Rightwing Rage against the Machine

By: Jessica Hayes

Terrorism, Crime, and Public Policy

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

-President Barack Obama
Speech to the Muslim World
June 4, 2009

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Introduction

Controversies over economic and political issues, since the 2008 Presidential election, have served to fuel a resurgence of rightwing extremism.[1] Chip Berlet[2] recently noted, “We are in the midst of one of the most significant right-wing populist rebellions in history…We see around us a series of overlapping social and political movements populated by people who are angry, resentful, full of anxiety. They are raging against the machinery of the federal bureaucracy and liberal government programs and policies including health care, reform of immigration and labor laws, abortion and gay rights.”[3]

Analysts and political figures have begun to draw parallels between the rise of political rhetoric and rightwing radicalism today and the similarly shaky political and economic climate of the 1990s. President Clinton recently stated, “The use of violent and angry political rhetoric at that time may have been responsible for violence by antigovernment extremist, Timothy McVeigh, and other profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”[4] Responding to the dangers of demonizing an elected government by using incendiary language to rally crowds, President Clinton warned, “There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do.”[5] The murder of late-term abortion doctor and activist George Tiller[6] and the attack on an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) building in Austin, Texas by Andrew Joseph Stacks II are two such examples of consequences of ignoring such dangerous ideology and the resurgence of the rightwing “rage against the machine”.[7]

This research will explore the characteristics of the resurgence of rightwing[8] radicalization in the United States and the four distinct stages of radicalization in order to identify the best approach to affect interventions to reduce the acceleration of rightwing radicalization and propose interventions for policymakers and law enforcement, including: identifying the source of radicalization, diluting radical ideology by increasing the educational infrastructure, and supporting the use of healthy dialogue in the public forum.

The rightwing movement is radicalizing.

On April 15, 2010, before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Robert Mueller, stated that although much of the national attention has been focused on the domestic threat of international terrorists, homegrown violent extremism continues to pose a very serious threat to national security.[9] In 2009, DHS released a threat assessment from the Extremism and Radicalization Branch together with the FBI.[10] Their finding entitled, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” concluded that rightwing radicalization maybe fueled by many factors including, but not limited to economic recession, the 2008 election of the first African-American President Barack Obama, increased outsourcing of jobs[11], a perceived threat to U.S. military power, fear of the added restrictions to firearms, and returned disenfranchised veterans.[12]

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) there has been an explosion in every type of rightwing radical movement in the United States from anti-immigration, neo-Nazis, antigovernment, to militia movements.[13][14] FBI Director Mueller stated that, “Domestic terrorists, motivated by a number of political or social issues, continue to use violence and criminal activity to further their agendas.” [15] The Patriot Movement and the Tea Party are two examples of the difficulty assessing the diversity membership and level of radicalization relating to their rhetoric, ideology and actions within rightwing movements.

The Patriot movement is made up of different sorts of anti-government groups and militias who believe that the federal government is removing civil liberties through unconstitutional actions. The SPLC in 2010 found that the militia movement alone has had a 244% jump in its membership.[16] Militias are one of the oldest and most historically violent extremist movements in the United States and are generally known as, “armed paramilitary groups, both formal and informal, with an anti-government, conspiracy-oriented ideology.”[17] Two such Patriot groups- the Hutaree and the Three Percenters have recently made news for allegedly plotting acts of violence and vandalism.

Hutaree Militias. Members of the Hutaree Militia group, in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, were arrested in March 2010 as they plotted to use their guns to prepare an act of terrorism based on the notion that they were, “Preparing for the end battles to keep the testimony of Jesus Christ alive.”[18] The members of the Hutaree Militia allegedly planned to kill several law enforcement officers. After the killings, members hoped, in an intricate plan, to attack the funerals of the fallen officers with “trip wired and command-detonated bombs.” [19] Their members stated that Hutaree aimed to create fear and “levy war” on the United States.[20]

Three Percenters, On the morning of March 19, 2010, a brick was anonymously hurled through the glass door entrance of the Rochester, NY Democratic Committee Office with an attached note reading, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” [21] [22] Days before rightwing extremist, Mike Vanderboegh, a leader in the among Three Percenters, had challenged the followers of his readers to, saying,

So if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party (that they) cannot fail to hear, break their windows. Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats. But BREAK THEM.”[23]

On that same March day, there were at least five bricks thrown at Democratic offices and ten death threats to members of Congress. On April 19, 2010, Vanderboegh spoke at a rally in DC stating that the government has put themselves at a “state of war with the people.” When asked if he would go further than bricks he said they wanted to get people’s attention that, “this thing could easily go to guns.”[24]

The Tea Party. According to a new poll, 18% of Americans claim to be members of the tea party and this number could be rising.[25] As a result of its fast-developing popularity and lack of leadership, factions have developed within the Tea Party known as the Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express. There have been several high profile Tea Party events throughout the nation to protest the Obama’s Administrations big government controls, social policies, and tax policies. Rightwing media pundits and Republican politicians have been known to give rousing speeches at these events in order to rile the crowds.

