101. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 5:15 AM PT
Spudboy
I was interested in your anecdote about Robert Mathews. Not the main story, but the side story about publication of his letters. By inference, his last letter was free of hate (or at least toned down to acceptable levels). This was his only hate free letter. Was he ever told that his letters weren't published because of the hate?
Did you have any formal guidelines for what was acceptable, and what was not, or was it like pornography(you know it when you see it)?
102. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 5:16 AM PT
Oh and thanks for the suicide stats.
103. BoomerJeff - July 12, 1999 - 7:51 AM PT
I read several of the posts above and was almost persuaded to spend some time plowing through Spud's book. Then I came to Adrianne's 98 and 99.
Adrianne is shocked "bone-deep" by the "similarities between the rhetoric of these completely disenfranchised folks who have… turned to violence and bigotry for solace, and some of the more mainstream political right/libertarians (including some here in the Fray.)"
So apparently I can conclude, without reading the book that Spud's up to his old tricks again. While Spud will deny that he attempts to persuade the reader that there is some connection or link between violent criminal acts and opposition to establishment politics he certainly has persuaded Adrianne there is.
Adrianne goes on to express further shock at the "filtering down into society of what can only be called fringe rhetoric – until, at least, it is accepted as mainstream thought…"
Until it is accepted as mainstream thought??? How would we know when that happens? Does Dan Rather have to think it? Hillary Clinton? Who tells you Adrianne, when it's OK to think a thought?
Is it EVER OK to think something might be wrong in the Government/media/academia establishment? Or is such thinking reserved only for violent militia thugs and their moronic fellow-travelers?
104. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 8:23 AM PT
BoomerJeff
Please ignore Adrianne's trolling. I don't understand it myself; she isn't usually this way. The book is worth reading.
105. spudboy - July 12, 1999 - 8:39 AM PT
Irv: Some of the reviews have mentioned the tiny print too. I think the publisher is getting the message.
CalGal: No, I don't think the protesters do a damned bit of good, and they undercut local efforts. See my Message #17 and subsequent posts.
106. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 8:43 AM PT
Spudboy
Thanks for your response in Message #84
I was asking about Christian vs anti-Christian, but you correctly pointed out that there is a third category—secular. I'm not surprised that secular organizations and purportedly Christian-based groups can work together, especially if the Christian aspect is simply a veneer of respectability, rather that deeply felt beliefs. However, while there are definitely many anti-Christians around, they generally don't seem sympathetic to the whites-are-superior crowd. I would think that this approach would be doomed to be a marginal.
107. benear - July 12, 1999 - 8:55 AM PT
I read with great interest all the posts on big agribusiness. As a native Kansan, I would like to point out that Bob Dole as long been known as the Senator from ADM (an Illinois based company). Also as early as the late seventies, the "family farm" became a myth. In my home county, fully 70% of the land was owned by Collingwood which was long ago taken over by Cargill (I think).
More recently, DeKalb was aquired by Monsanto and Monsanto was taken over by an even larger chemical company (Dow, I think). Agrabusiness is becoming a chemical business. Mainly because genetic engineering is becoming ever more prevelant in agriculture. The chemical and pharmaceutical companies have the genetic engineering know-how.
108. CalGal - July 12, 1999 - 8:55 AM PT
Spud,
I don't know how I missed that the first time round. (But as I've said, it is *hot* here, and I don't function well in that kind of weather.)
But I was speaking more of the local efforts. I brought the book to work (I often read during lunch) and just snuck it out to check page numbers. Do you recommend the sort of mild demonstrations you describe on page 37 and following? These are the ones that, to me, don't make much sense, whether or not they are directly harmful.
I like the approach of sending them to the city dump, though.
109. Ronski - July 12, 1999 - 9:29 AM PT
Violence and libertarianism? One of the cornerstones of libertarian philosophy is the renunciation of the initiation of violence.
The Libertarian Party is the only U.S. political party I know of that requires its members to sign a pledge forswearing violence.
