patrick.net

While I think the "elitist" label is over-vague, here's what I wrote somewhere else about the Birchers:

I was leafing through my collection of NYT front pages from the Vietnam-era, and was struck to see this:

PRESIDENT TARGET OF G.O.P. ATTACKS

CHICAGO Feb. 12--The hard core of the Republican Old Guard convened here today to cheer verbal assaults on the United Nations, the State Department and the Eisenhower Administration.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40A15F63A5B167B93C1A81789D85F418585F9

"1700 persons from 26 states listened to a day-long session of speechmaking. It ranged on attacks on the alleged evils of Washington to attacks on President Eisenhower's alleged captivity by "people of questionable Republicanism".

. . .

"In another address, Gov. Lee voiced an idea that had remained unexpressed among many of the participants -- the possibility of a "third party".

~~

Republicans have always had their nutball Bircher right, to be joined by the country's "Boll Weevil" Dems starting with Goldwater in 1964. Eisenhower's private letter to his winger brother is interesting in defending center-right politics from the Bircher argument for extremism:

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm

Not that I am an historian or well qualified to weigh in, just my opinion, the best republican presidents since WWII.

1) Eisenhower

2) Nixon

3) Reagan

In that order.

If you want to include Clinton as a republican president I would put him near the top. Undecided whether he would be above Eisenhower or not. My guess is most conservatives would put Reagan at the top, because of the so called "Reagan Revolution."

Why is it that now we have the resurgence of John Birch society and the Tea Party? I guess maybe it's a perfect storm. The deficit build up that preceded Obama is what some liberal conspiracy theorists think was a "starve the beast" plan.

That idea is that they would build up the deficit so much that future democrats would not be able to do the spending on social programs that they wanted to do. The "beast" is the government, it is starved because the deficit is too high to allow new big spending. Then Obama comes in and says basically "fuck you, the economy is in a deep hole and we must do many types of deficit spending in spite of the fact that the deficit is so high."

I doubt that "starve the beast" was an actual plan under Bush, but they probably were aware of it, and might have laughed about the circumstances the next democrat would find themselves in (don't forget Bush tax cuts).

My point is that between the spending that Obama is doing, and the fact that he is African American (I'm not talking about simple racism - it's convoluted - but it's a factor), AND A DEMOCRAT, like Kennedy, charismatic with a lot of people excited about the possibilities, gives us a perfect storm that brought the extremists out of the woodwork.

I thought most of them had died by now. Who knew ?

I clarified my link, since Fred Koch, the cofounder of the John Birch society has sons who think along the same lines. They, or at least their philosophy, dominate Beck's talking points. This is no doubt why Ron Paul bolted.

marcus says

I doubt that “starve the beast” was an actual plan under Bush, but they probably were aware of it, and might have laughed about the circumstances the next democrat would find themselves in (don’t forget Bush tax cuts).

"starve the beast" came out of the Reagan era. I remember seeing it in print.

All through history extremists always come out of the woodwork when there is economic stress. Almost no one pays any attention to them when the majority of people are living well.

I used to believe in "starve the beast", until I got to thinking about what sort of buffoonish trickery it is. It's like saying the solution to your spending problems is cut your paycheck and FORCE yourself to live on less. No, the honest thing to do is simply vote to cut the spending in the first place, which representatives who fervently claim to believe in same have not done. I take Alaska as my classic example of this sort of hypocrisy. Heavy with politicians who excel in criticizing remote Federal spending while they happily slurp up 5 TIMES the amount of Federal dollars as they contribute in taxes.

Taibbi is right on, these dimwits can't add 2 and 2 to get 4, much less understand Ron Paul.

Vicente says

I take Alaska as my classic example of this sort of hypocrisy.

Plus they badmouth socialism while having $50,000 p/c in their entirely socialist permanent fund.

Of of St Palin's side-businesses was renting out the state- created commercial fishing license.

Socialism for me but not for thee.

Vicente says

used to believe in “starve the beast”, until I got to thinking about what sort of buffoonish trickery it is. It’s like saying the solution to your spending problems is cut your paycheck and FORCE yourself to live on less

I believe that starve the beast is more like, spending so much that your paycheck (and your wife's) are both garnisheed starting at about the time the wife takes over the families finances.

In this analogy, the family is the government, the republicans are the husband intentionally spending like crazy, with the goal in mind of the wife never being able to spend on what she wants to. The wife represents the democrats, who are prevented from spending on their dangerous social programs that could lead to scary socialism and the destruction of our way of life.