This is Democracy – Episode 236: Birchers and Right-Wing Extremism

[00:00:26] Jeremi: Welcome to our new episode of This Is Democracy. Today’s episode focuses on the John Birch Society, which, uh, was quite well known, quite infamous in the 1960s and seventies, sort of fell off the radar screen, but has now become a more important subject of study. And political analysis for our understanding of American democracy and the challenges American democracy faces today.

Uh, the John Burch Society is a far right wing group, uh, and, uh, it’s a group that, um, has connections to the world that we deal with today. Uh, we’re fortunate to have with us, uh, a well-known historian who has written what I think is the. Best book on the John Birch Society and those who were a part of it, and those who are connected to it one way or another.

Uh, the book is titled Birchers, how the John Birch Society Radicalized The American Right. And the writer and historian and friend is, uh, Matthew Doak. Uh, Matt, thanks for joining us today.

[00:01:27] Matthew: Uh, thank you so much for having me and for the kind

[00:01:30] Jeremi: introduction. Matt is a historian and professor of political management at George Washington University’s College of Professional Studies.

He’s the author of numerous books that I recommend to all of you. The first book of his that I read, which I think is the first book he wrote, is The Right Moment, Ronald Reagan’s First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics. Uh, this was actually one of the first really serious studies of Reagan’s influence on American politics from a historical perspective.

Um, recently, uh, Matt published about five, six years ago, uh, a really important book on the origins of Homeland Security, how we think about Homeland Security in our society. It’s called Defenseless Under the Night, the Franklin Roosevelt Years, and the origins of Homeland Security. Really important for those.

Interested in understanding how we conceive of homeland security in our society. And then most recently, as I already said, uh, he’s published just a few weeks ago, Birchers held the John Birch Society, radicalized the American right. Uh, Matt also publishes frequently in the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and many, many other publications.

Uh, so he’s not only a scholar of the past, but an observer, a keen observer of. The present. And that’s, I think, one of the strengths of his book and one of the strengths of what we’ll be able to talk with him about today as we think about who the John Birchers were, where this far right radical group came from, and what effect it had, uh, on and continues to have on our democracy.

Uh, before we turn to our discussion with Matt, though, we have, of course, our scene setting poem for Mr. Zachary Siri. Uh, what’s the title of your poem today? . Is that the title of poem or are you just wishing that’s the title of a poem? Okay, Le, let’s hear it

[00:03:15] Zachary: quite cold and quiet. They are marching past the gates, crowding into subway cars and walking past the windows of department stores.

The scene is stagnant though. They move together in some jagged step as if ice were tearing at their mustaches and frost turning their long beards gray. Gray beards. They have forgotten once they came that they too once smiled at the old men in their trench coats, counting their steps and forgetting to look at the sun.

There is a certain banal audacity in this little charade of life. In the slow turn of revolving doors, their grim faces reminiscent of the revolver. That stared me awake on one of those grim deportation nights or the small whip of fire that consummate their perverse burning cross Baals look me in the eyes.

I will give you a real smile because I know someday there really will be ice in their beards. One of those cold, eternal, nothing freezes that bring even kings to their knees. May it be so, and together we’ll go dancing on their frosty lawns, singing some Diddy about roses or the beginning

[00:04:31] Jeremi: of love.

There’s quite a lot you’ve packed into that poem, Zachary, what is it about? I think it’s about

[00:04:36] Zachary: trying to confront, uh, one of the seeming paradoxes of the John Berth society and of the far right, uh, in the mid 20th century in the United States, which is how they both embraced, uh, a sort of very conservative kind of American conformity in a post-war sense, but then also politically.

With these violent radicals. Yeah. And trying to come to terms with how someone can both be, uh, as we stereotypically think a sort of typical suburban American, a corporate office worker, but also have this violent and, and, and terribly hateful streak at the same time.

[00:05:11] Jeremi: Yeah, I think that’s a great observation.

And it’s at the center of, of your book Mad, uh, your Reaction. It’s.

[00:05:16] Matthew: It’s a wonderful poem. Uh, I would love you to, to send it to me. I mean, it, it really captures, and, and I love your analysis of it. I mean, it really is one of the, um, one of the themes of the book and, and frankly one of the, uh, ideas that, that, uh, was so interesting to me is I did my research, which is that, you know, it’s a puzzle, right?

How can, as I say, these colossi. Men, the founders especially who bestriding the world’s most dynamic economy, how can they look at the country that, you know, basically gave them so much and say, you know, there are enemies who are overrunning us. And, and everything here is kind of twisted and distorted from within, and yet, you know, look how successful and powerful we are.

