An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Cross-Fertilization of Hatred and Extremism

Paul Krugman’s column today focuses on the growing overlap between mainstream conservative discourse and viewpoints that used to be considered far right fringe territory exclusively, in the context of that DHS report on right-wing extremist violence that caused such a ruckus a couple of months ago:

Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an internal report by the Department of Homeland Security warning that current conditions resemble those in the early 1990s — a time marked by an upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an attempt to “segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration” and label them as terrorists.

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Obviously, Krugman is not the first to make this point, and in the wake of two closely spaced acts of terrorist violence committed by individuals steeped in extreme right-wing ideology,  it’s essential as well as inevitable that online political commentators will be having this discussion — no matter how shrilly some ultra-conservative bloggers tell the rest of us how unfair and illegitimate and deranged it is to be doing so.

There are notable exceptions to the right’s head-in-the-sand attitude, of course. One such is AJ Strata, who points out, among other things, that if you proudly call yourself a right-wing extremist, you shouldn’t be surprised when people characterize your views that way:

Sadly, this happened when way too many conservatives came out after the DHS report and declared themselves rightwing extremists. To this day Hannity swears DHS is out after people like him. Up until that point I considered myself a conservative. I knew damn well the DHS report had nothing to do with me. Just as I knew the NSA was not listening in on my phone calls (the extreme liberal drama queen canard). The left under bush swore the government was not after terrorists, and I fought that silliness for years from the day the New York times produced its tissue of liberal lies on the matter (see here).

When conservatives claimed allegiance to the DHS threats, claiming brotherhood in essence, they blurred the line. And now they whine because people cannot separate the mainstream from the rightwing extremists? That is a self inflicted wound. …

  • jwest
    Shallow, distorted………….rote leftist doctrine.

    Sigh.

    (yes, this is TMV)
  • jchem
    Good roundup of several blogs, Kathy. I found another one that you may have missed; this one, claiming that this Von Brunn guy is a registered Dem from Maryland. Do you know anything of this?
  • I've been talking about this paranoia "feedback loop" of basic ideological nihilism for years. When Air America started up I was horrified to think we would start getting the same extremist viewpoints turned mainstream garbage from the left and when they went under I threw a party. I don't know if that says something about certain ideologies being more receptive to three hour blocks of partisan banshees or just poor management and content (probably both), but the end result was a net gain for all of us.

    A man from Pittsburgh shot and killed three cops in April. Neighbors say he was worried Obama was going to come take his guns. As has been mentioned, these people don't develop and feed their paranoia in a vacuum. Unfortunately conservatives are more apt to take this kind of analysis personally and react accordingly - in an "us v them" fashion that ignores the larger point - but the fact remains until people decide they not only have a right to free speech, but a responsibility inherent to that expression, we're going to have violent outbursts from people who actually believe what they're being told and act on it.
  • DLS
    J. West. Yes -- once more. Oh, well. It could get worse, too, with time.
  • jwest
    Ethos,

    “Unfortunately conservatives are more apt to take this kind of analysis personally and react accordingly”

    Don’t confuse individual mental illness with political ideology.

    You can, however, equate hatred, threats and actual violence against people who voice political ideas to the groups who perpetrate the crimes.

    Left wing haters, centered primarily on our nation’s college campuses, routinely show deplorable tactics towards anyone who doesn’t agree with their political and social mindset. Conservative speakers need bodyguards to appear for speaking engagements to protect them from violence-prone leftists. Regardless of the event, threats, property damage, assaults and actual physical violence are de rigueur for democrats.

    If there have been any similar actions by conservative trying to keep liberals from speaking, I can’t find any reference to it.

    No one knows what prevents people with leftist views from being able to interact civilly in society. Perhaps it is a learned behavior or a chemical imbalance, but it certainly appears to be isolated on one side of the political spectrum.
  • You really are just out there a bit, aren't you?
  • Looking to exclusively attach violent extremism to one side or the other is a dead-end argument. When Republican Presidents are in office we have "green" proponents (leftists) burning SUV dealerships and spiking trees in areas designated for logging. When Democratic Presidents are in office we get anti-government types (rightists) blowing up federal buildings and shooting abortion doctors, along with the usual property vandalism as well. Obviously there is a tendency for the fringe extremists on both sides to react violently when they feel threatened by current and upcoming change which goes against their adopted ideology.

    The point isn't that fringe crazies are crazy, but that saturation of increasingly rhetorically antagonistic media platforms serves as an amplification for the paranoia these people already feel. Trying to get around that by pretending violent acts are perpetrated by only one side of the political spectrum simply doesn't work.
  • tidbits
    Whining about the author's perceived bias seems unproductive. Whatever that bias may be, an intriguing question is raised about the connection, if any, between extremist pontificaters and their adherents acting out in a criminal manner. Lest there be any confusion, I refer to both right and left. Having been a student at the University of Wisconsin when left wing terrorists bombed the Army Math Research Center killing an innocent graduate student, I do not ascribe to the view that propensity to violence rests solely with right wing extremists as some on the left are currently wont to do.