110. spudboy - July 12, 1999 - 9:52 AM PT
CalGal: Actually, the peaceful demonstrations like the one in Mt. Vernon are relatively effective in one respect: the militia folks, who were trying to pass themselves off as mainstream, were extremely upset and worked up about their presence. And that particular group was very quiet and respectful. They were organized out of the local churches. So they delivered a pretty important message to Pitner and his bunch.
I have a problem with protesters like those in Coeur d'Alene this weekend.
111. CalGal - July 12, 1999 - 9:56 AM PT
Spud,
Yes, I see the difference between the two. I suppose the problem is this: at what point does the value of keeping them off-balance get outweighed by the danger of having them off-balance?
112. spudboy - July 12, 1999 - 11:12 AM PT
CalGal: The reason I disliked the protesters this weekend is that they pushed the objects of their protest over the edge. There was no chance for dialogue there. That was not the case, as you can see, with Mt. Vernon. There was considerable dialogue there. And that protest simply kept the militias off their hopes of being able to sell balck-helicopter theories to the mainstream. A healthy sort of "off-balance," as it were.
113. spudboy - July 12, 1999 - 11:14 AM PT
Now, about Message #103: I'm intrigued, Jeff, that you believe you can divine the contents of my book without having actually read it. If my “old tricks,” as you describe them, mean demonstrating “that there is some connection or link between violent criminal acts and opposition to establishment politics,” well, then I must be -- because there is such a connection. It's called terrorism.
Check the FBI definition: “the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” When Timothy McVeigh decided to blow up 168 people, it was because of his opposition to “establishment politics.” The same motive drove the perpetrators of the dozens of acts of domestic terrorism in the U.S. since Oklahoma City. They all see themselves as part of a revolutionary insurrection against the forces of “the New World Order” -- that is, what you and I call “the establishment.” The same connection between crime and political thought is as true for acts committed by those on the left, or those motivated by Islamic fundamentalism.
However, Jeff, you always seem to stop reading at the point where it is convenient for you to do so, because otherwise you'd also know that I consistently point out that simply holding the same ideas as those held by violent criminals does not make one a criminal nor even an accessory to one. I'd suggest you read the book, except that I'm afraid you'd do the same thing there -- stop when you think you have proof that I'm trying to criminalize independent thought.
114. spudboy - July 12, 1999 - 11:15 AM PT
I go to considerable pains, as others have noted, to delineate the various groups and individuals, differentiating both their behavior and their ideologies with some care. I make a particular point out of the fact that free speech must be differentiated from potential criminality; fortunately, nowadays, so does the FBI.
You ask: “Is it EVER OK to think something might be wrong in the Government/media/academia establishment?” Well, duh. Considering that most of us here have shown little compunction about criticizing all of the above, your question is ridiculous. Again, I think the book makes clear the basis of my own dislike of the government; and I have in fact made something of a career out of criticizing the government.
However, this has little to do with Adrianne's point, which is on the money. Mind you, it's mostly her analysis of the text, but her conclusion is one I agree with. There is a great deal of similarity in the rhetoric between Patriots and mainstream conservaitves. A number of the issues in both sectors definitely interconnect. Anyone who's been to a Patriot/militia meeting, or has spent time with movement followers, is naturally going to be struck by the amount of common ground.
Some of this is purely a recruiting and disguising tactic on the part of the Patriots. They tend to consciously frame their issues in ways that are palatable to mainstream conservatives. There are both artificial and natural levels of this behavior.
But it is also a two-way street. I'm struck by the broad number of issues and ideas that have their origins in the extremist right and which work their way out into the mainstream.
115. spudboy - July 12, 1999 - 11:17 AM PT
Having these origins doesn't mean that the ideas themselves are innately wrong -- though in the book I demonstrate that nearly all of the Patriots' conspiracy, constitutional and historical theories are either groundless or flat-out falsehoods. But it is important for people to understand where ideas they might pick up originate -- particularly those well outside the mainstream. Most such ideas are concocted in the service of a specific agenda. If you want to know whose agenda an idea might be in the service of, look for where it originates. When your ideas about taxation are derived from Posse Comitatus theories, that should be a red flag.