And so, um, that, that, that tension, uh, uh, is really, it is a paradox. And, um, and I try to address it

[00:06:05] Jeremi: in the book. And you use this phrase from the very beginning, uh, radical conservatives or conservative radicalism. I think you use it both ways. Uh, those seem like contradictory terms, don’t they? Well, they

[00:06:19] Matthew: do.

Uh, although, uh, you know, it depends I guess on what, what one, what, uh, means by a conservative, right? What is, uh, And, and what does radical mean? Um, you know, conservative, I, you know, at least in a kind of mid 20th century context for a lot of conservatives, did not necessarily mean, conserving did not mean conserving, let’s say, uh, the welfare state.

Or it did not mean necessarily conserving, you know, US foreign policy as it was defined in World War II or the early Cold War. It meant, um, upending, right, upend, and so, Uh, but of course, uh, the birchers themselves, uh, one of the reasons that I say that they were radical or ultra-conservative is that they had, uh, uh, believed in conspiracy theories, uh, explicit racism and isolationism kind of hearkening back to early 20th century.

Uh, the old right, and, uh, a more apocalyptic, violent mode of politics and those things. And so their beliefs were really, uh, on the fringe and, and put them in a, a pretty radical place.

[00:07:29] Zachary: Um, for those young listeners of ours or, or perhaps older listeners as well, who might have no idea what the John Birch Society is, uh, where did this group come from and, and what did they become?

[00:07:41] Matthew: Uh, yes, absolutely. So the Berkshires, uh, as big as they were in the 1960s, a kind of household name. You know, nowadays, right? Um, they still exist, but you know, they’re kind of a sh shadow of their former selves. So, um, the Berkshires were founded in December of 1958 by a former candy manufacturer, uh, named Robert Welch.

Uh, and, uh, they were named after an evangelist, uh, turned Army Intelligence officer who was killed by Mao’s Communist forces. Uh, 10 days after the end of World War ii, he was seen as, uh, this guy John Birch, seen as the, the first victim of, uh, world War iii. And, um, the society, uh, basically, uh, developed chapters 20 person capped at 20 people.

Um, they started to spread all around the country and they were, uh, devoted to at least officially. Educating the masses, the American public, about the internal threat of communists, that according to at least the Birch leaders had begun to overrun America’s institutions and was 60 or 70% on the way toward complete domination of American life.

So,

[00:08:58] Jeremi: uh, so what, what was it that attracted, uh, people to this new organization founded by a candy manufacturer, and, uh, what did they do as they built this organization?

[00:09:12] Matthew: Well, one thing that attracted the kind of elites, the industrialists, and the very wealthy people who joined, was that they knew Robert Welch.

They knew people in the As National Association of Manufacturers. They shared, uh, uh, uh, a hatred of the new deal, a hatred in some of the. Cultural directions of American life and a sense that the us, um, should not have been involved in World War II or had lost the peace, um, or had lost basically the war against the communists.

So they shared those kinds of, uh, personal and ideological sensibilities for a lot of other Americans, sort of upwardly mobile suburban. Uh, professionals, um, as one, uh, uh, Bircher said the Birch Society is the quote, answer to every anti-communist prayer. What did he mean by that? Well, uh, he meant I think that the society enabled people to take action in their communities against the communists.

Menace. So instead of just talking about communism instead of just, um, uh, lamenting, you know, communists and, and their allies had made inroads, the society allowed people to act. And, um, and in fact, uh, Robert Welch and the Birth Society, the headquarters, one of the innovative things they did is to. Give people, give members, um, opportunities to go out in their community and take over a school board or, um, uh, or a PTA or, you know, protest, uh, uh, or a warren or put stickers up.

Uh, so, um, people felt empowered, right? They felt like they could actually do something. And that was one of the, I think, attractions.

[00:11:00] Jeremi: And, and this is the point actually very early in your book, Matt, where the parallels to today, uh, just, just jump out. Uh, before we get into that, in terms of tactics and goals and activism, how many people at the height of the Birch movement, how many people belong to this organization?

[00:11:19] Matthew: The best estimates are 60 to a hundred thousand members. Uh, in the mid 1960s, 64, 65, around the time of Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign and shortly thereafter. Um, but it’s, you know, it’s been hard for historians and, and contemporaries, uh, at the time to get a real handle on the numbers. Because, you know, the society was, uh, quite, uh, secretive about its membership.

The membership was, I think, constantly in flux. As I said before, they had these small chapters, so it was really hard to track, you know, who was a member who wasn’t. Um, but, but it gives you a sense, you know, 60 to a hundred thousand, not that many in a, a country with more than a hundred, uh, well over a hundred million people, uh, at the time.

Um, but as I argue, Uh, you know, they demonstrated that a hundred thousand or 60 thousands of members who were, uh, devoted to a cause, who were willing to kind of volunteer their time, put themselves and their money on the line, uh, could have an outsized impact, uh, on, uh, politics and an on political debate, uh, in a way that maybe millions of voters could not.

