TheAgitator.com
The Faux Panic Over Right Wing Violence
Tuesday, September 15th, 2009I’ve been waiting to link to this great piece by my colleague Jesse Walker since I proofed it a couple of months ago. Here’s his conclusion:
Eliminationist rhetoric may flower in some of the fringes, but the violence that sometimes follows is usually petty stuff. The most formidable eliminationists have always been in the American center, not on the margins. They aim to preserve or extend the existing social order, not to subvert it. And they have the most guns.
The eradication of the Indians would have been impossible without the support of the federal government. When the second Ku Klux Klan was at its most powerful, in the early 1920s, it controlled the governments of Colorado, Indiana, and Oregon. In the South, lynch mobs and night riders served as a sort of para-state: A man who wore a policeman’s badge by day could don a Klansman’s hood by night. In the 1960s it was possible for urban cops to engage in extralegal violence in one moment and to call for “law and order” in the next. You could view that as a contradiction. Or you could view it as an especially ugly idea of what law entails.
It’s comforting to imagine that violence and paranoia belong only to the far left and right, and that we can protect ourselves from their effects by quarantining the extremists and vigilantly expelling anyone who seems to be bringing their ideas into the mainstream. But the center has its own varieties of violence and paranoia. And it’s far more dangerous than anyone on the fringe, even the armed fringe, will ever be.
That’s true whether it’s today’s leftists calling out anti-government sentiment on the right, or the pro-Bush crowd attempting to marginalize anti-war protesters on the left back in 2003. The people with the guns and the monopoly on force will always be exponentially more dangerous than the fringe protesters, no matter what their aspirations. Timothy McVeigh was the exception. The total body count isn’t even close.
Jesse’s entire piece is well worth a read.
So the Klan is the American center…or was then? Bullshit.
Violent, right-wing extremists don’t become any less right-wing just because they have access to the levers of state power.
“Timothy McVeigh was the exception.”
Hey, you know, nevermind the fact that I was in Atlanta the day of the Olympic bombing, and was supposed to be in Centennial Park that evening; remind us again what political leanings Eric Rudolf espouses again?
Is he an exception, too?
We are eight years, three days into the government policies pursued by the right that were in part a reaction to an exceptional event. Shoot, most of our laws are based on exceptional circumstances.
And like Chuchundra says, it is awfully convenient to write off the KKK as ‘mainstream.’
Movement conservatism fetishizes violence, arms, revenge, vigilantism, & authoritarianism. You are free to reject that premise, but understand that it is grounded in reality, unlike your post or this article.
Chuchundra, I disagree entirely. While some can restrain themselves there is a strong tendency once one acquires power to use it, and merely because one comes from a right-wing eliminationist background does not inoculate one from this tendency.
As for the Klan, well considering that Saint Woody (President Wilson) was an out and out racist and president at the same it would seem that racism at least was not a fringe opinion at the time. That the Klan could operate openly in large parts of the country would seem to indicate that, at least in those parts, it was the center. As for being the American center maybe not, and probably not the world center, but in certain parts of the US it was, if not the exact center, at least not on the fringe. Consider that as late as 1948 the KKK (Dixiecrat if you prefer) canidate for president carried 4 states.
The dreaded “extremist” label. When in doubt, call someone with a different opinion than you an extremist. It’s the trump card that always seems work.
What makes the opposition so violent? No one has been murdered by “right wing extremists” since November. No bombings, no assinations. But I guess doesn’t matter. All anyone has to do is say it, and suddenly a bullshit lie becomes fact. The term “right-wing” gets thrown around way too much. Just because someone opposes a liberal agenda doens’t make them right-winged. Samething goes for the left winger label.
It’s good to see that when liberals are in power, they’ll resort to the same black and white world view as the previous administration. It keeps reminding me that there is no difference between the two.
Extremism violence isn’t the problem. Statism violence is. You are right when you label it the middle.
Most people who get labeled “right wing” scoff at the term. My mindset and that of my friends who have guns is we are for government when it protects individual liberty and against it when it infringes.