During a recent rally for the rightwing Tea Party Movement, members held signs saying, “we don’t want socialism, you ignorant Kenyan,” and “rage against the regime.”[26] At the same rally Minnesota Republican House Representative Michelle Bachmann eschewed the recent reforms by the Obama administration calling them “thuggish” and stating, “You are not chumps. You are not going to be played as fools by this government…We're on to this gangster government, and we are not going to let them have their way. They don't get to take over any more of our economy. We're done with that game. We're done. And I say it's time for these little piggies to go home.”[27] President Clinton recently responded to Representative Bachman stating, ““They are not gangsters. They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”[28] While the Tea Party has not been linked to any specific acts of violence, the danger of the Tea Party may be in the divisive nature of the language used by its supporters. We must acknowledge that reflected at the base of this radicalization, there are legitimate political and economic issues rising in the United States.

Chip Berlet warns that we should take the Tea Party seriously. In order to reduce the long-term effects of radicalization within a movement, such as the tea parties growing signs of racism and xenophobia, it will be important to counter the extremist views being pandered by the most extreme members with alternatives to such a one-sided political education.[29] Toxic debate must cease. Berlet noted, “No matter how the electoral political battles turn out, the trivialization of rightwing populism must stop. It is toxic to democracy in a general sense. And it also results in an increasingly hostile environment for immigrants, people of color, Muslims, Arabs, reproductive rights activists, and lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered persons.”[30]

There are four stages to radicalization.

One of the highest threats to American security is from lone wolf and small cells, labeled by the NYPD as “unremarkable” people who “plan or implement acts of terrorism”.[31] The 2007 New York City Police Department (NYPD) report entitled, “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat”, was written to aid policymakers and law enforcement to better quantify the growing domestic threat of “autonomous” jihad.[32] According to the NYPD, such radical ideology can be identified within four stages of radicalization which include: pre-radicalization, self-identification, indoctrination, and jihadization.[33] [34]

Pre-Radicalization. The first stage, pre-radicalization, is the genesis of an “unremarkable” persons journey to extremism. In this stage a person with an ordinary daily life before an individual’s exposure to ideology.[35] Often, these “unremarkable” people see themselves as underdogs who must rally against the oppressor. The report states that, “Ideology is the bedrock and catalyst for radicalization. It defines the conflict, guides the movements, identifies the issues, drives recruitment and is the basis for action. In many cases, the ideology also determines target selection and informs what will be done and how it will be carried out.”[36]

Self-Identification. The second phase, self-identification, is usually triggered when an individual experiences an economic, social, political, or personal crisis, that initiates an individual to seek new ideology.[37] Crisis may include losing a job, the death of a loved one, or something that stimulates interest in a particular radical ideology. During self-identification the individual will seek out like-minded social groups. Scholar Akbar Ahmed speaks of natural social organization or “group think” as being “necessary to the human species” when he writes of Ibn Khaldun’s notion of asabiyah, “social bonds”.[38] These social groups provide mentors and sources of political knowledge that can lead to an individual’s eventual indoctrination.

Indoctrination. The third phase, indoctrination may include complete and total belief and intensification in an individual’s ideology.[39] The ideology has now evolved into fundamentalism perhaps related to the environmental triggers mentioned above. At the low end of indoctrination, an individual has adopted fundamentalism or a single belief in the midst of a plural world, whereas the higher end of indoctrination is extremism. Extremism is “taking an idea to its limits and sometimes beyond regardless of repercussions and impracticalities.” [40]

Jihadization. The last phase, jihadization, is signified by the evolution from radical fundamentalist to radical extremist. In order to reach this phase, the individual has justified the use of violence to further their ideology.[41] The acts of jihadization include planning, preparations and execution of a terrorist attack. The severity of indoctrination may develop over time any period of time, but the leap to jihadization may occur very rapidly. Often heightened emotions or the development of pathological emotions, i.e. fear, paranoia, anger- act to override the cognitive functions of the brain and thus rationalize violence towards their intended ideology.[42] Jihadists buy into these negative emotions and believe in the larger conspiracy against them.