116. CharlieL - July 12, 1999 - 11:23 AM PT
FTC, the only "trolling" I see here is Boomer's.
Ad said that spudboy's book was an "even-handed, kind and empathetic portrayal of these folks."
My God, how do we let her get away with this kind of baiting?
117. Ronski - July 12, 1999 - 12:01 PM PT
spudboy,
I intend to read your book, and I'm very glad you wrote it. But Adrianne's swipe at libertarianism, and yours at conservativism, seem a bit extreme to me. Hoping for the trains to run on time does not make one an Italian Fascist.
118. ChristinO - July 12, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
What is the sound of one knee jerking?
Neither Adrienne nor Spudboy has in any way demonized all L/libertarians or Conservatives. Adrienne specifically stated that she noticed similarities of argument between militia groups and SOME conservative rhetoric.
To insist that simply recognizing the ties between the far right and the mainstream right is an extreme criticism seems more than a bit touchy.
119. ChristinO - July 12, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
More to the topic I still have not obtained a copy of your book, Spuds, but it is on my agenda. I'm enjoying this thread immensely and learning a lot.
Despite my scathing review of Arlington Rd. as I read more and more here I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the real meat of that film didn't end up on the cutting room floor. Robbins' crusade springs directly out of his small family farm history: specifically the suidice of his father over the death of their farm brought about by government intervention. Unfortunately this is explained only briefly, given no context----in other words it just makes him look like a lone nut rather than a victim of a systematic destruction of a particular way of life----and never referred to again. Somebody apparently did some research for this film, but they really fell down on the job here.
The rest of the film is so over the top that it does a disservice to all its characters. The terrorists are simply cartoonishly evil masterminds and their position is never really explained. I'm feeling better equipped now to go back and write in some reality.
120. Ronski - July 12, 1999 - 1:47 PM PT
Touchy? I don't think so. The difference between the extreme right and libertarianism is profound. The former preaches in favor of violence. The latter is the only political movement in this country actively preaching against the initiation of force.
What makes the extreme right dangerous is not the degree to which it criticizes government; rather it is its propensity to use force. Were these far-right factions separatists who simply wanted to be left alone, and never threatened public order, we would not even be discussing them.
Furthermore, the liberal/left in the Fray goes bananas every time the word socialist appears. Now that's touchy.
121. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 1:55 PM PT
ChristinO
Sorry, I disagree. I thought Ad's swipe came across as a meanspirited troll, and I had hoped she would retract it. I think BJ over-reacted a bit, but I hoped, in the spirit of Fray readings thread, that we could get beyond it. CharlieL is clearly baiting. I think that sort of crap belongs in the playpen, not here.
I'm looking forward to the continuation of a fine discussion of this book. Can we all drop the sly cracks and/or move them to the Playpen, if people cannot restrain themselves?
122. BoomerJeff - July 12, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
I'm preparing a response to Spudboy. Unfortunately I'm very short on time today. But I just saw ChristinO's #118 and I have some questions...
ChristinO: Have you an example of a political/ideological belief that you would think is typical of the "far right?" or the "mainstream right?" What does "far" mean to you? violent crime? hatrid of Jews?
To Rosnki: ChristinO speaks of "acknowledging" the ties between the far right (presumably this means militia thugs) and the mainstream right (presumably you and me?). Do you consider yourself "tied" to any whackos?
123. Ronski - July 12, 1999 - 2:09 PM PT
Boomer,
No. I've yet to read Spudboy's book, but I don't know of any libertarian who has the slightest thing to do with anyone who favors the use of force to advance any political goal whatever.
124. ChristinO - July 12, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
Ronski,
Stating that Communism is a radically left politcal position is simply fact. Stating that there are liberal ideas that cross the spectrum from mainstream to radical is also fact. Stating that Socialism is Communism is less than truthful. Stating that all Liberals are Pinko Commies is juvenile mudslinging with no basis in reality whatsoever.