That puts us on interesting “ends” of the spectrum depending on a particular issue. Sometimes we seem like long haired hippy freaks (anti drug laws) and sometimes we get label fascist (anti illegal immigration)
Keep in mind we don’t all ascribe to all tenets at all times. But the one thing we can agree on is what my friend Mike Vanderboegh wrote with regards to armed people being citizens and disarmed people being slaves.
“We will not disarm.
You cannot convince us.
You cannot intimidate us.
You can try to kill us, if you think you can.
But remember, we’ll shoot back.
And we are not going away.
Your move. “
Learn some history. The Klan’s membership in the 1920s was at least 5% of the entire US population.
LOL@former Kleagal Senator Robert Byrd. LOL!
Yeah, right. Because the left never uses violence ever. No environmentalist has ever bombed a research lab with animal testing. Che Guevara never murdered anyone. No liberal pundit has ever wanted to enact laws that criminalize dissenting free speech. No union members have ever destroyed private property or threatened a “scab” with violence. No Att. General for Bill Clinton ever sent armed men to kidnap a child and force his return to a country with a long history of human rights violation.
Well…at least you guys aren’t biased.
If a group is in power it is, by definition, not on the fringe. Klansmen did infinitely more damage as an adjunct to the power structure than they do as a despised fringe group.
Also, for the record, the Klan of the ’20s doesn’t fit easily into the modern left/right spectrum.
Unfortunately, when we hear about politically-motivated violence by an American, chances are it is a right-wing extremist. This, however, is not because there are no left-wing extremists or because being right-wing causes people to be violent. It’s a matter of self-selection: people on the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more action-oriented, individualistic and take on personal responsibility. People on the left side, on the other hand, are more willing to delegate responsibility. As a result, on average more violence will be caused by right-wing extremists, while more calls for violence will come from left-wing extremists. It doesn’t make either side less crazy or less guilty for their actions, but it does cause the perception that right-wing nuts are more violenct.
Second Radley’s recommendation of Jesse’s piece. It’s a read, but a good one.
One of the points I found most interesting was the rampant historical inaccuracies that exist in narratives attempting to connect fringe extremism to mainstream political ideology. When you’re looking for a connection, it’s easy to overlook inconvenient facts. Damn human brains.
No Att. General for Bill Clinton ever sent armed men to kidnap a child and force his return to a country with a long history of human rights violation.
I agree with your other examples, and I know it’s off-topic, but actually, in this case, the government was protecting the rights of the child’s father (even though we may disagree with the father’s decisions, we expect free countries to allow fathers to make bad decisions for their kids without government interference).
I’d rather point to the examples of Bill Clinton’s Attorney General putting people in prison for obviously false charges of child molestation or her trailblazing the rise of arrests and prosecutions for drug possession crimes or her role in the bumbling massacre in Waco.
#10
The media just doesn’t cover left wing violence like they do the right wing violence. When was the last time the animal rights/green terrorists got much air time? They are very active. Hell some cable channels give them shows.
#8,
You have to remember that the average leftist actually believes that the Spanish Inquisition was comparable to any of the atrocities of the 20th century. That is despite the fact that the Spanish Inquisition only executed about 3,000 people over a 300 year span and its jurisdiction never included people who were openly Jewish or Muslim.
The left has to focus on “right wing violence” because it cannot afford to have the rest of society notice its extreme penchant for violence and the way that even now, so many young leftists harbor jack-booted tendencies.
#10,
No, it’s simple bias. As I have said about the hypocrisy on abortion-related violence, the irony is that one would EXPECT violence from the pro-life side because the pro-life side believes that abortion is pre-meditated murder. Therefore, for one of them to murder an abortionist would logically be a “dog bites man story” since it’s something that shouldn’t **surprise** you. When a pro-choicer murders a peaceful abortion protester on the street, that’s your “man bites dog story.”
Or at least it would be if the media weren’t so biased.
