Believe it or not, I don’t have anything personally against Ed Brayton, and I wasn’t even a regular follower of his blog until really… just the other day.
I guess it’s one of those blogs that I follow because I mostly don’t like what I see. I recently authored a post claiming that Brayton’s post OMG! Gays go to the Prom was intellectually dishonest for a variety of reasons. I haven’t read through all of his blog posts, frankly, I’m not overly interested in many of his topics. I’m sure all bloggers suffer this. It’s not likely that many of you into thinking about healthcare policy are interested in origins of life research.
In any case, I came across this post entitled Revisiting that DHS report on Right Wing Extremism, and – unfortunately – felt it similarly was intellctually dishonest on a number of levels. From Brayton’s post:
The last couple months have offered one of the most absurd displays of hysterical overreaction I’ve seen since Jerry Falwell declared Tinky Winky to be gay. I am speaking, of course, of the reaction of mainstream Republicans and the conservative media to a report on the growing dangers of right wing extremism by the Department of Homeland Security.
Did anyone react this way a mere ten weeks earlier when the DHS put out a virtually identical report on left wing extremism? We didn’t hear liberals throwing a fit about that report and claiming that the government was out to destroy its political enemies or deliberately conflating mainstream liberals with violent radicals.
You can view this report on left wing extremism here. In any case, the reports are hardly identical. I encourage you to review the above report on left wing extremism, and then contrast it to the “virtually identical report” on right wing extremism. I’ve done that here for you, but encourage you to do this yourself.
In any case, the fun starts in the very next paragraph:
There was so much missing from all that faux-outrage. Like the fact that the bulk of the report on right wing extremism was completed during the Bush administration, not the Obama administration (such reports are done by careerists, not political appointees) and that it was based on all kinds of other government reports put out under Bush.
Whether or not the government reports were completed under Bush is quite irrelevant. The data contained in the reports was reviewed, selected, and inserted into this particular report by the Obama adminstration. I’m sure many many reports were completed under the Bush administration, that were not similarly included in this report. They were not selected as they don’t support the conclusions, hypotheses, and/or theses of the Obama administration regarding terrorist threats.
This is supported by the many references to racist motivations of these right wing extremist groups, especially with respect to the fact that we have an “African-American” president.
Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning….
Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues…
From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential
sympathizers….Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president….
In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.
These statements were clearly not authored during the Bush administration.
Additionally, there is plenty contained within this brief 10 page summary to suggest that this report is concerned with current circumstances, not past circumstances, and again, this is report detals the concerns of the Obama administration with respect to terrorism, and the when the studies were completed or were authored isn’t relevant.
It’s vaguely analogous to liberals refusing to admit there is a liberal bias in the press because Rupert Murcdoch owns most of the major media outlets. I’ve never quite understood that argument. Is the CEO of McDonalds corp. in the same shape as Morgan Spurlock following his 30 day all-McDonald’s diet?
There is much written in this report to suggest that it’s addressing future concerns, or concerns specific to the Obama, not the Bush adminstration:
The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers….
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement….
Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members.
Brayton’s causal dismissal that conservative’s have any reason to be outraged, is highlighted quite nicely when one reviews both documents. The difference between the two documents is obvious to anyone with a scintilla of common sense. To answer Brayton’s question: “Did anyone react this way a mere ten weeks earlier when the DHS put out a virtually identical report on left wing extremism?”
No, Ed, no reacted in any way to the DHS report on left wing extremism because there were no foolish assertions, no unsupported speculation about phantom conspiracies. The report on left wing extemism is filled with concrete information about legitimate active domestic terrorist groups. Moreover, the report is concerned with an increase in a particluar variety of terrorism – cyberterrorism – which evidence, not speculation, suggests is a growing threat. This is clear from the very beginning of the left wing extremist report (special emphasis by TRR):
This assessment examines the potential threat to homeland security from cyber attacks conducted by leftwing extremists, a threat that DHS/I&A believes likely will grow over the next decade. It focuses on the more prominent leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities (see Appendix).
Contrast this with the language regarding right wing extremist groups:
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence…
Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts….
Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action…
So, there is actually no iminent threat, no verbalized or acknowledged planning of ‘terrorist’ activities. However, there are plenty of recent examples of cyberterrorism occurring within and originating from left wing extremist groups:
The most common leftwing extremist cyber attacks (particularly within the animal rights movement) in the past several years have included deletion of user accounts, flooding a company’s server with e-mails, and other types of e-mail assaults intended to force businesses to exhaust resources…
On 13 July 2007, an animal rights extremist hacked into a U.S. company’s computer system and deleted more than 300 associates’ user accounts. To restore the accounts, the perpetrator demanded that the company sell its shares in a corporation that conducts tests using animal subjects…
In October 2005, animal rights extremists launched an e-mail attack against a Milwaukee, Wisconsin firm that held stock in an animal testing laboratory. The firm subsequently sold its shares in the laboratory, with losses it estimated at approximately $1.4 million…
In late April 2005, animal rights extremists overwhelmed a U.S. company’s computer server with e-mail, which the company claims resulted in a loss of approximately $1.25 million.
So… one major difference, Ed, is that the report on left wing extremism details the activities of actual, legitimate domestic terrorist organizations, follows their actual trends, and speculates about what these activities likely mean for the future. On the other hand, the report on right wing extremism acknowledges that there is no legitimate threat from right extremist groups, it is simply an acknowledgment that the current “climate” is conducive to “right wing extremist groups” increasing their enrollment.