Example of the stages of Radicalization. To the shock of many in the law enforcement community, Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) Andrew Bringuel invited known rightwing extremist, Mark Rudd, to speak at the FBI Training Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Mark Rudd had spent a little over 7 years of his life being hunted by the FBI for his involvement with the terrorist group, The Weather Underground. Through Rudd’s speech at the academy, we can identify the stages of radicalization he experienced, from “unremarkable” individual to violent jihadist.

1. He begins as an ordinary college student at Columbia University.

(pre-radicalization)

2. He began to study injustice in relation to the Vietnam War and began to identify social injustices of the time against women, immigrants, blacks, and gays. (self-identification)

3. As the War in Vietnam escalated, he co-founded the Weatherman Underground, a anti-establishment movement. (indoctrination)

4. Influenced by violent police actions at riots in the 1960, he determined to pursue “clandestine armed revolution”. (jihadization)[1]

FBI Director Mueller acknowledges the dangerous unsystematic nature of domestic terrorism stating, it is not, “clustered in one geographic area, nor are they confined to any one type of setting---they can appear in cities, smaller towns, and rural parts of the country and can take the form of a lone actor.”[43] By inviting a former extremist to the Academy, SSA Bringuel took a small step to improve the dialogue between the government and extremists.

It is important to note, that although we can monitor trends and radical movements, we cannot afford to make generalizations about these groups, because each individual within the group may exhibit a unique set of behaviors identifying their personal progress through the stages of radicalization. For example, a large movement like the Tea Party may have members throughout these stages. It is important to identify these stages in order to determine whether an individual is likely to be planning an act of violence and whether they are issuing a “true threat” to violence[44] According to the law, advocating violence that a reasonable person would fear is imminent or likely to occur, whether or not an individual intends to or is capable of such violence, is considered a “true threat”. [45]

Early intervention is necessary to prevent jihadization.

We can identify the stages of radicalization within the rightwing radical movement and the stages found in nearly every example of threatened, potential, or successful terrorist attack. The first three stages of radicalization may occur over a long period of time, but the fuse from indoctrination to jihadization may burn quickly once it has been ignited. By the time rightwing extremists have reached the indoctrination stage, it is difficult for them to be swayed by outside ideas contrary to their singular views. Certainly, it will be more difficult and dangerous to debate with an individual within the jihadization stage as they have already committed to acts of violence and are willing, for example, to fly a plane into an IRS building, bomb innocent people, or shoot officers at the Pentagon. Thus, early intervention in the pre-radicalization and self-identification stage is key to combating severe indoctrination and rationalization of violence. Policymakers must thus, identify the source of the radical ideology, dilute radical ideology by increasing educational infrastructure and support healthy dialogue in the public forum, in order to reduce the resurgence of rightwing radicalization

1. Identify the source of the radical ideology.

There are many sources by which an individual progressing through the phases of radicalization can gain the opportunity and motivation necessary to commit a violent act of terrorism. Not every rightwing extremist will reach the jihadization stage, each individual, especially those with the indoctrination stage, continue to serve the resurgence of anger and hate in rightwing ideology by serving as mentors possibly encouraging future acts violence. Mark Sageman recognizes the twenty-first century’s technological connectiveness and the growing ability of radical extremists to create “networks of terror”. Sagemen’s “bunches of guys” theory posits that radicalization occurs in collective groups that are “leaderless” but able to loosely associate through the communication tools such as phones, televisions, and the radio.[46]

Internet. The internet is one such medium for individuals to use as a source to collect information to stimulate their radicalization. Chat rooms, websites, and blogs pages serve to connect like-minded individuals from across the globe of diverse expertise and yet unifying ideology. The internet serves to share strategies such as blueprints to build a weapon; detailed target attack plans, or simply to encourage violent rhetoric and group cohesion.[47] There are infinite examples of the indoctrination occurring on the internet from inside and outside the United States. President Clinton noted that while the 1990s saw the rise of extremist voices in the media, today the largest threat is the growing by way of internet sites where a minority of radicals, “can communicate with each other much faster and much better than they did before.”[48]

