm sick and tired of the whole thing and would be very happy if I never Hear "John Birch Society" again. This is not my life's mission."

    *** I understand completely. In fact, perhaps you can appreciate the humor in the following. For 40+ years I have debated JBS members. Almost invariably they accused me of not reading and refuting statements made in their literature. So, now that I have spent tens of thousands of dollars and more than 4 decades doing what they originally told me to do --- they now claim I am "obsessed" with the JBS and my work amounts to a "vendetta" because of the original incident which precipitated my intellectual curiosity about them. Go figure!

    ReplyDelete