What is actually troubling to conservatives is not that the government is concerned about right wing extremists per se, rather conservatives are concerned about who is being defined as a right wing extremist:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
There’s so much to talk about here, I almost don’t know where to start. I suppose I’ll start with what I don’t understand. Why are racists and hate groups generally considered right wing?
Seriously.
The Republicans more universally supported Civil rights measures than did Democrats. The Conservatives don’t belittle minorities by burdening their acheivements with racist affirmative action programs. The Nazis – that is the Nationalist Socialists were certainly not right wingers. Though they certainly adopted some right wing ideals, the Nazis were very obviously politically and economically liberal, and more importantly didn’t support anything resembling the free society that conservatives idealize.
So… if someone on the left – or right for that matter – can answer that question for me, I’d be much obliged.
This is what makes conservatives cringe:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups… that are primarily hate-oriented… those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or… may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Conservative principles, ideas, and thought, thoughts on liberty, personal responsiblity, morality, and God are equivocated to racist hate speech. Note the final sentence, being opposed to a single issue, abortion or ‘immigration’ may be enough to invite suspicion, and place one on the DHS’s watchlist. The truly disturbing thing about this sentence is the word “immigration.” Which conservatives – aka right wing extremists – are opposed to immigration?
I know plenty of conservatives opposed to illegal immigration… so I guess now expecting immigrants to follow the laws of this country makes one an ‘extremist.’ There is in fact an entire section discussing the effect that illegal immigration has had on right wing extremist groups.
This is just a thought, but I wonder if the government, rather than targeting individuals and organizations that expect people – citizens or not – to obey the laws of this country, rather than targeting individuals and organizations who are tired of the burden that illegal immigration weighs on our healthcare and welfare programs, rather than target individuals and organizations who simply want immigrant to utilize proper legal channels for legitimate immigration to this country, the government could make steps in the direction of curtailing illegal immigration.
Perhaps putting Janet Napolitano in charge of the DHS is the first step in that direction… she did a bang-up job securing our border in AZ while she was governor.
Another point that right wing extremists use to recruit, and is a concern to them is the “percieved” threat from other countries:
Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.
This is a classic example of left wing strawman tactics… constructing a fantasy, or argument that has some peripheral relationship to reality and refuting it. For example, he dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s did pose some serious and legitimate concerns. Such concerns included things like the massive stockpiles of nuclear and biological weapons that the Soviet Union had accumulated during the Cold war, and how they could be secured. This could certainly translate into a concern for the sovreignty of the US, but that it “led some rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world government” attributes a fringe belief to a substantial segmeng of the population.
I’m not sure what world the left lives in, but China, Russia, and “some oil producing countries” present legitimate concerns to the safety of the US. Perhaps they’ll recall the 19 men from “some oil producing” country and what they perpetrated – in reality – on the US on 9/11/2001.
I would additionally like to comment on what I would consider to be a cheap shot that Brayton took at the end of his blogpost:
Just days before the report was released to the public, a right wing nut named Richard Poplawski killed three police officers in a fit of rage over Obama allegedly plotting to take his guns away. Then we had the murder of Dr. George Tiller and a white supremacist killing a guard at the National Holocaust Museum.
Richard Poplawski, registered Republican and certified looney, did not kill “three police officers in a fit of rage over Obama allegedly plotting to take his guns away.” Poplawski, incensed over an argument with his mother concerning a dog urinating in the house, simply didn’t want to leave the house; His mother allegedly asked him to leave. Poplawski opened fire on two Pittsburgh Police officers responding to a call from Poplawski’s mother, who wanted the police officers to remove her son from the home.
Nice spin, Ed.
Again, I’ll need to have it explained to me why white supremacists are automatically considered “right wing.” The holocaust museum shooter, von Brunn, was a holocaust denier and a neo-Nazi, again, I’m not sure why that makes him ‘right wing’
Finally, the case of late term abortionist Dr. George Tiller is a perfect example with which I might close this blog post. Dr. Tiller’s murder – despite what the anti-abortion movement feels about him – was universally denounced by anti-abortion groups and most ‘right wing’ and conservative groups. That is those groups that disagree 100% with Dr. Tiller morally and with respect to his values don’t advocate his murder; they denounced his murder. The vast majority of anti-abortion groups denounce any such violence.
Additionally, information contained within this report actually undermines the premise of the report with respect to right wing violence:
Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received after the bombing.
Following violent acts perpetrated by right wingers, membership in right wing extremist groups observed a net decline in membership, whether or not it occurred for the stated reasons appears to be speculation, but the data say as violence comes from the right, people on the right are less inclined to activism. This would seem to undermine the basis of this report.
This is in stark contrast to left wing extremist groups; many left wing extremist groups, including the groups mentioned in the DHS report, actually condone violence. Indeed, many such acts of violence are detailed and glorified on sites like this one; other examples can be viewed here, here, and here.
Indeed what is additionally very disturbing is that the DHS left wing extremism report denies this connection between left wing extremism and violence:
DHS/I&A assesses that cyber attacks are attractive options to leftwing extremists who view attacks on economic targets as aligning with their nonviolent, “no-harm” doctrine and tactic of “direct action.”
Their no-harm doctrine includes claiming to ensure the safety of humans, animals, and the environment even as they attack businesses and associated operations.
Perhaps their should have been some outrage when this report was released… specifically regarding the notion that left wing terrorists, perpetrators of fire bombings, arsons, and attempted murders, are largely non-violent.
So, Ed, quite simply there was no outrage about the left wing report because there was simply nothing to be outraged about. And to equivocate these two documents as largely identical is just another example of liberal intellectual dishonesty.
The Reactionary Researcher Blog 