Media Biases. The technological sources used by the rightwing mentioned above have given rightwing pundits, political leaders, and religious leaders a platform to voice their growing opposition of current political and economic policy. The rightwing media has been unrestrained in it support of its fundamentalist ideologies sometimes relying on violent rhetoric which can serve to fuel the violent action of rightwing extremists. Media biases serve to support indoctrination. Such colorful and extreme uses of rhetoric may assist to stimulate jihadization, even within a small percentage of the movement’s lone wolves or extremist groups. For example, on August 6^th rightwing media analyst Glen Beck mockingly pretended to poison the wine of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on his Fox News broadcast. [49] Whether or not influenced by Beck’s on-air stunt, soon after on August 9^th, a man was arrested by the FBI death threats directly aimed at Speaker Nancy Pelosi.[50] The man’s mother openly told the press that Fox News was to blame for her son’s actions. [51]

Additionally, the FBI and other local domestic law enforcement as well as the SPLC should continue to monitor any “true threat” to our national security and continue to arrest and silence those that instigate, plan, or carry out acts of terrorism. Information sharing law enforcement and the community must work together to monitor threats and law enforcement community must share information with each other. When extremists violate the law, courts must have the discretion and policy to respond with measured action. The seriousness of the act of extremism should be reflected in the courts approach to sentencing. Harsh punishments should be reserved for extreme acts of violence.[52] According to the NYPD, prisons may serve as another source of radicalization, a cauldron boiling over with a large population of angry and frustrated men.[53] The radicalization of prisoners is amplified by time and the availability of disenfranchised mentors.[54]

2. Dilute radical ideology by increasing educational infrastructure.

In a country so blessed with diverse ranks of citizens, it is the duty of the government to ensure that healthy debate and dissent is supported in the public forum. By advocating to attempt to reduce the reach of radical ideology, I am not advocating censorship of the media, internet, or public meetings. According to the first amendment of the United States Constitution,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”[55]

This freedom of speech should not be denied. Extremism and public debate may be a necessary evil of a free democratic society. Political Scientist Laid Wilcox said it best, extremism, “gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy to discuss and debate all aspects of an issues and to deal with problems that otherwise have been ignored,” and yet it, “muddies the waters of discourse with invective defamation, self-righteousness, fanaticism, and hatred, and impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choice.”[56]

In order to dilute the effects of the radical ideology, policymakers should develop means to increase the educational infrastructure in America in order to generate other sources of political knowledge. Criminologist/Professor Brian Forst states, “Education is key; educated people are less susceptible to conspiracy.“[57] Educating citizens regarding peaceful civil disobedience is essential to controlling the resurgence of rightwing radicalization

Policymakers should create curricula within the public education system and communities to arm citizens with a neutral fact source so that they may make more informed decisions. Perhaps similar to “winning hearts and minds campaign” geared towards Muslim communities, the federal government can target communities that are at-risk for such radical ideologies and increase their funding for infrastructure, education, jobs, and community resources in order to avoid such extremist ideology as becoming the sole source of political education and unity with a community. Although the internet is a main medium for radicalization, it can also become part of the educational infrastructure to combat radical ideology. Policymakers should support individual and group websites with the purpose of creating healthy dialogue and conflict-resolution with tailored and respectful debate.

3. Support healthy dialogue in the public forum.

Admittedly, reading statements from the Tea Party movements signs painting President Obama as a “joker-faced racist-in-chief Hilter Muslim set out to send us all to death panels”, may tempt many to discount the movement as uninformed and ridiculous, but we cannot allow our public response to generalize these rightwing movements or for this debate to further mock and ostracize the rightwing. We must acknowledge the role that such ridicule, name-calling, generalizing and other harmful dialogue, by both sides, may play in instigating jihadization. We should not provoke terrorism by overreactions or wrong reactions nor should we ignore extremism.[58]

Radical Mike Vanderboeg, the Three Percenter who encouraged brick throwing, has denied that he condones physical violence and death threats towards politicians. Vanderboeg, quoted Mohanda Ghandhi on his website, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” [59] Name-calling and ridicule can, perhaps, push indoctrinated radicals to acts of violence as illustrated when Vanderboeg wrote, “as a political idea we are moving from the ridicule stage to the engagement stage.” [60] We can end this path of ignore, ridicule, fight, win, and instead create new paths toward recognition, respect, and understanding. Conservatives and liberals should aim to become more responsible in their rhetoric while working together to create safe places for dialogue and mediation of conflict as well as promote cross-cultural and ideological awareness.

