Before I get into this, I’ll put out an open invitation to remind me about left wing acts of violence in the U.S. during the Bush II years. I was trying to remember and honestly could not. I remember lots and lots of puppets, but no real violence. I could be forgetting something.
In the last few days, we have seen two horrible acts of violence from the right extreme of the spectrum: the assassination of Dr. Tiller and now the assault on the Holocaust museum. The former was committed by a pro-life zealot and the latter was committed by a white supremacist. Neither of these guys represent the mainstream of anything. But they do reflect the consequences of dehumanizing those with whom we disagree.
A number of commentators in the blogosphere and in political life got their hackles up when, as Lalita Amos over at the American Values Alliance notes, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo entitled: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” (The report is available at the linked site.) The report found that “the economic downturn and election of the first African American President present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”
The report noted two distinct types of right wing extremist groups: those motivated primarily by hatred of religious, racial, or ethnic groups and those motivated primarily by anti-government zealotry. The report also noted the guy in Pittsburgh who had been stockpiling firearms because of the “Obama is going to take our guns” fearmongering and a healthy dose of paranoia about Jewish one-world government and ended up shooting three Pittsburgh cops. And there’s the “let’s blame the Jews” angle to the bailouts and decline of manufacturing.
The report foresaw a potential return to the 90s when the militia movement gained followers by stoking fears about gun control, free trade, declaration of martial law (remember the black helicopters?), and social issues like abortion, race, and gays. End-times prophecies will return to prominence. (Though on the latter, it seems like the end-times nutjobs have been chattering throughout the 90s and the 00s.)
Finally, the report notes some of what was effective in the 90s: after Timothy McVeigh bombed the court house in Oklahoma City, there was simply a lot of scrutiny of the militia movement and people distanced themselves. In addition, law enforcement efforts and an improvement of the economy tamped down the crazies a bit as well.
The reaction to this report? On the right, a number of politicians and commentators chose to feign outrage and take it as an assault on gun ownership and veterans generally instead of as a warning against those who feed on hate and paranoia. Why these folks would choose to blur the line in that fashion is left as an exercise for the reader.
See, e.g., the ACLJ’s demand that DHS retract its warning about pro-life extremists. Or Representative Lamar Smith’s apparent inability to discern a difference between extremists exploiting fears about gun control and non-extremist supporters of the right to bear arms. And, of course, there was the Savage Weiner’s frivolous lawsuit claiming the memo “violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights by ‘attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights.'”
Instead of reading the report for what it was, these people and organizations refused the distinction between extremism and hate groups on the one side and people with legitimate policy differences on the other side. And that’s the problem. People of good will need to reject the intemperate shitheads and kick them out of the club. Violence should not be a political tool, and a corollary should probably be that rhetorically talking about violence should not be a political tool.
So, when pro-lifers hear a guy like Randall Terry saying stuff like this:
When I, or people like me, are running the country, you’d better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed… If we’re going to have true reformation in America, it is because men once again, if I may use a worn out expression, have righteous testoserone flowing through their veins. They are not afraid of contempt for their contemporaries. They are not even here to get along. They are here to take over.
If you hear a guy saying something like that, you run him straight out of the village. And, the next time a report like this comes out, perhaps the correct reaction isn’t to suggest it’s a conspiracy between Obama, the Jew-bankers, and the reverse vampires to enslave America under the communist thumb of the country with Obama’s *real* birth certificate.
Update Craig over at Reverent & Free points out that Indiana’s own Mark Souder (IN-03) was part of the baying pack of hyenas refusing to acknowledge the report’s distinction between extremists and others. Dan Burton (IN-05), and Steve Buyer were with the pack. Mike Pence (IN-06) demanded a probe of the report.
ELF (Earth Liberation Front) seems to specialize in arson, specifically destruction of new housing developments and were active during the Bush II years, as you asked. I haven’t heard much out of them lately, but they don’t seem like the type of group you count out. I consider arson an act of violence.
The anarchists who terrorize the WTO conferences can probably be lumped in with leftist extremists. Peace protests tend to be pretty (pardon the term) peaceful these days as opposed to what happened in the 60s with the Weathermen and other radical groups of the era. I attest this to the absence of the draft.