Let's play word substitution?
Stating that the Militia Movement is a radically right political position is simply fact. Stating that there are conservative ideas that cross the spectrum from mainstream to radical is also fact. Stating that Libertarianism is a radically right position is less than truthful. Stating that all Conservatives are Terrorist Bigots is juvenile mudslinging with no basis in reality.
No one has stated either of the last two sentiments only the first two. Were we discussing Liberalism and someone went off half-cocked about the ties between the Left and Communism I would have been equally irritated.
Noting that one's political party has ties to more radical elements should make one desirous of examining those ties and either eradicating them if they are abhorrent or publicly embracing them without equivocating. Denying those dispicable things within the spectrum of our political affliations, or worse yet circling the wagons to defend those things we find distasteful just to spite the opposition lacks integrity.
There have certainly been and still are leftist terrorist groups. I certainly believe in the rights of animals but I do not condone the bombing of medical and research facilities. Do I jump up and say "They're nothing to do with Liberals!!" Not unless I want to be laughed out the door.
While the Libertarian party has a philosophy of non-violence this does not nullify other areas of overlap. Jesuits were warriors and Franciscans pacifists but no one denies that they are all Catholic.
125. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 2:24 PM PT
ChristinO
“Stating that Socialism is Communism is less than truthful.”
It's a confusion of economics with politics.
“Stating that Libertarianism is a radically right position is less than truthful.”
Your word substitution implies that the lack of truth in these statements is roughly comparable. I disagree.
Communism is (albeit crudely) the political implementation of the economic policy of socialism. (I'm ready for the slings and arrows, pointing out motes and calling them logs).
Calling libertarianism a radical right position shows a profound ignorance of libertarianism. Libertarianism is as close to radical right as it is to socialism. That is, it is roughly between the two (absurd) extremes.
126. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 2:26 PM PT
ChristinO
But is this what we want?
To turn this thread into yet another tired defense of libertarianism against the smug catcalls of the faux cognoscenti?
Can't we leave that for one of the political threads, and discuss spuds book in here?
127. BoomerJeff - July 12, 1999 - 2:33 PM PT
"noting that one's political party has ties to more radical elements should make one desirous of examining those ties..."
What's wrong with "radical?" I'm not offended if you want to call me "radical." What makes me boil is Spud's attempts (successful in the case of ChristineO) to cause his reader to believe that holding a ideological/political point of view means that one must take some responsibility for some violent thugs who may happen to have similar views.
What if you visited the state prision and polled the Child Molestors and found that a majority were Democrats? Would you then feel that YOU, a Democrat have "ties" to child molestors? Would you feel obligated to clarify your position with regard to child molesting?
128. Ronski - July 12, 1999 - 2:38 PM PT
ChristinO,
I'm only repeating what Free is saying here, but it deserves repeating. Both conservatism and liberalism, both Left and Right, admire the use of force to achieve their goals. Libertarianism seeks to avoid the use of force as an instrument of policy.
But I also endorse Free's efforts to remove from this Thread the political shots that have seemingly derailed it.
129. BoomerJeff - July 12, 1999 - 2:47 PM PT
To FTC and Rosnki
While I love you both I just can't resist the temptation to point out that you both ended your posts with pleas that this thread be free of the sort of comments each of you just finished making.
We'll see if our leftie friends will cooperate, allowing the two of you to have the last words.
I wish I could see the veins popping out in their necks as they try to restrain themselves!
130. ChristinO - July 12, 1999 - 2:49 PM PT
Yes, FTC, we can, but I find it interesting that blanket statements about all liberals this or that should be seen as less offensive than a statement about SOME conservatives or SOME libertarians. A statement about SOME people can easily be true, but statements about ALL almost never are.
This initially came about because BoomerJeff heard exactly what he wanted to hear in Adrienne's post and then proceeded to lambast Spud's position and his book the former which he has shown no ability ever to comprehend and the latter which he has not read.
