The
Director of the Washington Coalition Against Censorship, Barbara Dority, in
opposing efforts to increase police powers in response to the Oklahoma City
bombing, recognized the danger of 'suppressing the free speech of
dissidents' in the case of the militia movement. Dority writes, 'Only by
providing as many outlets for free speech as possible can we create the
critical safety valve needed for the venting of anger, alienation, fear,
and yes, hatred. The worst possible response to these volatile emotions is
to bottle them up until they explode into violence'. Just as this outlet
can be limited by overzealous federal law enforcement agencies, it can be
virtually eliminated by the creation of a climate of opinion where public
servants are prevented from even entering a dialogue with members of the
militia movement.
Dority's contention that dialogue and engagement with
militia groups can help to diffuse feelings of alienation and reduce the
threat of violence is, to be certain, a contentious one. Richard
Hofstadter's classic study of right-wing groups suggests, for instance,
that political engagement by groups from the far right might be a lost
cause from the beginning. The interests expressed by far-right groups are,
in his words, 'totally irreconcilable, and thus by nature not susceptible
to the normal political processes of bargain and compromise'. Political
engagement by the far right, and the inevitable failure of their efforts
might, in Hofstadter's view, actually make the situation worse:
when the representatives of a particular political interest – perhaps
because of the very unrealistic and unrealizable nature of their demands –
cannot make themselves felt in the political process. Feeling that they
have no access to political bargaining or the making of decisions, they
find their original conception of the world of power as omnipotent,
sinister, and malicious fully confirmed.
James A. Aho echoes this
concern, noting that while 'patriot' groups do not seem reluctant about
getting involved in mainstream political activities, these efforts may
enhance frustration and feelings of alienation rather than providing an
outlet. Unmet expectations, in Aho's view, might be more dangerous than
isolation:
'[t]here is little evidence that voluntary or imposed exclusion
from regular political channels has occasioned their resort to more extreme
measures. Indeed, the opposite is more likely true. Their use of
nonconventional tactics may be a sign that regular channels of influence
have not worked for patriots to the degree they might prefer: the theory of
rising expectations paradoxical prediction that inflation of expectations
precipitated by too much citizen participation aggravates dissatisfaction
and unrest when demands are not met
But the early indications from our
nation's recent experience dealing with the militia movement suggest that
strategies of stigmatization, rather than eliminating the threat of
violence, may be counterproductive. First, stigmatizing militias hasn't
proved effective in reducing the number of militias and may, in fact, be
somewhat counterproductive. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance,
found that 380-armed militias existed within the 50 U.S. states in 1996 and
that the total number of 'extremist' groups actually increased by 6% in
1996. Additionally, in the case of the Michigan Militia, the
Anti-Defamation League reports that 'despite negative publicity since the
Oklahoma City bombing, the militia movement in Michigan has enjoyed some
continued success in its recruitment'.
Second, these strategies may
strengthen, rather than reduce the determination of members within militia
groups. As Dority notes, stepped up law-enforcement efforts against
militias can 'confirm their suspicions of a government out to get them'.
Similarly, a climate of hostility can provide confirmation of the militia
members' view of a political system that is not only 'corrupt' but
'corrupting' of public opinion as well.
Third, stigmatizing militia groups is likely to reduce the presence of any
moderating influences within the organizations, leaving more radical
members in control and bringing in increasingly radical members who are
attracted by the group's 'outlaw' character. By making militia groups more
responsive to radical views and less responsive to the concerns of
mainstream Americans, strategies of stigmatization may be making them more
dangerous than ever. Norm Olson notes the effect on his group, the
Northern Regional Michigan Militia: 'the people who remained are more
resolved and resolute, more disciplined and clear in the focus of where
they're going and what they have to do than ever before'.
Strategies that
seek to isolate militia members might be the worst of all possible
strategies for policy makers and government officials. Increasing a sense
of political powerlessness among the leaders of the Michigan Militia seems
to make violence a more likely option for certain individuals within that
group. This is not a justification of their worldview, but a fact that
must be dealt with seriously.
While it remains uncertain whether strategies of engagement will actually
reduce levels of political alienation among militia members, it is certain
that strategies of stigmatization will increase feelings of political
powerlessness. It may even increase levels of perceived political
normlessness as well. This does not mean that the political agenda of the
militia movement should be carried out. Clearly, it is unreasonable to
expect that Congress will move forward with the militia movement's top
legislative priorities. Criticism of militia views by those who disagree
is certainly in order. But, under certain circumstances, harsh criticism
of traditional and accepted forms of political participation by militia
groups might serve in no-one's interest. We should consider the
possibility that the stigmatization of mainstream political engagement by
the Michigan Militia might actually serve to increase the risk of future
violence.
=======================
In my opinion, the differences between the radical Left and radical Right are so profound, that there really is no common ground. Do you think that the Right sits around contemplating how to " bring along " commies? I think not.
The next revolution in this country will not come from the Left. Ivory Tower Marxists do not have their finger on the pulse of revolutionary elements in this country.
The successful propaganda of the Capitalists has utterly discredited all things " Red ". The corporate elites have successfully co-opted America's unions. The working class doesn't really think it is working class. The underclass doesn't give a shit about Marxism, and Liberals are much more a hindrance than a force for radical change.
We should never forget that the greatest opportunity for a worker's revolution never even happened when it should have happened. That during the depression, when immigrants and out of work citizens knew who they were, and which side their bread was buttered on, could only manage to start some unions that were soon to be sold out by their leaders who joined corporate boards, or joined the mob. Except for a brief ethereal post war period of " social contracts " between Labor and Big Business, it has gone down hill for working people since then.
If what folks on this list are doing is enjoying each other's brain flashes, that's great. If on the other hand anyone seriously thinks that it's the Left who will oust the Capitalists by * organizing * Americans here in the belly of the beast, then IMHO, you have another think coming.
" The problem with the Left is that there are 10,000 socialist scholars in this country and not one fuckin' socialist."
--- Abbie Hoffman ---
I think the dead guy makes a good point.
Joshua2
******************************************************************* "The wealthiest 358 individuals in the world, all of them billionaires, collectively own as much wealth as 45% of humanity."
-- The United Nations Development Program Report '96 -- ******************************************************************* The world's 477 billionaires have as much wealth as 52 percent of humanity.
-- According to the Economic Policy Institute, in 1997 -- *******************************************************************