Many Americans(imo) tend to overlook rw homegrown terrorism as just an overzealous response ,or acts of a couple of whackos, otherwise law-abiding moral citizens…
Rachel Maddow,MSNBC, has been examining the radical anti-abortion movement over several programs, and now including the attack on the Jewish heritage center in Washington DC,brings the two together in a general rw homegrown terrorism movement.
The election of President Obama is given as the reason more harassment and violence are coming from extreme conservative orientations.
The fear is that violence from the right will be increasing.
I do a couple doubletakes just listening to my very sedate, conservative family in IL when they start talking about what ‘a threat’ Obama is.This is very grassroots feelings.
The few that will go to “extreme things” such as destorying property or even to bringing harm or death to others—are a reality in every belief group. No religion, no philosophy area, etc. can escape the fringe element. The reality point is it only takes a singe individual to be motivated to the extreme to cause concerns for many and cast a shadow over otherwise law abiding groups. It is not a left or right thing when veiwed over time and events. Prevention–impossible.
Doug,
Open mouth, insert foot.
The entire premise of your article is invalid.
Try writing it this way, instead.
Von Brunn is a left-wing wacko, not a right-wing one.
He’s a 9/11 “truther”. His views on Jews are eerily similar to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He hates “neocons” and Bush.
Now, does that sound like someone on the far right to you, or the far left?
But, here’s a short list of possible answers to your initial question.
Three of the worst are the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.
Some noteworthy acts:
ELF set several homes on fire in ’08 in WA.
ALF firebombed the home of a UCLA professor in ’08.
ELF set several SUVs on fire in Denver, CO in ’07.
More arson from ELF in WA and ME in late ’05/early ’06.
ELF firebombed a housing construction site in WA in ’05.
actually the number of known an suspected arsons and firebombs from ELF is too numerous to list, but you get the idea.
ALF sent several mail bombs and poisoned razor blade packs in the mid 90’s.
Dr. Jerry Vlasak, who appears to be something akin to the press secretary for ALF had this to say in 2003:
That should give you a good start on your research into left-wing extremism and violence. There are articles on ELF and ALF in Wikipedia…just start following the links from there.
Good luck trying to paint the neo-Nazi as “left wing.” But thanks for the tips on the ELF and ALF movements.
I don’t see even fringe leftwing groups espousing views that advocate killing people and death in general, while this seems to be a common feature on the right. Even so-called Christian pro-life groups, when they’re not posting photos and personal information about abortion doctors to bait a nutcase into a killing spree, they’re praying for their deaths. As David Neiwert says, the eliminationist rhetoric seems to happen mostly on the right, not the left.
Yup, that’s the right-wing meme of the day- Nazis are actually leftists. Sort of screams of “cover yer butt” if you ask me.
Von Brunn is a left-wing wacko, not a right-wing one.
you have got to be kidding me. the dude was a birther and a a neo-nazi (not to mention a hero to other neo-nazis). to compare von brunn to rev wright is not only an insult to rev wright, but it would probably offend von brunn too, since von brunn has no love for “negroes”.
I’m not sure, as is typical, that left-wing v. right-wing takes one very far. Why do people use such simplistic labels?
To note, I’m not sure how to compare the religious and political views of the killers of Tiller vs. the Holocaust museum, but they would seem too different to be part of a single wing.
As for other “left-wing” violence examples, you have ACT UP (from awhile back) and an assortment of union activities.
I agree, in principle, that people should moderate those on the fringe of their efforts. But it’s difficult in practice and I’m not sure “the left” is any better at it. One of the practical difficulties: it “sells papers” and helps people make cheap rhetorical points. And so it goes…
Left and right are loaded, worthless terms these days.
National Socialism is left-wing if you are measuring government control from left to right (with totalitarianism on the left and anarchism on the right).
They are right-wing only if ‘right’ for you connotes the absence of personal freedom, which is wrong to libertarians, who see fascistic measures as more control and thus, more ‘left’.