Conclusion

Whether or not we agree with the goals of the rightwing extremist groups that are springing up across the country, as a country we cannot afford to further isolate and further radicalize these groups by generalizing and ridiculing them. President John F. Kennedy, himself an eventual victim of violent extremism, once said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." There is no time to waste if we are to avoid violence--policymakers and law enforcement must begin the work of indentifying the sources of rightwing radicalization. As a nation, we must invest in our educational infrastructure in order to confront aspects of radical ideologies that are rooted in ignorance. It is equally important however for policymakers to recognize that dialogue is essential to diffusing radicalization--extremist groups are possible only where people feel they do not have a voice in public discourse.

[1][1] The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) define rightwing extremism in the United States as, “ groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those who are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor or state or local authority, or rejecting authority all together. It may also include groups that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” Right Wing Extremism, 2.

[2] Chip Berlet is senior political analyst at Political Research Associates specializing in radicalization.

[3] Potok, 1.

[4] Recalling the 95’ Bombing, Clinton sees Parallels.

[5] It is important to note, however, that President Clinton did not support suppression of freedom of speech in political debate as most of the Tea Party Movement is well within the boundaries of healthy debate. Clinton said they are not all, “advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it.” Then referring to the rising radicalization he stated, “I just think we ought to be careful, we’ve been down this road on more that on occasion before. We don’t want to go down it again.

[6] George Tiller.

[7] Remains of Two Found after Austin Crash.

[8] I am solely researching radicalization associated with the conservative rightwing movement due to recognized trends that show it may be on the rise, I realize that a extremists exists on both sides of the political spectrum in the United States.

[9]Hearing on the FY2011 budget.

[10] Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

[11] A Department of Homeland Security report, found that the relationship between poverty and radicalization is largely unknown, although in one study, high unemployment was found to correlate with alienation and susceptibility to indoctrination, while another study appeared to show that children are more nationalistic and anti-democratic if their parents are unemployed.[11]

[12] Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment ., 2.

[13] Rage on the Right. 1.

[14] While some rightwing extremists identify with a particular group, many of these movements are interrelated. (I.e.- a militia member may also identify as anti-government)

[15]Ibid.

[16] Rage on the Right. 2.

[17] The Militia Movement Today.

[18] Hutaree.

[19] Militia charged with plot to murder officers.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Vandals attack Dem office Nationwide

[22] This quote was originally made by Republican Barry Goldwater during his 1964 Presidential campaign.

[23] Former militiaman unapologetic for calls to vandalize offices over health care

[24] Gun Rally: Second Amendment.

[25] Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and more Educated.

[26] St. Paul Tax Day Tea Party features Bachmann, Smaller Crowd

[27] Transcripts, The Situation Room.

[28] Recalling the 95’ Bombing, Clinton sees Parallels.

[29] Berlet, Chip. Taking the Tea Party Seriously.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid., 2.

[32] NYPD. Bhatt, Arvin, and Silber, Mitchell. “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat.”

[33] Ibid.., 6.

[34] Although the NYPD’s stages of radicalization were meant to refer to stages of Islamic radicalization, I posit that these stages of radicalization may generally relate to all forms of radicalization including rightwing extremism.

[35] Ibid., 6.

[36] Ibid., 16.

[37] Ibid., 7.

[38] Ahmed, Akbar. Ibn Khaldun’s Understanding of Civilization and the Dilemmas of Islam and the West Today. The Middle East Journal: Winter 2002; page 25.

[39] NYPD., 7.

[40] Forst

[41] NYPD., 7.

[42]Taken from email with FBI Supervisory Special Agent- Andrew Bringuel

[43] Hearing on the FY2011 budget.

[44] E.D. Mo. N. Div., 2010.

[45] E.D. Mo. N. Div., 2010.

[46] Boucek.

[47] NYPD., 37.

[48] Transcripts

[49] Beck jokes about putting poison in Nancy Pelosi’s wine.

[50] Man arrested in Threat against Pelosi. New York Times .

[51] Ibid.

[52] Forst., 164.

[53] NYPD., 39.

[54] Ibid., 39

[55] USC Amendment I. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights. Accessed April 10, 2010.

[56] Forst., 141.

[57] Forst., 140.

[58] Forst, 163.

[59] Sipsey Street Irregulars.

[60] Ibid.

Justice in the Face of Terror in Africa

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Ghailani, a Tanzanian and the first Guantanamo detainee to be prosecuted in a U.S. civilian court

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Rightwing Rage Against the Machine

[23] Former militiaman unapologetic for calls to vandalize offices over health care