[00:12:33] Jeremi: I, I think, Matt, this is one of the real insights in your book, one of the many contributions, but the one that really stuck with me is how they could have so much influence, yet have such a small, relatively small number of core members. And you remind us in the book of a historical episode that we’ve largely forgotten even as historians, which is the Impeach Earl Warren movement, which I think is one of these moments that encapsulates the influence of a small extreme group.

Can you walk us through that?

[00:13:00] Matthew: Yeah, it’s such an interesting moment. So one of the birth societies, uh, so the birth society actually, uh, very early on, set up front groups. And the reason they did that was to kind of hide their tracks. So as to, uh, not let the communists, that was their thinking, right? Not let the communists know who was behind a particular action.

And impeach Earl Warren was one of the earliest in the early 19 seven, uh, sixties, uh, acts that they undertook. Um, but it was arguably the most effective or one of the most effective. And what they did was, is essentially launch a campaign. Using billboards. They erected billboards, I think all across the country or many parts of the country.

A lot of people did it at the local, uh, chapter level. I think I have one, uh, Birch member who, you know, helped fund 20 of these billboards and these became a kind of iconic image, um, of the time because. Um, people saw them, right? Remember, there was no social media in the early 1960s, and so, you know, people would see these billboards, it was talked about and the idea of impeaching.

Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of the United States, who was considered a, a giant right in, uh, in American politics. He was a governor of California earlier, uh, and, and a giant, uh, in, in the judicial system, um, was really radical. And, uh, even some conservatives said, you know, that’s going too far. Um, the other point I’ll make about it though is that what was kind of innovative about it too, is that Impeach Earl Warren.

Well, what did that mean? Well, for some. Becher’s and Birch supporters, it meant Brown versus Board of Education. It meant that Warren deserved to be impeached because he had trampled on state’s rights and he had, um, basically, uh, destroyed what they called the, the, the right, the freedom to, uh, segregate. Uh, uh, by race in their states and their towns, but to other people also, it meant, um, they did not like Warren’s, uh, Jewish prudence on banning prayer in schools.

Um, giving rights to criminal defendants. Um, all of the. Kind of what we, what we think of today is these sort of cultural hot button issues. And, um, and Rupe Earl Warren could encompass all of these, uh, pieces. And some were motivated by one piece and another is another. And it really was a, I think, a powerful and memorable, and, and also Warren himself apparently was, um, was not a fan

[00:15:33] Jeremi: of this, of this movement.

[00:15:36] Zachary: Um, one of the, whenever I think of the John Birch Society, I, and end of the Impeach, uh, Earl Warren movement, um, I think of the scene in Slaughterhouse five, um, the great novel of the sixties in which the, the protagonist, uh, Billy Pilgrim, I. Who, who has seen the horrors of World War II drives around with bumper stickers supporting the John Birth Society and the Impeach World War Movement.

In what sense do you think that the society is born out of a unique mindset of the World War II generation and of that period? Post-war. And in what sense do you think maybe there are parallels between that generation or that moment and our

[00:16:16] Jeremi: own today? And I just have to say, I love anytime we can bring Kurt Vagan into the Yeah.

Oh, I mean,

[00:16:21] Matthew: it’s such a, a great question. And it’s so interesting too because I read Slaughterhouse five many years ago, but I’ve forgotten I didn’t. Remember that, uh, there was a Birch Society, uh, reference or a Bircher character in there. Um, the first thing I’ll say is that it evokes, uh, the extent to which in the 1960s, the birchers penetrated the popular culture.

And Jeremy, earlier you had asked too about, well, 60 to a hundred thousand, not that many, but yet they had this huge impact. Well, you know, people knew about them, right? Dr. Strange Love, you know, one of the characters in there. Bob Dylan did a song talking John Birch paranoid blues. So, um, you know, slaughterhouse five.

So, you know, you see the way in which they became like a, a, a cultural, uh, trope, um, and, uh, and both to be, be made fun of, but also to, uh, to be supported, um, in terms of the post, you know, war generation or the World War II generation. Um, Look, I think one point to make is that, you know, and has, historians have, have argued for a long time, you know, the 1950s were not exactly this harmonious, uh, consensus cultural, uh, era.

There was no real hegemony, um, uh, within American society. There were deep, uh, divisions. And you know, you see the Becher’s, I think coming out of, um, not just World War ii, but also the New Deal and frankly the progressive era, if we’re gonna go back further and they have a sense of, uh, a lost America.

Right. In America that had, that had vanished and it had vanished in part because of the growth of the welfare state. The encroachment as they saw it, of of civil rights judicial intervention and overreach and, um, and also the, the, the international liberal internationalism, right. American engagement in the world, you know, one of their.