The complaints were that the report painted with too broad of a brush. There is no doubt there are some crazies out there, but you can’t throw out a bunch of disparate groups, some legitimately dangerous and some not, and claim “this is what a terrorist looks like”. Every idiot knows that libertarians and neo-Nazis (both generally, and mistakenly, called right-wing) are polar opposites, and yet that report put them side by side. Surely it is understandable that some of us got upset about this.
I didn’t read that report to implicate libertarians — more the black helicopter, New World Order, anti-government paranoia crowd.
And, you’re right, “left” and “right” is an inadequate political spectrum. Because I put totalitarianism (do as you’re told) on the right and anarchy (if it feels good, do it) on the left.
My practice partner is trying the same bullshit of counting Muslim extremists as “leftwing”. I’m guessing it’s just because both opposed the Iraq War? Never mind that whole strong influence of religion, persecution of women and gays, and whatnot.
Oh, Neo-Nazis aren’t rightwing either? Next we’ll be hearing that water’s not wet.
Im glad I went to HS in the 50s and university in the 60s.
Now historically, Hitler and Stalin were both fascists and fascism is leftwing..And so is socialism and communism.Ask any conservative.You can’t even discuss political science without having an argument of what are facts…
At least people won’t notice if I get senile..
National Socialism is left-wing if you are measuring government control from left to right (with totalitarianism on the left and anarchism on the right).
well, sure, anything can be left-wing if you make up a standard that bears no resemblance to reality! i suppose that makes george w bush a left-winger, too… which i’m sure is a feature, not a bug.
(also, i suspect you need to do some reading on anarchism.)
I don’t have to paint him as anything. His opinions and views stand on their own merits, and have far more in common with the left than the right. To deny that is to live in Fantasyland.
As for Craig’s comment, the greatest myth of the 20th century was that the Nazis were right wing. This is not what people are claiming “today” in light of the shooting, but what people who actually look at history have known for some time. The Nazis origins were to the left. They moved to the right after achieving power to consolidate their power base.
Lets not forget that they were the “National Socialist Party”. They believed in welfare programs, and were the party of the industrial workers, students, teachers, and lower middle class. It was the Nazi party that began the true nationalism of industry in the waning days of the Weimar Republic and the beginnings of the Third Reich. And they were totally opposed to “laissez-faire” capitalism.
Anyway, my original point is undeniable. Von Brunn belongs to the left. You’re stuck with him.
Then you’re in Fantasyland again. Because in reality, it’s just the opposite. What 20th century powers were totalitarian? Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Red China, the Empire of Japan, and the USSR.
Hmmm…every single one believed in nationalism, and were anti-capitalist. Most had a goal of achieving a classless society.
Anarchy comes from the desire for political and economic self-rule. Wow, that sounds a lot like free market capitalism to me. Now, refresh my memory…is it the right or the left that’s for free market capitalism?
And, back to the graph that I saw once which lays it all out.
If you give everything you earn to the government (taxed at 100%), then you’re a slave. If you get to keep everything you own (taxed at 0%), then you’re completely free. You can plot a line from 0 to 100 and put all of the countries of the world on it. I’d put 100 on the left and 0 on the right if I were you, because the graph will make more sense that way. Nearly every country on the left end of the graph is a “leftist” country, and the farther to the right you go on the graph, the more “right-leaning” the countries become.
Did you know that Alaska has no state income tax, and no sales tax? Now, would you classify Alaska as to the left? Or to the right?
To deny that is to live in Fantasyland.
well, someone here is living in fantasyland. i’ll give you that much.
Regarding my own comment above, here’s some recent left-wing (attempted) violence:
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Six_arrested_in_suspected_plot_to_a_06112009.html
But good gravy, I can’t believe how many people don’t understand that Goldberg’s idiotic book has been absolutely trashed by actual historians, everywhere.
“…the greatest myth of the 20th century was that the Nazis were right wing.”
Um, yeah, not sure how to respond to that.
Hitler believed that Jews were starting wars in order to consolidate Communist influence on the world bank system. He believed this before he was elected Chancellor and after his rise to power. Check out his writings if you don’t believe me. I’m not aware of any prominent “leftist” from the early 2oth Century who espoused such views.
