Conservatives Branding Themselves "Right-Wing Extremists"

| Fri Apr. 17, 2009 1:35 PM PDT

Conservatives have gone ballistic over the April 7 report from the Department of Homeland Security, which purports to document the recent growth of the radical far-right. As summarized by Reuters:

Right-wing extremists in the United States are gaining new recruits by exploiting fears about the economy and the election of the first black U.S. president, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report to law enforcement officials. The April 7 report…said such fears were driving a resurgence in “recruitment and radicalization activity” by white supremacist groups, antigovernment extremists and militia movements. It did not identify any by name.

DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been “largely rhetorical.” But it warned that home foreclosures, unemployment and other consequences of the economic recession “could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists.” “To the extent that these factors persist, right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength,” DHS said.

After the story of the report broke earler this week, it dominated the Drudge Report Feed, which featured a picture of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano above the line, “SHE IS WATCHING YOU.” The Liberty Papers offered a  blog post headed, “If you are reading this, you may well be a terrorist.” Michelle Malkin quickly entered the fray, declaring what she called “the piece of crap report” to be “a sweeping indictment of conservatives.” And since she believes that “in Obama land there are no coincidences,” Malkin concluded that the report’s release was timed to coincide with Wednesday’s “Tax Day Tea Party” protests. Even though the report was apparently conceived under the Bush Administration, Malkin’s interpretation was repeated by Rush Limbaugh and others, and the fix was in.

So do conservatives really want to put themselves in the same boat with the racist, militant, often violent groups the report actually has in mind when it talks about “right-wing extremists?” Because that’s exactly what’s happened: Conservatives haven’t been branded dangerous extremist by DHS or the Obama administration; they’ve branded themselves.

Advertisement

Advertisement

It’s clear that in the last few months, conservatives have rediscovered the political and rhetorical advantages to depicting themselves as a downtrodden but courageous army, holding their own against an overwhelming onslaught of the mild liberalism they like to call “socialist.” But in fact, the DHS report does not even include the word ”conservative.” It’s clearly not about rank-and-file conservatives, or even hard-core, Red State, tax-cutting, gun-toting, Obama-hating conservatives. So it’s strange how ready conservatives seem to be to identify with, rather than separate themselves from, the people the report is about: organized, militant groups on the far right.

In a lot of ways, the DHS report laid itself open to just this kind of response. It’s a stupid, ill-timed, and, worst of all, useless report, so vague  that it ends up saying nothing that could be helpful to law enforcement, its supposed audience. Why wouldn’t the report talk about what groups exist where, and in what numbers, who they are and what they do? (The Southern Poverty Law Center has this kind of information on its web site, available for public viewing.) Instead, the report focuses on what these extremists believe and how they seem to be interpreting current events—which is also a dangerous approach from a civil liberties point of view, since it fails to clearly separate Constitutionally protected thought  from criminal action. 

I’ve been covering racist far right movements in America (and they are virtually all deeply racist and anti-Semitic, even if that isn’t their main thrust) for more than 30 years; I’ve spent time at their gatherings and  talked to their members and leaders; and I’ve produced a book and a film on the subject.  There may be a margin of crossover between the far right and the right, especially on hot-button issues like immigration and gun control. But still, these are not ordinary church-picnic or Sarah-Palin-rally conservatives. They include the Ku Klux Klans, Aryan Republican Army, and various other neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups, as well as the Posse Comitatus, Militias, and others who deny the authority of the federal government. Various members or fellow travelers of these groups have committed bank robberies, assaults, and murders, and were implicated in the worst terrorist act on American soil before 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing. (And in my experience, these groups have usually gotten too little attention from law enforcement, not too much.)

These groups have seen periodic resurgences–in the 1960s in response to the Civil Rights Movement, in the 1980s during the farm crisis, and in the 1990s in the form of the anti-government militia movement, with its links to the Oklahoma City bombing. They then pretty much faded from view, replaced by the focus on Islamic terrorism. Yet remnants of the movement have clearly survived, regrouped, and in some cases expanded. Most prominently, these elements are present on the most violent end of the anti-immigrant vigilante movement, committing drive-by shootings of Mexican labourers. Some are part of biker gangs, including the Sons of Silence, who were implicated in a threat against Obama at the Democratic convention in Denver. Others are scattered around doing their own thing: picking fights in bars, beating up gay men or “foreigners.” And when I traveled across country last fall, covering the presidential election for the Guardian, I encountered neo-Nazis who saw the election of Barack Obama as the greatest recruiting tool they’d ever had.