Their biggest slogans was Get the US out of the un. Well, you know, that was born out of, uh, the, the World War ii of course. And, and the immediate post World War II era. So, um, so I think it’s a really perceptive question because they really were born, uh, in a sense, and they were propelled by this sense that there had been decades of really big changes in the structure of, of American life, American politics, but also America’s role in the world.

And that those changes. We’re fundamentally, uh, flawed and actually, um, alien, right? That they were alien to the constitution, alien to the country. You know, Becher’s had a slogan, uh, that’s Apropo, uh, of your, of your podcast, which is, uh, we’re a democracy or a republic, not a democracy. Let’s keep it that way.

And, um, and, and that I think evokes, uh, uh, some of their, uh, mission. Um, I, I can talk a little bit about, you know,

[00:19:12] Jeremi: comparisons to today, but. But, well, I, I wanna, there, there’s such an obvious one there of course, with, uh, certain, um, individuals, for example, um, Senator Mike Lee from Utah today, who’s made exactly the words you used would, would be very familiar to him that we’re a republic, not a democracy.

But before we get to that, I, I, I want to get at the kind of root issue that you, you really address so well in the book. Um, and you do it by evoking, of course, a historian that so many of us revere who was writing at this time, Richard Hofstetter. And, uh, he of course famously wrote about status anxiety and a paranoid style in American history.

Um, is that what this is? Is this part of a sort of long-term American, um, affiliation or, uh, a description to, uh, paranoia conspiracy. A sense that those who don’t feel they’re controlling power, that they use conspiracy to de-legitimize those who are using power in different ways. Um, I think

[00:20:12] Matthew: that maybe that’s one aspect of, of the book and kind of some of the themes of the book.

I mean, Hofsteder obviously, I mean, Hofsteder has to inform, uh, whether one agrees or disagrees with him. He, you know, he is really seminal and he informs anyone’s writing about the, the modern, uh, American right. I tend to shy away from the use of the word paranoid. Uh, in the book because, well, it’s clinical and also it, it it’s pejorative.

Um, and, um, what I, what I also resist is trying to define the becher’s primarily through conspiracy theories. Because at the time they were known for the, well, Robert Welch’s, the Founder’s theory that Dwight Eisenhower was a dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy. And, um, and that’s in a, or fluoridation in the water supply was a communist plot.

But you know, as I argue in the book, the Becher’s also tapped into other ideas. Now, Now conspiracies, sometimes were woven through them, but not always. Right. Um, sex education in the schools. Um, what was, what were students learning? What were the books that were on offer? Uh, in the libraries, um, uh, isolationism, uh, uh, a more explicit form of, of racism, uh, than, uh, a lot of political actors at the time were, uh, uh, used.

And so, um, you know, and again, this more apocalyptic motor politics, so conspiracy theories were. Uh, we’re, uh, an element of it and, um, but I do think that it, it goes beyond that and that it has, you know, and, and Jeremy, this of course, you know, intersects with your work as well, right? These sort of much deeper roots, um, in, uh, in American history and, uh, and a kind of, you know, concerns about sovereignty and nativism.

Uh, and, uh, and as I said, isolationism that, uh, and, you know, and I think the birchers kind of captured. Uh, uh, that as well. So, um, so I, you know, I’ll just say I don’t want to reduce it right to, uh, kind of paranoid conspiratorial,

[00:22:16] Jeremi: uh, style. Right. No, it’s, it’s obviously a cocktail of many things. And of course, and you talk about this in the book, white supremacy is part of that too.

Um, so one of the traditional things, historians and before historians, journalists at the time wrote about, uh, were the ways in which it appeared. That leading, uh, Republican party figures, Goldwater, uh, but certainly also Ronald Reagan, uh, leading party intellectual William F. Buckley. It appeared on the surface that they were separating themselves, uh, from the John Burr Society.

Um, Most of them, as you describe in the book at one moment or another, criticized the leaders of the party, particularly, uh, Robert Welch. Uh, but you argue in the book, uh, pretty forcefully that in fact, um, they continued these Republican party leaders to try to bring Becher’s into the fold and they tried not to alienate them.

Can you say more about that? Yeah.

[00:23:11] Matthew: Well, I try to capture in the book what I see as a, a attention within the conservative coalition. So just to back up, right, I argue. That there is a, um, a significant dividing line between these ultra-conservative fringe Berkshire types and mainstream conservatives. The electorally successful figures actually ranging from Eisenhower to Goldwater and Reagan, uh, and that that, uh, line was uh, uh, ideological and stylistic and that they were.