The difference between Hitler and Stalin are really quite stark. Stalin brought the U.S.S.R. into the industrial age through slave labor consisting of political prisoners and the crushing effects of totalitarian Communism. There was no private property under Stalin. Farmland, factories, and retail markets were all state property. Through a complete confiscation of personal income Stalin funded the expanision of the Soviet Union into the Eastern reaches of Siberia, establishing necessary (in Stalin’s mind) infrastructure for the growing military empire.
Hitler, on the other hand, never confiscated wealth but instead encouraged a mutally beneficial partnership between Germany’s already formidable industrial economy and the Nazi state. Hitler agreed to buy planes and ships from German companies in return for their allegiance to his government.
That is, in very brief form, the difference between Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism.
P.S.
As for the claim that Hitler “dreamed of establishing a classless society”, you simply are uninformed in this area.
Under the Nazis, Jews were subjugated into different classes. If one was born to a Jewish mother, y9u were fully “Jewish” and were not allowed to own a business or be employed by Gentile business owners or in their household. There was a “mongrel” class which consisted of persons whose “Jewishness” could not be identified fully but were still suspected of posessing “non-Aryan” geneaology. It was all nonsense of course because Judaism is a relion, not a race, which is why the Nazis had such a difficult time accurately identifying Jews on appearance and family alone.
Hitler was more than happy to allow mongrel races to exist and serve the Nazis. Nazism was steeped in beliefs of racial hierarchy and intent on establishing social classes accordingly. I’m not sure where you are getting your information about Adolph Hitler, but I would check my sources if I were you.
I think the problem here is that you are trying to define a concept (National Socialism) in terms that have no meaning within the context of National Socialism itself. American definitions of what might be considered “right” or “left” wing has no meaning for other political systems.
The two-dimenisional graph you keep referring to seems to be based upon invalid premises. It doesn’t describe the reality very well, and so should be abandoned in favor of some other methodology for descriptive purposes.
Let’s see, as for National Socialism.
National Socialism might be better classified as more of a Radical Authoritarianism, whose foundations were based upon a loose amalgam of nationalism, colonialism, race purity, anti-elitism (themselves exempted, of course), anti-semitism and anti-communism.
The NSDAP’s origins were reactionary, not revolutionary or anarchist.
The NSDAP did not promulgate a classless society, quite the reverse. It was just for a realignment of certain social and/or economic “classes”.
Just because the NSDAP program was anti-capitalist in rhetoric, that doesn’t make it “left-wing” (see anti-elitist above). Plenty of large German companies thrived under NSDAP rule. They just had to cut the Party in on a percentage of the profits.
Oh, and Lou. Stalin wasn’t a Fascist. He was just a different kind of Authoritarian. Perhaps a Bureaucratized Authoritarian, though that seems inadequate. But, I’ll leave it as I was discussing the NSDAP in particular.
I see I missed some posts. Craig, you are close but miss the mark on Stalin. Where do you get those ideas? Sorry. The post about Jewry and classes is off-kilter too. Class (in the NSDAP context) is economic in nature, not racial/religious.
Right and Left are increasingly relative terms, in the same way as liberal and conservative are.
Especially for Libertarians, though, the common threads between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are socialism and authoritarianism.
Maybe check out the Nolan Chart for a more useful way of mapping the political spectrum.
I’m wrong about Hitler not confiscating wealth, of course he did, Jewish houses, property etc.
From Hilberg’s The Destructin of the European Jews:
“The Loesner proposal was incorporated into the First Regulation to the Reich Citizenship Law, dated November 14, 1935. In its final form the automatic sorting method separated the “non-Aryans” into the following categories: Everyone was defined as a Jew who 1)descendd from at least three Jewish grandparents (full Jews and three-quarter Jews) or 2) descended from two Jewish grandparents (half-Jews) and (a) belonged to the Jewsih religious community on September 15, 1935, or joined the community on a subsequent date, or (b) was married to a Jewish person on September 15, 1935, or married one on a subsequent date, or (c) was the offspring of a marriage contracted with a three quarter or full Jew after the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor had come into force or (d) was the offspring of an extramarital relationship with a three-quarter or full Jew and was born out of wedlock after July 31, 1936.”