    Nor would I confine the discussion to acts of murder. While the most sensational example of criminal conduct, murder is but the extreme end of a continuum of lawlessness practiced by some in the name of extreme ideology.

    Nor do I believe, though others disagree, that the answer is to muzzle free speech. Just as the dimunition of Constitutional rights contained in the Patriot Act to combat international terrorism diminishes us as a people, so too restricting freedom of speech, another Constitutional right, in order to reduce internal extremist violence, would diminish us. Let us understand that every time we agree to sacrifice our freedom for perceived security, whether at the urging of right or the urging of the left, there is less of the American soul and spirit worth saving.

    The real analysis here should come, in large part, from professionals who arguably have a better understanding of the psyche of those who commit such acts, and how those individuals are influenced, or not, by immersion in extremist propaganda. Once we have a better understanding of that, we can perhaps discuss safeguards that do not include the dimunition of our freedom like the Patriot Act or so-called hate crimes where punishment is enhanced because of what a perpetrator thinks or says.

    There really is much to discuss here notwithstanding one's perception of bias by the person presenting the question.
  • tidbits
    Jwest - a little perspective, please. I know you're right of center, but when you reference university's that muzzle speech, you can't overlook Liberty U and Bob Jones U on the right. Nor can you you credibly argue that conservatives have a monopoly on civility, especially if you've ever hear Hannity or O'Reilly shout down a guest with whom they disagree. Your critique of lefties is apt, but the proposition that is doesn't happen on the right is not.
  • MorganLvr
    Hey, tidbits, you should post more. I like your logic.
  • tidbits
    MorganLvr - Thank you.
  • alphonsegaston
    KK is right. As in, the opposite of wrong.

    Thanks, tidbit, for bringing up Libery U. (which has an odd understanding of "liberty") and Bob Jones.

    I am fatigued by the notion that liberal college professors brainwash students. I repeat my standard invitation to anyone, just try to influence 25 or 30 kids to think like you do. Good luck.
  • jwest
    “you can't overlook Liberty U and Bob Jones U on the right”

    I’ll look again, but I cant’ recall any incidents of speakers being harassed or threatened at either of these universities.

    If there are instances where windows have been broken, objects thrown at invited lecturers or physical attacks on people voicing their opinions there should be some kind of news report available on the web.

    The claim that both sides are roughly equal in providing an encouraging atmosphere for free speech and an open, civil debate of ideas is demonstrably false. At the vast majority of universities and totally on the left, only one political view is allowed to be discussed without threats, violence and harassment.
  • tidbits
    There are many ways to stifle freedom of speech and many forums in which to do so. One cannot harass a speaker if the speaker is not invited to speak in the first place. And, selective invitation is a form of stifling speech.

    At universities like Bob Jones U and George Fox U (I don't know about LibertylessU but suspect its true), students and faculty are required to sign an oath of faith in order to teach or attend. Libertyless U just pulled its recognition of the Democratic Club on campus because the national Democratic Party has a pro-choice plank in its platform. You, as a pro-choice atheist, would not be permitted to attend, teach, or speak at these universities that "provide an encouraging atmosphere for free speech." That is not a free academic environment any more that the kind of harassment you refer to from the left.

    Jwest, I don't disagree with you calling out the leftists for their attempts to chill free speech. I think you're right about that. But, it really does happen on both sides.

    Speaking only for myself, I oppose all speech-based codes of conduct, whether it is from the right or the left.

    One of the reasons I am a moderate is my distaste for the propensity of extremes on both sides to curtail freedom in order to impose their vision of America on those who disagree with them. You need not agree with me, Jwest, but when anyone, left or right, is unable to see the threats to freedom that come from their own ideology, they miss the opportunity to present their views from a balanced and credible perspective.
  • DLS
    "The claim that both sides are roughly equal in providing an encouraging atmosphere for free speech and an open, civil debate of ideas is demonstrably false."

    Incidentally, note that the Left routinely engages in this dishonesty also in the case of Israel and its conduct versus that of its enemies. That's only one similar example, albeit one that's quite blatant and notably reputationally destructive.
  • kathykattenburg
    Do you know anything of this?

    No, I don't, but I don't think Macsmind is a good source for any kind of accurate information on any subject. He's one of the furthest right-wing ravers out there. There *are* some reasonable conservative bloggers out there (Ed Morrissey for example), but Mac is not one of them. I wouldn't trust anything he puts on his site.

    Plus, he doesn't link to any reliable evidence of what he's claiming.
  • kathykattenburg
    Ethos, Air America did not go under. It's still on the air.
  • kathykattenburg
    Tidbits, I like your comments, too. They are thoughtful and well-written.

    And AlphoneGaston, if that's your cat, s/he is totally adorable. I love cats. :-)
  • MorganLvr
    You are very welcome, tidbits
  • beyondtherim55008
    Yes, It's true, I thought it was bunk and saw a pdf scan of it, from a link on liberal forum, scary stuff. MSM isn't picking up on it though.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC