In the last several days, three events dramatically underscore a hard truth about domestic terrorism: nearly all of it originates with the extremist right wing.
This provocative idea is borne out by stubborn facts, but the question is why this so, and why the national discourse about terrorism remains stuck on the wrong threats.
The three events are the massacre at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, the fiery destruction of a mosque in Joplin, Missouri, and the reopening of a mosque that had been burned down by terrorist arson in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The good news story of the reopening of the Tennessee mosque is marred by the ceaseless efforts to keep it from opening by right-wing opponents, including Republicans running for Congress in the district, many of whom insisted that Islam is not a religion and is not protected by the Constitution.
As I wrote in the Boston Globe 17 months ago, the overwhelming numbers of acts of politically motivated violence in this country are committed by the right wing. If I may quote myself at length:
"The START database on terrorism in America, which tracks all incidents of political violence, shows that most attacks in the last two decades have been on black churches, reproductive rights facilities, government offices, and individual minorities. And those have been committed mainly by right-wing extremists. From 1990 to 2009, START identified 275 "homicide events'' that killed 520 people and were committed by right-wing ideologues. There were many more incidents of destruction of property, nonfatal attacks, and other acts of thuggery by white supremacists, private militias, and the like."
Compare that to the threat that so much of the news media and political class focuses on: Muslims. The think tank RAND found that "46 publicly reported cases of domestic radicalization and recruitment to jihadist terrorism occurred in the United States'' since 9/11, and that "most of the would-be jihadists were individuals who recruited themselves.'' Most of the "threats" were never realized, and many of them were absurd fantasies.
The question is, why has the right wing -- so long associated with law enforcement -- become so tolerant of terrorism against minority religious groups, gays, abortion clinics and others they abhor? Why is the right wing the incubator of so much violence?
A lot of old-fashioned xenophobia is at work, of course. New immigrants typically have been embraced by liberals and scorned by conservative nativists. One only needed to hear the diatribes against illegal immigrants by Mitt Romney and his other GOP hopefuls through the Republican primaries -- and the full-throated approval of those diatribes by the listening crowds -- to understand how deep this runs on the right. Right-wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin feed the frenzy or ignore right-wing terror, and Fox News has aggressively used the Muslim terror threat as a standard trope of its commentary for 11 years.
The rest of the news media has been too sanguine about calling a spade a spade, too timid about calling out this epidemic of hate. Even in the recent shootings, as Riddhi Shah points out in a Huffington Post blog post, the news media attention to the Aurora, Colorado murders was way more prominent than the coverage of the Sikh temple massacre. Similarly, when Rep. Peter King (R-NY) held hearings on supposed radicalization of American Muslims last year, very few analysts in the news media pointed out the vastly greater prevalence of right-wing terror in America.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has done yeoman's work on tracking violent groups, notes that "Currently, there are 1,018 known hate groups operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others. And their numbers are growing." The Center's data show that hate groups have increased by 69 percent in the last decade. And the so-called "Patriot" groups have increased nearly 800 percent since Obama became president.
Their closely observed conclusion for this startling increase:
"This surge has been fueled by anger and fear over the nation's ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation's first African-American president"
If the news media and political leaders were told there were a thousand violence-prone Muslim groups operating in the United States, can you imagine the reaction? Yet, apart from the glancing attention given incidents like the Sikh temple massacre, the national discourse about terrorism focuses almost exclusively on Muslims.
Scholars call this "framing" -- the predisposition of the news media (and others) to see events in a certain way, using a cognitive frame that then leads to certain perceptions and conclusions. The cognitive frame for understanding domestic political violence in this country is the Muslim threat, reinforced powerfully by the 9/11 attacks, of course, even though that atrocity was not committed by domestic terrorists. (The biggest act of domestically organized violence is the Oklahoma City bombing, a right-wing endeavor.) The "Muslim threat" meme has so overwhelmed the discussion of political violence, however, that the actual topography of terrorist groups in this country is neglected.
Watch carefully the next time an act of political violence is committed against, say, an African-American church or Planned Parenthood or a mosque. You won't hear many condemnations from Sean Hannity or Eric Cantor or indeed Mitt Romney. The burning of the Joplin mosque, which is the second attack this summer on that house of worship, earned no rebuke from the establishment right, including Romney. But then, Missouri is a swing state.
Rabbi Rami Shapiro: I'll See Your Cross and Raise You...?
Sick? Shoot them. Lost your job? Blow the hell out of them with a grenade.
He can use it as the Safety Net he so loves. Saves on Medicare, social security and that pesky unemployment.