Paraphrasing Hilberg: individuals of “mixed Jewish blood”, those not qualified as above, were designated “Mischlinge”, who were later left out of the extermination policies.
Sounds to me like classes were being established.
Leftwing violence is pretty common in Europe, it seems. Not so much here (noting the ELF, ALF exceptions above).
I love when people say something preposterous, then say it is “undeniable”. If I hear it one more time, I’m sure I’ll believe it. I’m just having a bit of trouble reconciling Von Brunn’s leftism with his hatred of Obama, hatred of blacks and jews, hatred of racial impurity, white powerism, immigrant hatred, etc. For a lefty, he sure put on a good “rightwing kook” act.
Mike–
And yet, a stated purpose for invading Russia was to fight communism. Probably the Nazis didn’t even know what the hell the Nazis were or where they fit on the political spectrum.
What you describe is another example of miscommunicated terminologies.
I understand where you are coming from, but it isn’t what was being discussed. More correctly I think, you are talking about genetic classifications, not class, per se.
When one talks about a classless society, it is usually referring to economic or social strata, not racial or religious strata. And, in the context of the above discussions, all sides seem to be using that definition, save you.
And the NSDAP confiscated more than just Jewish properties (ask about the countries that the Nazis occupied). The Jewish properties are usually just the most documented (and argued about, even today).
varangianguard says:
‘Oh, and Lou. Stalin wasn’t a Fascist’.
Yes,I know.I meant he was reclassified in modern times.Thanks for pointing out the word ‘socialism’ can be used in other than economic terms.That’s a problem for many.
I also now realize that much of the modern political science reclassification was due to Goldberg’s book,and in sum it was meant to put everything right of center as being not capable of extremism..at least that’s my first thought…”Stay right and you will be right’
My practical understanding of fascism and communism has been by meeting former east Germans through the house exchanges I did. Many of the older ones went straight from wartime National Socialism to communism,which they saw simply as Russia being in charge.They had become less than full Germans.. They most resented the lack of being able to travel and didn’t complain so much of the economic hardships,as we saw them. Many party members did travel extensively to approved countries,but they couldn’t go just anywhere. All of my experiences began just after German unification,and are only snapshots.But I enjoyed seeing East Germany gradually becoming part of greater Germany again.
I’m pretty sure That Mr. Van Brunn (sp?), the original topic of this post, was speaking about racial and religious strata.
Or maybe it’s more fun to stick to a supposed “right vs. left” dichotomy and bang each over the head…
“Hmmm…every single one believed in nationalism, and were anti-capitalist. Most had a goal of achieving a classless society.”
That reads “economic” to me.
Mr. von Brunn wasn’t here. I was speaking of Chris of Rights remarks.
Hah! Eric. That makes me think of Kenneth Mars’ character in The Producers.
To which I still disagree. Hitler blamed Jews for Germany’s economic woes, hence the classification systems as described above. Jews were not allowed to participate in the German economy, were they not? They were often attacked for being rich and greedy and controlling the money system at the expense of Germans. Seems economic to me.
?
“Hmmm…every single one believed in nationalism, and were anti-capitalist. Most had a goal of achieving a classless society.”
Prove it.
What class, I might ask, were the Jews, the Roma, and the other “subhuman” races?
QED
The gays, etc. Persecuting the gays was an activity the Nazis indulged in. And yet there were quite a few homosexuals among the Nazi leadership. Factoring that in, the Nazis may in fact have been Republicans.
Ah, well, okay. First, the answer to “the Nazis were socialist because they even had socialism in their name” is, well, the tiny gang of street thugs which grew into the Nazi party may have been, at its germination, partly socialist, among its lower-class adherents, and anti-capitalist to the extent that capitalism was associated with the hated Jews, but that is not the Nazi party which managed to gain control of the German government in 1934 with the support of big money concerns. The most prominent socialist–and anti-communist–in the Nazi leadership was Ernst Röhm, and if you weren’t aware of that, or of his fate once Hitler had the support of the major German industrialists, then you really have no business lecturing the rest of us.