Actually, uh, antagonistic to one another oftentimes, right? That, you know, the birchers and then their successors often distrusted and felt frustrated by, uh, these, these governing conservatives. And I try to capture that dynamic. At the same time, I. I say, well, um, a lot of these, uh, conservative figures were talking about, um, uh, maybe the bushes, right?

Father and son, Ronald Reagan, uh, uh, even Bob Dole at times, especially during their campaigns, they did, they did send signals. To, um, what I call these successors to the birch movement. Uh, they sent signals that they were with them, right, that they were on their side, that they were going to champion, uh, their agendas.

And, uh, and yet once they got into office, they often governed in way that frustrated the fringes. Most insistent demands, uh, immigration. For example, uh, uh, internationalism, right? Interventionism in, uh, in in wars, uh, uh, uh, free trade, um, conspiracy theories, right? You know, for the most part, people like Reagan, um, did not govern in any of those ways.

And in fact, you know, not just the Berkshires, but, um, but a lot of their. What I call their successors. Uh, were very upset with Ronald Reagan, especially in his second term. They looked at him as a sellout and a traitor. And his one Becher said it, and I think I quote him in the book, uh, he said, you know, a true Becher never really trusted Ronald Reagan.

Uh, and uh, and they viewed him really ultimately as part of the problem. And so, um, so I think it was a, a kind of tense dynamic. But, but I think it’s also a mistake to lump together these electoral conservative Republicans. Um, and, uh, and the more friender, uh, uh, people.

[00:25:32] Jeremi: Right. But I think what resonate, what resonated with me at least, uh, were the ways in which you discuss how, uh, members of the party at the leadership level, who, who were disgusted by a lot of what the, uh, Birch Society did, particularly those who were disgusted by their attacks on Dwight Eisenhower, for example.

Nonetheless. Tried to ride that horse. Right. Tried to still appeal to them and not renounce them. And, and I, I underline this in my book because it resonates so much with what we saw in Charlottesville in recent years and elsewhere repeatedly you have, uh, Barry Goldwater, Republican presidential candidate, William F.

Buckley, publisher of the National Review, Ronald Reagan saying that in spite of the problems of the leaders, The Becher still had some good people. They were still nice people, just as, uh, Donald Trump said in Charlottesville that, that, you know, they were good people on both sides. Right. Um, yeah. That, that, that’s very disconcerting to read, I have to say.

[00:26:28] Matthew: Yeah. Yeah. That’s a really, um, yeah, the analogy is really powerful as you’re describing it. Um, That’s true. I mean, uh, look, you know, if we go back, right? Richard Nixon, uh, former vice president, went back to California, ran for governor, and very fortunately, denounced sub bergers. Well, what happened to him? He got primary by a guy named Joe Shell, who took about a third of the primary vote.

Was not a becher, but, but won the support of a lot of Becher’s who were powerful in Southern California and that really damaged Nixon. So Goldwater came along, um, and had some critical things to say about Robert Welch knew him. He was a problem, but as you said, right, he sort of said, you know, I know a lot of Becher’s and they’re fine people.

Um, Reagan in 66, 4 years after Nixon kind of split the baby right after Glow Water’s, uh, landslide defeat. He, you know, issued a statement. He said, you know, Welch’s theories basically about Eisenhower. I reject those. Um, but, you know, for Berkshire supports me, right? Or they’re, they’re buying my philosophy not the other way around.

Um, so. You know, that is true, right? That they did. Although, you know, there were times, I mean, I don’t want to go too far out here, but there were times, um, when, uh, uh, conservatives, especially in office did, um, you know, they did not tow the Berks line. Right. Um, you know, even Ronald Reagan, for example, and George W.

Bush, right. They signed renewals of the voting rights. Uh, ACT or civil rights laws. They, uh, uh, um, you know, when Reagan said, well, you know, Martin Luther King will know in 25 years if he was a communist, well, he had to backtrack and he apologized for that. He signed, um, the law, uh, uh, for reparations to Japanese Americans and turned.

Uh, during World War ii, so, you know, you can go on down or George W. Bush for example. You know, there were a number of instances in which major, uh, conservative presidents and other officials, uh, governed in ways that were not in sync with the Birch program or, and even on a lot of these culture war issues.

You know, someone like Reagan or George h w Bush, they would somewhat cynically, especially for, uh, Bush, uh, senior. They would, uh, go to Jerry Falwell’s moral majority groups and they would say, you know, I support a ban on abortion. Or, um, I’m gonna, you know, pass a, uh, let’s do a constitutional amendment banning, uh, burning of the flag or restoring prayer in school.

But they never were able to get it done. And, um, And, you know, you see the ways in which, uh, they govern, uh, in ways that, uh, you know, these, a lot of the elements of the fringe did not support. And certainly, you know, when George W. Bush in his second term, when things went south, For, uh, for his presidency and he lost popularity.

