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 authoritarian; 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
tnlib:
ReplyDeleteThe personality profiles you describe here are consistent with other commentaries I have read on conservatives extremists (what I would call outliers on the Bell curve). In John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience, he describes “authoritarian / social dominator” personality types whose impulse is to control others. In Moral Politics, Lakoff describes the “strict father” model that underlies conservative thinking about a hierarchical social order.
The common theme that emerges from these accounts is manipulation and control. Self-styled guardians of freedom are capable of turning themselves into the worst oppressors, and it is ironic to note how Welch admired and emulated the command-driven, organizational structure of the Communists and shunned a more participatory style of leadership.
This also caught my attention: “a basic feeling of inferiority.” Not intending to engage in psycho-babble, when manipulative and controlling behaviors are driven by inner feelings of inferiority, we are talking about narcissism, about the inordinate need of character-disordered people to want to be admired and worshipped … who then turn into rage-bots when admiration is withheld.
A belief system that operates in the name of democracy and freedom, yet violates its own precepts, becomes a perversion of itself. This seems to be model for all lunatic fringe groups.
"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."
ReplyDeleteThat fits so well with theology writer Karen Armstrong's analysis of fundamentalism as a reaction to the increasingly irrelevance and demonstrably incorrect nature of traditional religious beliefs.
It's the need for certainty that demands we accept the impossible rather than look to the probable.
tnlib - this has been a very educational series and I'm looking forward to part 4.
ReplyDeleteThanks for these wonderful comments and in particular the sources, espicially the ones that support what I'm trying to point out. Rcihard Hofstadter wrote an interesting article for Harper's in '64, called "The paranoid style in politics." I was going to quote from it but space had already become an issue.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.harpers.org/archive/1964/11/0014706
Remember Ernie from the last part? He commented on this post:
"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."
This is of course untrue and confirms my suspicion that he is an apologist for the JBS. You can read the rest on my blog.
I will keep your comments in mind as I'm writing this last part. Thank you, thank you.
tnlib,
ReplyDeleteExcellent piece again. I recall Hofstadter's essay and yes, it is well worth reading. He does a good job of explaining the style in question and I also think his reasoning helps explain why the straightforward left/right distinction doesn't quite work for those crazies: even to adopt a consistent position grounded in an ideological framework requires a degree of contact with reality that these guys simply don't have.
Their contact with reality is nil. Matt just posted about the Quincy, Ill. protests yesterday offering a very good example of this very thing. Thanks, Dino.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Leslie, for another interesting installment of this sordid story -- looking forward to the next one (as well as to the final demise of the anti-commie paranoia in the US*).
ReplyDeleteBTW, I also liked your reply to Ernie (on your blog).
*What, can't a gal dream?