I should know better than to let the rantings of the ignorant piss me off. They tend to see themselves as persecuted, opressed and ever-righteous, but their views are tied by only the most gossamer of threads to reality.
You are correct that my analogy is lacking mostly due to my haste and partly due to the fact that I had to completely invent a comparison for Libertarianism since it was not as a whole compared to anything at all, however I would disagree with you that the implementation of Socialism is by definition Communism.
131. Ronski - July 12, 1999 - 2:53 PM PT
"I shall restrain myself from making any additional comments until I start reading spud's book," he said, gritting his teeth.
132. BoomerJeff - July 12, 1999 - 2:54 PM PT
BoomerJeff Heard exactly what Adrianne wrote.
133. BoomerJeff - July 12, 1999 - 2:55 PM PT
I owe spud a response to his earlier spam. After that, I too shall grit and restrain.
134. ChristinO - July 12, 1999 - 2:57 PM PT
Sorry, I would have allowed any of you to have the last word but I wasn't finished in time to post before BJ. Of course it's now a catch 22: Do I leave it and look petty or do I respond that I had no intention of being petty thereby appearing petty?
As the single member apparently of the marauding leftist hordes with the absolute worst reputation of painting my hated foes with the broadest of brushes I hearby leave you the field. Consider this a great victory over such a zealot of a liberal.
135. elliot803 - July 12, 1999 - 3:04 PM PT
The relevant definition of "radical"
"3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs."
By any reasonable standard, libertarianism is a *radical* political philosophy. But I don't think it's accurate to describe it as *radical right*.
FTC: You need to acquaint yourself with the meaning of the terms "communism" and "socialism."
136. BoomerJeff - July 12, 1999 - 3:31 PM PT
Incredible!!!
elliot presumes to lecture FTC on the meaning of "communism" and "socialism"!
137. elliot803 - July 12, 1999 - 3:41 PM PT
Boomerjeff:
Yes!!! I know!!! It's amazing, isn't it?!!!!
138. cllrdr - July 12, 1999 - 4:19 PM PT
"Furthermore, the liberal/left in the Fray goes bananas every time the word socialist appears. Now that's touchy."
You really think so? Not Me. Touch away!
"To turn this thread into yet another tired defense of libertarianism against the smug catcalls of the faux cognoscenti?"
There's nothing faux about my smug catcalls!
139. ScottLoar - July 12, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
Well, 100-odd posts before derailment into the usual wreck. Still, a comparatively decent run.
140. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 4:54 PM PT
ScottLoar
I still have hope that this derailment can be rectified? If I had my copy of the book at the office, I'd flip to a page at random, and start asking questions.
141. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 4:58 PM PT
I'd like to see more discussion of the issue raised by Cartman Message #91
(spud hinted that this is discussed in the book, but I'm only part way through; perhaps he could indulge us and comment further on the issue)
142. spudboy - July 12, 1999 - 5:59 PM PT
FTC: I tried to answer Cart in Message #93, but must have missed the mark. What did you have in mind?
BTW, a little political jabbing seems inevitable, since this is a volatile political topic, and I think the thread will survive just fine. I'll try to offer some thoughts on libertarianism later tonight.
143. 109109 - July 12, 1999 - 6:12 PM PT
spud
Give me a concise bottom line based upon your research in the field (I am still reading the book). Will violence amongst the rural dispossessed (politically and economically, real and imagined)increase? On the one hand, the horror stories of violent offenders with ties to "militia" or other such groups seems rather prevalent, but so does all violence, leading me to think that prevalence is commensurate with the explosion of cable television and the heightened need of media outlets to "shock" and "jolt" in competition for dwindling viewers. Your thoughts?