***It’s really a testament to how principled most pro-lifers are, especially the activists, that they hold to their beliefs on the nature of abortion and DO NOT resort to violence except in isolated cases.
@ 10
Not sure that is the case. Weather Underground even planted a bomb in the pentagon. But Nixon was the anti-christ and Abby Hoffman was dreamy so they get a pass.
@Mike T: Yeah, we should all praise them constantly for not going nuts and murdering law abiding citizens.
So let me see if I understand the point of the OP: When right wing groups murder people, it’s all the government’s fault. That’s got to be the biggest non sequitor I’ve seen in quite some time.
Strange how all these centrists seem to spend 95% of their time complaining about liberals and maybe 5% complaining about conservatives. Then they claim to be centrists.
It’s even weirder when you consider the posts on police abuses. You know all those people that say anyone that a cop beats down deserve it? Yeah. Those probably aren’t liberals.
That was quite the read.
***It’s really a testament to how principled most pro-lifers are, especially the activists, that they hold to their beliefs on the nature of abortion and DO NOT resort to violence except in isolated cases.
Murders US:
Dr. David Gunn
Dr. John Britton
James Barrett
Shannon Lowney
Lee Ann Nichols
Robert Sanderson
Dr. Barnett Slepian
Dr. George Tiller
I’m not noting the murder attempts, bombings, arsons, bomb threats, anthrax threats (Jesus, man, one guy sent 554 letters with powder), vandalism, etc.
Is something like “I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus — living fossils — so we will never forget what these people stood for.” eliminationist? If so, then there is an eliminationist currently at the center of the right wing.
Or is joking about killing all all but two of the liberals on every campus just good clean fun?
“So the Klan is the American center…or was then? Bullshit.”
Let’s see, an openly racist president, a membership of 4 million out of a population of 100 millions, and segregation as the law of the land across much of the country. Sounds pretty centerist and mainstream to me.
“We are eight years, three days into the government policies pursued by the right that were in part a reaction to an exceptional event.”
Yet you probably screamed bloody murder back when Bush enacted them. Go choke on a dick you hypocritical fascist fuck.
Enyap,
It is safe to assume that I was not pleased at the prospect of wiretapping, evisceration of the 1st, 4th, 5th, & 8th ammendments, color-coded security theater, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
I think you’ll find consensus from principled folks, be they liberals or libertarians, that the pursuit of these policies gave OBL an actual victory at our expense, in addition to the 3,000 souls destroyed that day. Also note that the preceding administration did not inflict the same perversions in similar (albeit smaller-scale) catastrophes. Why, it is almost as if one side of the political spectrum pays lip service to civil liberties, while another actively foments fear to undermine them.
Amirite?
Someone could also point out that militant religious movements are inherently conservative, right-wing authoritarian movements. But that might blow an even larger whole in our host’s premise.
Anyway, thanks for your kind words, Enyap. I won’t let the tone of them undercut the rest of your argument, which in its essence is: “the Klan is a centrist and reasonable organization if a large swath of citizens are bigots.”
This is the worst comment thread in a long time.
Hey, she took responsibility for what happened at Waco, what more can you expect of her?
Cackalacka where did I ever say the Klan was reasonable. I was supporting Radley’s arguement that being mainstream and in the center doesn’t always make you reasonable, were he used the Klan as an example of an unreasonable organization that once enjoyed mainstream popularity. Also if you don’t want me thinking you support these civil liberties violations, then don’t rationalize the left wings witchhunt as okay just because the right violated civil liberties too.
I can be worried about statist violence and that some Glenn Beck touting nut is going to kill the president or another abortion doctor, or a couple dozen more people in western PA. I can also worry about PETA attacking targeting scientists for harassment and violence.
Neither requires my exclusive attention. In fact, these are almost exclusively the kinds of people the state should be pursuing, that is, the people who commit socially destabilizing violent crime, rather than focusing on low-level drug criminals in an attempt to make rank. Not sure what your argument is here, Radley.
I would also say it’s rather dangerous knowing the violent power the center is capable of that the ‘center’ is in the process of redefinition that inches it ever closer toward Glenn Beck and his fellow paranoiacs.