Or how about that guy made Molotov cocktails to disrupt the 2008 Republican National Convention? Those anarchist kids in Cleveland who attempted to blow up a bridge (it failed because they were provided dummy explosives by an someone working with the feds)?
Or does this stuff not count?
This article is attempting to shift blame to a certain group while ignoring the reality of terrorism. Any group that accepts violence as a legitimate tactic is a threat. The politics do not matter. The Buddhist who thinks that poisoning people on a subway train is an acceptable way of bringing about change is no less dangerous than the guy who believes that blowing up a federal building is a legitimate response to supposed government wrongs.
No one is "trying to shift blame." Facts are facts. Why can't you face them?
Anyone willing to use violence is a threat. Those kids bringing molotov cocktails to a political event are just as dangerous as the guy with a gun who says that the state is corrupt.
All conservative groups want to, "Conserve" the past traditions- in reality a past that never existed. W. F. Buckley said it best. "A conservative is a fellow standing athwart history yelling, 'Stop!'. " This is why Right Wingers are more violent. Because they claim to KNOW what is good. (This moral absolute was PROVEN in the more pure past!) The Leftists are typically agnostic or relativist about morality and truth. Terrorism is a function is extreme self-righteousness. This quality is scarce in liberal-minded people.
Now watch the fire storm come at me from the self-righteous. ;-)
Every radical group that accepts violence as a legitimate tactic of getting its way, including the US government, is a threat.
It is not limited to one political view or another. Some issues are not even well defined based upon a political ideology. ALF, ELF, and other ecoterrorist groups are not far left or far right. Single issue terrorists and groups are also not limited by political ideology.
What you are trying to do, kid, is create superiority for yourself based upon your beliefs. that does not work. It actually leads to acceptance of violence (because they are not the same as you, so harming them is not bad.)
Your position is wrong on two salient fronts.
First: Alf, Elf and other, "Ecoterrorist groups" HAVE NEVER KILLED ANYONE. Did you get that? NOT ONE SOUL. NADA. ZILCH. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Second: Right Wingers are typically PRO GUN, anti immigrant and NATIONALISTS. Leftists are typically anti-gun, pro-diversity and cosmopolitan. There is NO COMPARISON in terms of who is deadlier. NONE. I am sorry, but a granola chomping, tree-hugger looney poses NO THREAT. A Gun-toting, anti-immigrant, anti-government looney is DANGEROUS, BECAUSE HE IS TRAINED AND ARMED. To pretend this distinction is not important is silly. YOu would be lying to yourself.
Your last paragraph is a feeble attempt a psychological hypothesis. It is clear that You are not trained in this field. Feeling superior NEVER leads to violence. Feeling INFERIOR does. Classic projection. If you deem yourself superior, then great. If you hate yourself (Maybe because you make the same as a poor black man in the deep South?), you want others to suffer.
The commonality amidst this ideologic diversity is that regardless of the "noble cause" terrorists do not value real individual people except as pawns.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/family-research-council-shooting_n_1779232.html
Oh......wait.......nevermind.
"The START database on terrorism in America, which tracks all incidents of political violence, shows that most attacks in the last two decades have been on black churches, reproductive rights facilities, government offices, and individual minorities. And those have been committed mainly by right-wing extremists. From 1990 to 2009, START identified 275 "homicide events'' that killed 520 people and were committed by right-wing ideologues. There were many more incidents of destruction of property, nonfatal attacks, and other acts of thuggery by white supremacists, private militias, and the like."
Right wing ideology is very dangerous to a society, and we need to educate people better to be able to avoid it.
Using murder, violence, or threats of such, as a means to an end is not acceptable. It is terrorism, regardless of motive, or intent behind it. Lots of crazies out there, who will for no apparent reason, go out and kill a bunch of people. Like the Aurora shooting. We, as a society, will have to understand, so long as dangerous weapons and chemicals are readily available.
But organizations espousing and/or promoting said activities should be shut down. This is true, whether you are talking about killing racial minorities (or simply driving them out of "your neighborhood") or whether you are a minister advocating rounding up the gays into camps, and kidnapping their children, or whether your god demands you "kill infidels" through jihad, or your preist tells you to "beat the gay out of your son" it's the same.
But media only shows one side, and need to be called out on it. The term "terrorist" is not applied to "christians" when they say there motive for threatening or killing others was for god.
You may not like abortions, but murdering doctors, or protecting the murderers, does not show that you are right. It shows that you are morally bankrupt, and do not know what being an american citizen means.
Republicans Blasted Obama Administration For Warning About Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/07/645421/right-wing-extremism/
Does this mean the GOTP supports Right Wing Domestic Terrorists? Just askin