Thursday, May 27, 2010

Are there some similarities betwen the Tea Party Movement & the (JBS) John Birch Society?

There are some similarities to the John Birch Society & some of the Tea Party Movements across the U.S.

The favorite lines used by Tea Partiers are: bring about less government, more responsibility, and —Preserving Individual Rights Restoring the Constitution.

Nothing wrong with that! I agree with those notions.

In its weekly webcast, John Birch Society CEO Arthur R. Thompson came to the defense of Rand Paul, (who won the Kentucky GOP primary running as thre Tea Party candidate, defeating establishment candidate Trey Grayson), and issued a rambling condemnation of government "forcing" integration (although to soften this position, he similarly condemned "forced segregation," apparently referring to Jim Crow laws). "When you have government involved in this process, it can really lead to serious problems," he said. Government, he continued, shouldn't be involved in forcing people on some things, it's always been the official position of the John Birch Society that forced segregation is wrong, but forced integration by government is equally wrong. And that's just the way it is. It's called freedom. Now there will always be inequities in freedom."

Barry Goldwater main plank in his platform of 1864 was opposition to Civil Rights, although he helped led integration as a City Councilman in 1949 in Arizona (Phoenix).

FYI: Goldwater broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.


Now let me say that the Tea Party movement is not influeced by the Ultra-Conservative Right-Wing Group John Birch Society in any way, but its hard not to say that it has adopted some of their principles.

The John Birch Society became active and many grassroots members attached themselves strongly to the national political figure they saw as an agent for change, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona.

The Tea Party Movement have done the exact same thing. It is a movement madeup of strong grassroots members who have attached themselves to the likes of former Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin, who is seen by some as the defacto leader of the movement.

Could Rand Paul be another bellwether figure slated for trouble for his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act? While he can argue, as did Goldwater, that his opposition stemmed from deeply grounded constitutional principles, and it is known that Paul's views reside within libertarianism, the ultimate question is how these positions play out in an aggressive activist front.

Like Civil Rights was the main culprit for the society, the "so-called" government takeover of our Healthcare System, you can say is the main culprit that elevated the Tea Party movement to where it is today.

Like the 60s in which a strong ideological battle emerged between Goldwater & his far-right allies,against major senatorial figures from his own party at the time, there is one now between Tea Party Grassroots & the establishment GOP, ( Marco Rubio, Tea Party candidate) & (Charlie Christ, etsablishment GOP pick) down in Florida & of course Kentucky's Rand Paul against Trey Grayson serves as examples.

But are there similarities to the Tea Party & John Birch Society? Me personally I don't think so, but according to some there are,for example:

Terms used against President Obama like Communist, Socialist, claims of wealth redistribution, fascism.

It is becoming fashionable to argue that the Tea Partiers are the heirs of the John Birch Society. The tea party leaders disavow any racist appeals from their ranks. But historically, whether it was the JBS or Goldwater, the radical right has often had a soft spot for bigots."

The Tea Party movement entered the nation's consciousness during the past year with sizable and at times very angry public demonstrations. The Tea Party is a movement with no clear leadership and no centralized structure. Not everyone flocking to the Tea Party movement is worried about dictatorship. Some have a basic aversion to big government, or Mr. Obama, or progressives in general. What's more, some Tea Party groups are essentially appendages of the local Republican Party. But most are not."

Leaders are often people with no political experience, but they "tell strikingly similar stories of having been awakened by the recession. Their families upended by lost jobs, foreclosed homes and depleted retirement funds, they said they wanted to know why it happened and whom to blame.

The motto of the Tea Party Patriots, a large coalition of groups, is fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.

Here's my Opinion:

The focus is also strategic: leaders think they can attract independent voters if they stay away from divisive issues. Raising social issues, risks fracturing the strength it has built. Some people at Tea Party gatherings say they want to eliminate the federal income tax, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, government programs that keep millions of people out of poverty and enable them to get needed healthcare. On these issues, Tea Partiers are on the far right.

Why do some in the Tea Party oppose the federal income tax? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? If you don't know, how might you find out?

What specific government actions fuel anger and resentment among Tea Party members?

What leads them to conclude that the US government has become tyrannical?


The JBS main for was communism, the Tea Party's is Socialism.

The JBS main foe was Civil Rights, the Tea Partymain foe was Healthcare Reform

They all are in line when it comes to welfare, abolishing the Federal Reserve, limiting the powers of government, etc.

So you be the judge, are they similar or what?

1 comment:

Edwin said...

Many smart thing here about why Rand Paul (and any one else who says that civil rights laws infringe on property rights) is wrong.

The central debate here is whether government action is always (or almost always) an infringement on personal rights or (as is the liberal position) necessary to protect individual rights.

This is a Rural Blog that provides views & insights from a Conservative Georgia Democrat

Blog Archive