Um, you know, you see people like Mick Mulvaney and um, and Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, uh, in a sense who are rejecting him and rejecting and repudiating many of his policies and Rush Limbaugh.

[00:29:43] Zachary: What do you think, uh, then is the long-term legacy of the Berkshire’s in our contemporary politics?

[00:29:51] Matthew: Well, I argue that, um, they bequeathed and, and they were not the only ones, of course.

And, and there were, um, you know, groups in the 1930s, you know, as Father Kauflin or America First, right. Um, and, and groups obviously, uh, before that as well. Um, but the, the Birchers helped to update and sustain and forge, uh, what I described as this alternative political tradition on the far right, and that even as the Birch Society as an organization, Peter’s out, right?

It becomes a, basically a shadow of its old self by the early 1970s. Um, and it’s a real epithet, uh, at that time, but some of those individuals in the society and more, even more importantly, the ideas, um, as I’ve said before, isolationism, explicit racism, uh, uh, uh, concerns about sovereignty. Uh, that we would see make a comeback, um, uh, uh, uh, this conspiracy theories and again, this more apocalyptic mode of politics.

The idea that the enemy is within those ideas, that set of ideas on the far right. I think that, and also some of the hardline culture war issues as well. Those ideas kind of bubbled along, right? They were picked up by, uh, what I argue with these even can or successors. And, and there are a lot of other reasons why, you know, uh, the far right sort of, uh, makes, uh, uh, a comeback.

And, and of course it’s not simply the birth society. Transferred to 2016, for example. Um, but there was this kind of ideological legacy. And even if, you know, someone like a Donald Trump or a Sarah Palin had never heard of the Birth society, or if they had, they didn’t know much about it, um, they picked up on very shrewdly in a way, on a lot of the ideas that Berkshires and their successors had, uh, had sustained.

[00:31:51] Jeremi: Right. So when you say an alternative political tradition, again, this is in some ways a reference to Hofstadter and others who wrote about inherited American traditions. We think of a Jeffersonian tradition, a Hamiltonian tradition. Uh, your argument, and I think it’s a powerful one, is that there is this far right tradition in, in American history.

And that someone like Donald Trump doesn’t have to be well-read in it to be able to grab onto it and use words that seem legitimate because they are traditional. Correct. Exactly. I mean,

[00:32:23] Matthew: that’s extremely, uh, well put. And, uh, you know, Zachary, uh, in, in his poem, I think evoke this as well. That, and this is one of the points I’m trying to make in the book, that this is a deeply American phenomenon and it’s not just a conspiracy theories, right.

It goes beyond that. Uh, and, and. Because in the 1960s, the criticism, one of the criticisms lodged at the becher’s, uh, was that they were alien, right? As, as I think one senator at the time said, there are weird presence in America. And you know, my argument is no, actually they’re not. They’re deeply, they’re kind of endemic to the country and to its, uh, to its traditions.

Um, they’re not necessarily the majority of the country, but they’re a powerful tradition. Um, and I think it’s a tradition that since especially the New Deal and then the Great Society and Civil Rights Movement that many people have thought, many, especially liberals, but also some conservatives too, a tradition had thought had really just been marginalized, right?

It was not. Um, possible to, there’s, there’s no electoral support. And, and that’s part partly why a lot of conservative figures thought that, you know, if you do what Trump did and you call, uh, uh, neo-Nazis fine people, um, as Trump did essentially, that you cannot, you know, you’re not gonna be elected. And, um, and so that assumption of course, proved incorrect.

Uh, and, uh, and you know, and here we are. It,

[00:33:58] Jeremi: it’s stunning. And I just want to lay this out because I didn’t understand this until I read your book, and I think it’s why people who want to understand today’s politics need to read your book, Matt. Uh, just the number of parallels and they’re, they’re not parallels because Donald Trump went back, uh, his supporters went back to, you know, look at the 1960s and seventies, as you have so carefully in your research.

But because these arguments were out there, They were discredited, but at the same time, they were available to be used in other moments when they could be made to seem logical and seem less outrageous. So you talk, for instance, at the, at the parallels between the, um, criticisms of, uh, Tony Fauci and the criticisms of vaccines and the parallels with the, uh, becher criticism of fluorinated water.

And, and all the lies that were told about that. Uh, immigration issues, prayer in schools. Mm-hmm. Uh, the, you have a number of lines where they birchers are arguing for, uh, legislation to protect and in some ways almost require prayer in schools. And then look at the legislation in, in my state of Texas right now, it’s almost almost word for word man.

