Given DHS’ knack for describing demonstrable threats from Islamic terrorists with soothing, gentle language, it is jarring to leaf through the DHS report on the impending scourge of homegrown Right-wing violence. Who, pray tell, are these potential terrorists?
“Right wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented…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.” In other words, fanaticism may include, but is not limited to, pro-lifers, admirers of the tenth amendment, and those who support enforcing immigration laws. (Subsequent paragraphs add second amendment advocates to the list of haters).
Surely DHS has boatloads of evidence to support such inflammatory claims, no? Actually, “[DHS] has no specific information that domestic right wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but [they] may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about several emergent issues.” Got that? There’s absolutely no intelligence pointing to a single actual threat, but these nebulous groups may be gaining recruits. Chief among these unconfirmed new recruits are US Military Veterans. After all, Timothy McVeigh was ex-military, so why not cast suspicion on the many thousands of honorable troops coming home from the battlefield?
It is dangerous for the United States Department of Homeland Security to employ euphemistic language to tamp down public fears about non-imaginary Islamic terrorism. It is outright shameful for the very same department to conjure up new fears of potential domestic terrorism, which they say is likely to be perpetrated by our own returning veterans.
On the McVeigh point, the DHS report makes the same logical error—or intentional misrepresentation—that the mainstream journalists did when clamoring to blame the Pittsburgh killings on the Right-leaning media. It is not a persuasive argument to highlight the behavior of one crazy individual, whether he’s named Poplawski or McVeigh, and use it as an indictment of an entire political movement.
The Left angrily denounced the politics of “guilt by association” when Republicans dared to raise questions about Obama’s longtime relationships with racial demagogues and unrepentant terrorists during the campaign. But today they’re rallying to the cause, employing an intellectually dishonest strain of guilt by association aimed at scaring the public. They’re hoping to frighten average Americans by conjuring up images of militant right-wingers lashing out at random to satisfy their boiling rage, and they’re especially attempting to bully right-of-center Americans into hesitating, or self-censor themselves, before speaking out against the ruling class.
Although the details vary, the overarching message is consistent. To conservatives: Be quiet. Your political speech is irresponsible and might conceivably encourage violence. To other Americans: Be afraid of these borderline-insane people. Their ranting radio hosts and wild-eyed tea party/hate fests (“not really family viewing,” according to one CNN correspondent) are frightening and creepy.
Welcome back, fear. Hope, we hardly knew ye.
|