The Nazis did not nationalize German industry–they did take over conquered nation’s industries, under a nationalized holding company, but many of the companies themselves remained in private hands–the German war effort was supplied by Krupp, Heinkel, Walther, Mauser, Daimler-Benz, all capitalist concerns. Junkers was nationalized, because the Nazis didn’t trust Hugo Junkers. They tried, early in the war, to take over coal production, and were met with such resistance from the owners and the unions that they acceded to demands for a producer-run cartel. The colossal chemical concerns–IG Farben, Bayer, AGFA–remained private. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of Italy, which was far more agricultural, and of the Japanese in WWII, where Mitsubishi was a sort of GE, GM, and Bank of America rolled into one.
Chris of right is pathetically wrong. Nice attempt at revisionist history though ie. spin.
PS Nobody in their right mind is buying it.
Very interesting sequence of posts..like taking a college course..
The word ‘socialism’ can mean simply ‘of the people’ in its pure latin root sense,or it can refer to an economic system,as it does in modern times.The word gives the impression that ‘the people’ approve.Both communists and fascists used it,I think, to give the sense of broad consent…It’s like a ‘grassroots’ mark of approval..This is my assumption anyway..
It’s the same concept as calling gay discrimination ‘family values’.
So then the left should be for absolute economic freedom. Companies and individuals should be free to act unrestrained except in cases of fraud and force? Okay, count me in. I’ll be a leftist by that definition. But of course, that just muddies the water of the terminology even more. The real problem I think is that the realms of liberty get separated in their emphasis (i.e. the left sees liberty as freedom on social issues and the right as freedom on economic issues, and so both think their camp represents the freedom fighters), and that creates terms with relative meanings based on preconceptions of communicator and audience.
That language should be bankrupt in serious conversation — it is the tool of the spin doctors. Thus I tuned in to Rush Limbaugh (as I usually do on my way to lunch, purely to observe his shameless capacity for spin) claiming this guy was a leftist because he was anti-Bush – implying there is only left and right, so if you’re not one you’re the other.
stAllio!,
My whole point was not to ‘create a standard’ or even to redefine your interpretation of left and right. My point was to indicate that the terms only serve to obfuscate attempts at discourse because they are purely connotative at this point, and their connotations differ among individuals, particularly if they disagree.
Yes, you’re correct on the point about where I would put Bush on the spectrum, and yes I definitely consider that a feature, not a bug.
Also, as far as reading up on anarchism, I assure you that I have been researching (in the hobbyist, not professional, sense) both theoretical and empirical work on the subject, though not enough (I can only read so fast) to call myself an expert by any means. I’m happy to compare notes and/or take reading suggestions.
Craig,
Hitler was anti-Communist, yes. That doesn’t mean his social system wasn’t built on some of the same premises.
You’re making the same mistake (though not as obvious) as Limbaugh and Chris of Rights when they say Von Brunn is a leftist because he’s anti-Bush, anti-neocon, etc.
Why are we so inclined to lump people into groups based on what they are against? As if there is only ‘us’ and ‘them’.
Okay, I’m going to get off my soapbox for a while — I’m suddenly in the mood for some Pink Floyd.
Re: Pink Floyd. I know you were going for a different song, but for some reason your comment called to mind The Fletcher Memorial Home:
Hitler was anti-Bolshevist. I’m not sure he ever recognized the changes from Lenin to Stalin (or thought he needed to differentiate, perhaps).
Communism is another overused, under comprehended term. True “communist” societies don’t seem to ever last very long.
Russia was never truly “communistic”. Briefly Leninist-Marxist (or Bolshevik), then transitioning to Stalinist, then three (or so) other iterations through today.
Had to Google that Floyd song…if I’ve heard it, it was playing in the background on Echoes. Never heard Final Cut and never gave Echoes a lot of attention.
Re: Communism…Yeah, pretty much any time you discuss these issues, you have to specifically define terms. Mises’s Socialism could probably be about half the size if this were not the case. I imagine the same is true for other such works, though I suspect some authors lean on the vagueness (like my Limbaugh example above), intentionally or not, in order to pursue an agenda.
And in order to define terms adequately you have to be really well-informed. No wonder the world is so damn confusing!
We’ve never had a communist regime without a dictator,always ruthless,so naturally that’s how communism is viewed.
But New Harmony didn’t work out either.