Yeah. Well,

[00:35:04] Matthew: I mean, or Florida, right? For that matter. Right. I mean, some of the stuff about out banning, uh, uh, the teach certain teachings, right? Progressive teachings, the idea that, you know, these teachings are not just bad for kids, but you’re actually indoctrinating them with a, a socialistic awoke. Uh, uh, uh, uh, ideas, right?

I mean, as, as contemporaries would put it. Well, that’s a similar argument to what was, uh, what the Berkshires made, uh, in the 1960s. And, you know, your point, I think is exactly right. You know, someone like Trump does not have to be, doesn’t have to be a historian of the far right. I mean, you know, the birtherism.

Uh, uh, conspiracy theory, right? That, that somehow Barack Obama was not born in the United States and Ill ineligible to be president, that he was an alien, uh, to the short. Well, you know, that there were a lot of other people on the far right who were also pushing that as well. You know, Trump is very entrepreneurial and I think he’s, and he’s very savvy politically, and he has picked up on and kind of tapped into a lot of ideas that had been simmering, uh, uh, on the far right for, uh, for, for decades.

[00:36:10] Jeremi: So one of the purposes of our podcast, Matt, and I know one of the purposes of of your book, one of the, the things you and I share as historians is that we believe that history is useful. Uh, it’s not a roadmap for the future, um, but it gives us a better sense of the right questions to ask. Ask and of some of the things we need to consider in our, in our approach to policy, in our approach to social development, um, what should we do going forward Then, uh, based on this history, this, this clearly indicates that the challenges to our democracy today are not just about Donald Trump or just about Marjorie Taylor Green.

There’s something deeper here. So what, what are the implications of that knowledge for thinking about protecting democracy today?

[00:36:55] Matthew: Well, it’s a great question. Uh, I think first, just an appreciation that the United States has faced anti-democratic movements in the past, and that these movements may not have been mainstream in the way that they are today.

Um, but that it is a, a kind of enduring part right, of American life. And having that appreciation in and of itself, I think is a little bit, um, I don’t know if reassuring is the, is the, uh, right word. Um, but it does put in perspective. Right. That, as you said, uh, so, well, Jeremy, that, you know, Trump is not a suis, right?

That, that we have seen, um, um, these kinds of, uh, challenges before. Um, the other element, I think, and you know, it’s not quite a lesson because our times are so much different from the 1960s and seventies. Um, but it is worth thinking about, and I, I actually wrote an article in the Atlantic, uh, magazine about this, which is, um, you know, how do far right organizations and far right movements get constrained, right?

The birch ideas, uh, never died. But the Bert Society did fade, as I said earlier, right? It faded as a, as an organization and as a movement by, certainly by the early, uh, uh, to mid 1970s. Well, how did that happen? Couple things. One is, uh, American institutions, um, uh, government institutions, mass media, but also, um, civic society, right?

Uh, the naacp, Americans for Democratic Action. Most importantly, the anti-defamation, uh, league. Um, a lot of, uh, a lot of folks, a lot of groups, uh, work to constrain the Berkshires to really push them out in the fringes to make them, uh, toxic in the political culture. The other point I would make, uh, is that the birth society, I argue, especially in the late sixties, self combusted because it’s conspiracy theories in particular, drew.

More violent and more bigoted members to the ranks. There was internal dissent, interesing, uh, uh, warfare, and they also had some financial problems, and it was a very hard movement to sustain. Um, it became incredibly fractious and, um, you know, and it seemed more and more toxic even to some of its own, own members.

Um, so. Uh, it’s not a prescription per se, but it is worth thinking about. Um, you know, look, maybe there are elements of MAGA that, you know, Trump’s dinner, for example, with Nick Fleiss and, uh, and, and ye the rapper, uh, the anti-Semite, the white supremacist, uh, dinner that he had a few months ago. Um, you know, there is a way in which I think Trump, uh, and MAGA has descended.

And, and you know, again, you don’t wanna make predictions, but, um, but one can see this kind of, um, radicalization and descending. Uh, that, uh, occurred and, you know, that is a, I think a, a note, a faint note,

[00:39:58] Jeremi: but a note of hope. Absolutely. And I think, uh, just to underline, uh, one of the many, uh, excellent points you just made, Matt, I think for me one of the big takeaways from your research and your writing is how important, uh, organizations that care about democracy, that care about inclusion, grassroots organizations, how important they are, one of the heroic organizations in your book.

Uh, is the Anti-Defamation League known to many as the adl? Uh, I don’t want to give away the whole book, but I encourage those, uh, who are interested to read those sections of the book where you’re talking about, uh, a number of measures including spying undertaken by these organizations, uh, to help federal authorities and help state authorities, uh, deal with the, the threats of hatred and violence.

Um, and there’s a lot to learn from that. I think.