Do the Tea Party attendees really want to paint themselves with the same brush as guys like this, just in order to get some victim cred?

James Ridgeway is a senior correspondent at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Does Rush Really Represent Tea Party-ers?

He's an entertainer, after all. Who makes money spouting often incendiary rhetoric. But Rush doesn't speak for the majority of Tea Party-ers any more than Susan Sarandon (and the rest of the radical Hollywood extremists) represented the bulk of the liberal movement when they announced that if Bush were elected, they'd leave the U.S. I'll grant you that some of the Tea Party participants capitalized on the DHS report, but overall, this event was really all about Liberty--just like the last one (you know, the one in Boston a few hundred years ago?) was. I'll bet you, though, that had old Sam Adams heard that good King George had branded the Patriots as "extremists", he'd have used it as further proof that the monarchy was less interested in the well-being of its subjects than it was in protecting its revenue stream. Would that have diminished Adams act and efforts? I think not. Would you, today, turn your nose up in disgust at those brave patriots because they "made themselves out to be victims"? Actually, you might... At any rate, the point is, the Tea Party participants weren't lamenting their victimhood; they were putting the government on notice.

Which is it?

Is Rush just spouting incendiary rhetoric or are the Teabaggers putting the government on notice?

Both...

Rush is doing his job: entertaining. The teabaggers, on the other hand, were, as you noted, putting the government on notice. Why is it that Ridgeway insists on associating Rush with the teabaggers merely because he sees an opportunity and globs on to the movement? In this particular situation, he's just a carpetbagger, not a teabagger. And he doesn't speak for the vast majority of the population.

Author misses the point

No, it was not stupid and ill-timed. It was clearly designed to provide the fodder for precisely the comments the author finds so curious. The most ridiculous aspect of the tea parties was that they were sponsored by Fox, the face of the corporate plutocracy, to protest against the corporate plutocracy's treasonous assaults on the American people over the last 30 years, aiming those protests at the Democratic administration as if Obama had just invented short-selling and derivatives. They are supposedly protestors, but they are actually protesting in favor of the corrupt status quo and the present powers that be. To cover up this dissonant reality, they were told that they were fighting against a totalitarian clampdown. Agents of the plutocracy in DHS were simply helping the illusion along. The report was calculated in tone and timing to support just the sort of propagandizing it ended up supporting. The tea partyers were intended think that the government was thinking about them when they spoke of cracking down on right-wing extremists. The question is whether these DHS propagandists were working for or against Obama when they released their report.

Thank You For Jounalistic Integrity

I am glad Mother Jones continues to maintain a posture which considers the values of all who may not adhere to the editorial perspective of the management. I have noticed fewer and fewer writers hold to this value in journalism. Is it so twentieth century to look at all sides of an issue? I certainly hope not. If writers are poised to bash old school perspectives, a lot of people will just stop reading what they write. I don't think that is what anybody really wants. If anyone is so naive to think that the Department of Homeland Security does not have a huge responsibility to effectively coordinate communication between all security agencies, then they forgot why the 9-11 commission was founded. And the full content of this DHS memo adds to the confusion rather than help clarify it. Some might call it a dereliction of duty to have put out the memo in it's published form. This DHS memo is everything James Ridgeway has pointed out, including: "In a lot of ways, the DHS report laid itself open to just this kind of response. It’s a stupid, ill-timed, and, worst of all, useless report, so vague that it ends up saying nothing that could be helpful to law enforcement, its supposed audience. Why wouldn’t the report talk about what groups exist where, and in what numbers, who they are and what they do? (The Southern Poverty Law Center has this kind of information on its web site, available for public viewing.) Instead, the report focuses on what these extremists believe and how they seem to be interpreting current events—which is also a dangerous approach from a civil liberties point of view, since it fails to clearly separate Constitutionally protected thought from criminal action." The DHS memo is, in fact, establishing a precedent for "Thought Profiling". Now, whether you agree with the kinds of thoughts that are being profiled through this DHS memo, or vehemently disagree with them, "Thought Profiling" is not something anyone should want to add to the list of reasons for Law enforcement to be able to harrass people. Many "middle of the road" people harbor thoughts like "the FTAA is a horrible policy". Those ones are on the list of this memo too! Read the whole memo, and decide if someone you know and love, like maybe a grandparent, would do something so treasonous as "bemoan the diminished posture of the United States".

Good Obervations

The question to really ask yourself is, "What does the administration have to gain by profiling certain types of thought as extreme? What seeds are being planted?"

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.