144. ScottLoar - July 12, 1999 - 6:22 PM PT
I am sorry, but I don't see how this examination of fringe elements is a "volatile political topic". These folks are grossly discomboobalated from reality, who can run about and play soldier and hide in wooded stands of private property far removed from the very source of their discontent - urban government. Wackos who can vent and rage amongst others of the same ilk and so their discontent is chummed ever thicker. But of what effect do they have on the body politic? Nothing more than bugaboos for those ever ready to believe this is The Enemy they have smelt and can now, at last, behold revealed.
And to suggest that these nuts in the hinterlands are the probable harbringers of some new Dark Age is just weepingly naive.
145. 109109 - July 12, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
Loar
The discontented - rural and urban - tend to have little effect on the body politic. The urban disconnected seem content to arm themselves and, in turn, kill mostly each other, with beleaguered police officers and unlucky bystanders sadly getting in the way. That said, if the rural disconnected don't cotton to similar self-destruction, I'd be interested in spuds' view of their future.
146. cllrdr - July 12, 1999 - 7:00 PM PT
ScottLoar: "And to suggest that these nuts in the hinterlands are the probable harbringers of some new Dark Age is just weepingly naive."
Yeah I guess Oklahoma City was just one of those little speed bumps on the highway of life, huh?
147. EricCartman1 - July 12, 1999 - 7:09 PM PT
FTC Message #141:
My question to Spudboy was more aimed at *him* specifically, and how he was perceived by audience members at the trials and rallies he attended.
My perception has been that the militias tend to regard the media as useful on occasion, if they see a particular media vehicle as being conducive to putting their "message" out. But by and large, they see the media as an intrusive propaganda outlet for [insert favorite bogeyman here]. So I was curious as to whether Spuds himself was perceived as the former or the latter.
Loar/Niner:
Their religious/political notions may be goofy, but the fact is, these people vote.
How else do you explain the existence of Helen ("Black Hee-licopters") Chenoweth?
148. jonesatlaw - July 12, 1999 - 7:10 PM PT
Spudboy- haven't read the book yet. I will remedy that this weekend after I finish a nasty little trial I have this week. You were right about my harsh comments concerning farmers. One half of my family were/are farmers. Some of them defy the broad stereotype I engaged in, but sadly not enough.
Why should we care about events in the hinterlands? For the same reason they care about urbanites. We're all interdependant. Finally, since American history is repleat with instances of philosophies and causes espoused by fringe parties being adopted by mainstream parties, it could show us the future of "mainstream" politics.
149. spudboy - July 12, 1999 - 10:58 PM PT
Cart: I would say I'm perceived as all of the above. Most regular militia types view me with considerable suspicion, but a lot of them are willing to talk because they want to get their point of view across. They do behave rather self-consciously when they know their words are being written down.
Jones: Good luck reading it in just a weekend! You may find the tiny type slows you down …
But I'd be happy if we just had some people starting in on it. It's mildly frustrating to read posts like Loar's Message #144, to which my best answer is the book itself. However, I'll try to give a quick summary post in response.
As Jones suggests, problems like the rise of the Patriot movement are important signals that something is wrong on a relatively profound level within the body politic. It's too easy to dismiss them as a handful of kooks whose activities are too insignificant to take note of. But I think a wave of domestic terrorism, benchmarked by Oklahoma City, is a serious problem, and it's clearly emanating from this movement.
It is a “volatile political subject” precisely because of the entanglement that we touched upon earlier today: the transmission of ideas and agendas from the radical right into the mainstream. The Patriot movement, which is nothing less than the effort of extremists to gain mainstream acceptance, manages to inject its issues into the broader arena and thus is capable of changing the national landscape politically. I could point simply to the way rabid, irrational hatred of Bill Clinton migrated from the extremist fringes to the mainstream in the past six years as the most vivid example of this.
I'm not naïve enough to think that the Patriots represent some looming Dark Age. But neither am I so blinkered as to believe that they represent only a minor and insignificant problem.
150. spudboy - July 12, 1999 - 10:59 PM PT
At least read the afterword, Scott, and you will see my observation that fascism in both Italy and Germany began much the same way as the Patriots -- who are nothing less than American fascists -- are beginning here: as mostly rural movements that were initially dismissed as insignificant kookery. Current conditions hardly forebode their imminent political ascendance, but history is full of sudden, sharp turns in economic fortunes that drastically alter the mood and the susceptibility of the body electorate. I would say the naivete can cut both ways.