[00:40:46] Matthew: I, I think that’s exactly right. And the thing is too, in mid 20th Century America, even in the 1960s, you know, Jagar Hoover and others in law enforcement were more interested in trying to ferret out alleged communists in American society. They were less interested in.

Um, going after, you know, far right, uh, groups that may have, uh, have promoted racism and anti-Semitism. And so it was even more important then for a group like the ADL to, um, to fill that gap, right? Because it was a real void. Um, and today, I, I think fortunately, uh, at least under the Biden administration, for example, we have seen a justice department that has taken.

Uh, white supremacy and neo-Nazis and those threats seriously after January 6th, of course. And, um, and you know, there are a lot of, uh, insurrectionists who are sitting in jail right now.

[00:41:39] Jeremi: Absolutely. I think about a thousand of them have been prosecuted. Um, Zachary, uh, you’ve listened to this conversation.

You’ve thought deeply about this, uh, especially since you read Kurt Vonnegut years ago. Um, and your generation, I know, uh, often feels, um, concerned and maybe even despondent about some of these issues that we see around us, especially as we see states like Texas and Florida. Also passing legislation that looks to, in some ways, bring some of these birch ideas into, into law even.

Um, what do you take from this conversation? Do you see Optimistic roads forward here?

[00:42:15] Zachary: I do. I, I think that, um, One thing that this moment has done for this moment in our politics has done for young people is it has laid bare these long threads of, of far-right hatred and, and bigotry in American history.

Um, and, and I, what I think makes that moment in slaughterhouse five so powerful is the irony. That a, a man who had lived through the dehumanizing trauma of, of, of modern warfare could do the same thing and be so vir anti-communist only a few decades later. Right. And I think one of the lessons that we can draw from this history and that story is that we who have lived, not necessarily through comparable trauma, but through a lot of dehumanizing trauma and political strife, need to come out of this moment.

Committed to something different, not to a further extreme.

[00:43:08] Jeremi: Right. And, and that, that’s possible. Right. Exactly. Be because, you know, Matt covers this so well, uh, there is, uh, the infamous general Edwin Walker, and if we want parallels, he’s a parallel to Michael Flynn today. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Uh, military hero who, who actually becomes a, a, a fascist.

And, uh, and, and so I think your point, Zachary, is really well taken, uh, on this. Matt, are you optimistic that we can learn these lessons? I, I

[00:43:34] Matthew: mean, Zachary, I, I think your point is, uh, really powerful and, um, you know, thinking about trauma, but then what comes out on the other side, um, what gives me, uh, a hope or optimism, uh, is, um, the, the grassroots and kind of organic.

Activism, especially among young people, whether it’s March for Our Lives, um, and the students at Parkland or, uh, um, you know, people, uh, in support of voting rights, all the people who have gone out to vote, uh, in, uh, the last, uh, three national, uh, elections, um, you know, on the Dobbs decision and the reaction to that.

Um, and these referendums that we’ve seen in even conservative states, right, where people are trying to define freedom, uh, as, uh, the right to, to, to choose right. If, if a woman wants to get an abortion. So, um, I, I, I guess I am. Optimistic that democracy is, uh, incredibly fragile at this moment, as we’ve seen and, and actually is a bit broken in many uh, respects.

Uh, but it is also resilient as well. And I think it’s that kind of tension. And, um, and may, may, you know, 10, 20, 30 years from now, who knows, maybe it will be seen as stronger. To Zachary’s point, uh, because of the moment that we are living through now, I don’t know, you know, that’s, that’s maybe Pollyannish.

Um, but it’s not inconceivable.

[00:45:03] Jeremi: Well, I think what your research shows, uh, Matt, and this is true actually throughout all, all three of your books, but particularly, uh, your work on the Becher’s, which is that, uh, uh, American democracy has enormous capacity to learn and react. We don’t always see that on a day-to-day basis.

Uh, but just as the a DL and the F B I and elements of American politics in the 1970s, Learn to discredit and in some ways, um, eliminate the becher’s as a major political force, uh, that can happen again. Uh, and, and the, the craziness, uh, the hate that we see in our politics, that comes often from small numbers of people who are amplifying their voices.

Uh, there are things we can do about that. And I, I think you give us a lot to think about and you give us a great example of exactly what our podcast is about each week, uh, which is studying the past, learning from the past, not as a re. For the future, but as an inspiration for new creativity in our politics today.

Uh, Matt, thank you so much for joining us. Th this was,

[00:46:04] Matthew: uh, such a wonderful conversation. And thank you, Jeremy. Thank you, Zach. Your questions were, uh, terrific. So it’s great to be

[00:46:10] Jeremi: here. And Zachary, thank you for your inspiring poem. uh, with a great title also. And thank you, most of all to our loyal listeners for joining us, uh, for this episode of This is Democracy.