Paranoia + State Power = Not Good.
Agreed with #24 and #27.
It’s been a while since Godwin’s Law was invoked, so:
Hitler.
Thanks, you may continue.
Go choke on a dick you hypocritical fascist fuck.
Now this is an enlightened comment.
The people with the guns and the monopoly on force will always be exponentially more dangerous than the fringe protesters, no matter what their aspirations.
The problem is fringe protestors sometimes end up with the guns and monopoly on force. I know Radley was writing about America, but the real violence around the world has occurred if the fringe finally attain real power. The Bolsheviks, the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge and even the Confederacy mostly started as a few whacky demonstrators out on the fringe who because of circumstances ended up in contol governments. These were not centrists by any definition.
What starts out as a loony fringe sometimes ends up in control of the state and then the real catastrophe begins because the loony fringe is usually pretty loony, not centrist.
Erg Pug, I have to wonder, under your scheme if the fringe can ever cease to be the fringe? The Nazi Party (to use one of your examples of the fringe, I could also use the Bolsheviks or the Confederacy and have to demur on Cambodia because it is hard to distinguish their support from general communist support) in the election before Hitler seized control was the second largest party in Germany and got over 6 Million votes which was over 1/6th of the total votes cast. If a party with 1/6th of the total in a country as fragmented as Weimar Germany is the fringe is there such a thing as mainstream? Are the Republicans in the US the fringe now because they are the 2nd largest party in the US ( and were the democrats 6 years ago the fringe)? I hesitate to consider the Green Party USA or the Libertarian party a fringe party and neither of them represents as much of the US population (by the most generous estimates, i.e. libertarians are about 15% of the population) as any of your 4 examples dis of their respective countries.
The Confederacy?
Man, read your history.
It is worth noting that if the government hadn’t sent armed troops and tanks to assault a church in Texas and burn the inhabitants alive we wouldn’t have ever heard the name Timothy McVeigh.
The Confederacy was run by established politicians. “Birth of a Nation” was boosted by an endorsement from President Wilson (a notorious racist who re-segregated D.C) and klan-robed promoters outside theaters, which is to be expected since its about how great the old Klan was and was based on a book called “The Clansman”. When LBJ was making his bones he endorsed lynching.
Jesse’s claim about urban vigilante police officers in the 60s doesn’t sound fantastical, but it doesn’t refer to any specific incidents and I hadn’t heard that era was any more prone to it than what preceded or succeeded it.
Spoken like a true troll. The fact that they’re law-abiding has no bearing on the argument. The pro-life movement, which is representative of around 50-60% of the population depending on the survey, believes that abortion is murder. So, logically, one should not be surprised when a more radical pro-lifer snaps and does something since in their view, abortionists are no less murdererous over their careers than the sort of men who ran concentration camps or carried out extrajudicial executions under totalitarian regimes.
As I said, the fact that they believe it is murder and do not use violence to stop it is the relevant fact.
#33,
Or tried to strong-arm Randy Weaver into making a sawed off shotgun when he was clearly not interested in making one, especially not for ATF agents.
The eradication of the Indians would have been impossible without the support of the federal government.
This isn’t even remotely true. Many of the genocidal incidents that occurred against native Americans were driven by the actions of state and local governments of the American interior, while Congress could never rally enough support to exert any power over them.
“What makes the opposition so violent? No one has been murdered by “right wing extremists” since November. ”
How very ignorant of you.
How many boxes would you like ticked just from one single incident in June when the head of a minuteman militia group murdered a latino man and his child for fundraising purposes.
I find it simply fascinating that everytime this topic comes up, someone will willingly state “there’s no problem because nothing has happened since the last time someone forced me to notice what’s happening”
And here it’s in response to an article which refers to none of these violent incidents involving the right-wing or militia groups, while simultaneously claiming such incidents are being overplayed in the media.
If I asked you to dishonestly illustrate the problem any better I doubt you could.