151. spudboy - July 12, 1999 - 11:00 PM PT
109s: Actually, you'll find a better answer to your questions of Message #143 in my recent MSNBC package on domestic terrorism. Essentially, the outlook is this: Through the coming year, expect to see the activity intensify, particularly among the lone-wolf types (as it has recently in both the Midwest and in the Sacramento area). It may even intensify after the millennium because of certain religious beliefs about the End Times.
However, you seem to be suggesting that the stories are only increasing in frequency because of enhanced media interest. As someone who tracks the levels of incidence very closely, I can assure you this is not the case. They really are increasing.
152. EricCartman1 - July 12, 1999 - 11:23 PM PT
Spuds:
I haven't gotten far enough into the book yet to know if you touch on this point, but it seems that the rural nature and isolated locations of these movements is precisely what makes them so dangerous, because they're far more difficult to keep an eye on. Also, since rural people are mostly conservative and religious, these areas are perfect for these guys to build up a support base, and still keep a relatively low profile.
That our increasingly urban-centered culture makes it easy to dismiss them as rubes is dangerous, once again. The town I live in is not very far from where the Williams boys grew up, or from where they committed the murders. There's an extremely high concentration of churches per capita in this area, high unemployment, and a lot of drug/gang activity, which pisses off the locals. Also quite a bit of overblown Y2K hysteria, which probably plays off of standard eschatologies.
So it's not terribly surprising to find that some of these guys are around here, too, and I'm sure there's plenty more where they came from.
153. CalGal - July 12, 1999 - 11:35 PM PT
Good heavens. They killed Alan Berg! I had no idea.
Amazing. I mean, Mathews is a successful bankrobber and gets $250K in one theft--fifty times more than he was likely to earn in any five year period. Does he run off to Europe and live in splendor? No, he gives it to the cause. And then steals 3.8 million successfully. Gives that to the cause, too. Unbelievable.
The guy was a damn good bank rober for a yokel, but fanaticism made him dumb as a stump. In any case, he listened to the wrong music. "Take the Money and Run" didn't seem to apply.
Yes, I'm being deliberately flip. But it's quite amazing, really. Smart people can actually *plan* to rob a bank and not be that successful.
Spud,
"It is a "volatile political subject" precisely because of the entanglement that we touched upon earlier today: the transmission of ideas and agendas from the radical right into the mainstream. "
I know we've gone round this before, but it seems to me that it's not the Patriots that are the problem, it's the fact that people closer to normal find their ideas appealing.
154. spudboy - July 13, 1999 - 2:14 AM PT
Cart: Your point is not one I explore in the book, but is well worth making. Coming from relatively isolated country myself, it's not something I'd thought about a lot. But you're hitting on an important reason as to why groups like the Aryan Nations moved to northern Idaho from southern California.
CalGal: Bob Mathews wasn't very bright, but he was very charismatic. Muscular, handsome guy, could be very engaging and charming, and always intense. I think he got by on charisma and daring.
You're precisely right about the Patriots -- though I'd reframe it to say that you're right about their core, namely leaders and close followers. They mostly comprise the discontented lot that will always be with us. When you get into the Freemen chapters, I think you'll agree that everyone has someone in their family like Ralph Clark. They're not the deeper problem (though they do represent the less immediate threat of violent behavior). The problem is the Emmett Clarks: the normal, tax-paying, churchgoing, solid-citizen types who are getting sucked along. There aren't just a few of them; there are a lot of them. I'd say they comprise the bulk of the Patriot movement's numbers, though it's usually the core ideologues who get quoted in the paper.
The key quote here is the one from Ken Toole on page 35: "What is going on in our society when somebody can come up with an idea like this, and a package of materials like this, and attract 200 people to a community meeting? To me, it's almost like a canary in a coal mine, and it's very indicative of how negative and hostile we've become about ourselves -- that somehow these people have managed to objectify the government at all levels, blame it for all kinds of things, and look for a way to kind of focus that anger."
155. spudboy - July 13, 1999 - 2:17 AM PT
BTW, I'm going to be wrapped up in work away from a computer for much of the day today, but I hope to be back late in the evening. Everyone seems quite capable of debate without me.
156. ScottLoar - July 13, 1999 - 4:05 AM PT
re Message #145: I don't know why you addressed me as your question is to Spudboy.
re Message #146: I'm supposed to interpret the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City not as the act of two goofy and twisted extremists but the first act of some drama playing out in your head?
re Message #147: Do these people vote? It seems that the most extremist of them reject all contact with the federal and local government except to declare their "natural rights". Hell, a coterie of peanut farmers has more political clout than these overweight saps running about in fatigues.
157. FreetoChoose - July 13, 1999 - 4:11 AM PT
spudboy
“FTC: I tried to answer Cart in Message #93, but must have missed the mark. What did you have in mind?”
Well, you did answer his specific question. I was trying to get at a broader issue, but I was also trying to get the discussion back on track. This having occurred, I'll shelve my question, and if it is still unanswered after I read further, I'll ask again.
158. ScottLoar - July 13, 1999 - 4:25 AM PT
re Message #149: Well, you've got me. I can't carry on a dialogue with the author until I've read the book. I still cannot see (blindingly obvious though it should be) how the Patriot Movement can "injects its issues into the broader arena and thus is capable of changing the national landscape politically". They want to mainstream their views? Well, so do all political parties, whether it be represented by B. Mathews or L. Farrakan - they need attention to their thoughts and goals. And in this (and in this democratically constructed society) they must contend with and against other groups. The worst infliction imposed on these extremists is public indifference, which is mostly their fate.
And please, why the equation with Nazis which party gained power not through popular acclaim (it was largely discredited by the time Hitler reached the Chancellory) but by a blunderous political appointment? Why not liken them to the offshoots of Christianity (the mainstream religion in Europe) which appear throughout history, radical and most often dead with the passing of their charismatic leaders, or of countless other political movements (yes, even anarchism) during the last two centuries now of remote interest only to scholars? Can the Patriot Movement grow beyond being a minor and insignificant problem? Yes, improbably so, but yes, but the roll of the dice in history could also favour any other number of probabilities.
Where we differ Spudboy, you and I, is that I - who admittedly know far, far less about the code, thought, organization and character of these groups than you - am not so godawful sure that the Patriot Movement can morph itself into the mainstream or seduce the sensibilities of the average American.
159. ScottLoar - July 13, 1999 - 4:28 AM PT
I will allow that the very idea of the Patriot Movement and its evil tentacles reaching out to clutch the very life from the body politic appeals to the melodrama which animates much of the discussions in this forum.
160. ScottLoar - July 13, 1999 - 4:32 AM PT
I also allow that Spudboy is an accomplished writer, I can not question his research, and as I've debated him before in this forum on a subject dear to both our hearts I hold his intellect in high regard. But, I do question his conclusion.
And yes, I'll read the book.
161. 109109 - July 13, 1999 - 6:16 AM PT
Loar
I addressed you because I'd had a few drinks and I'm a sailor, new in port.
162. cllrdr - July 13, 1999 - 7:19 AM PT
Hello sailor!
163. cllrdr - July 13, 1999 - 7:23 AM PT
"Also quite a bit of overblown Y2K hysteria, which probably plays off of standard eschatologies."
I think Y2K hysteria is the "mainstream's" way of Keeping Up With The Wingnuts
164. ScottLoar - July 13, 1999 - 7:34 AM PT
109109, good reply. My comment was churlish; I retract it with apologies to you.
165. ScottLoar - July 13, 1999 - 7:43 AM PT
The discontent many, many quite average Americans have for their government and society is real and I don't discount it, as testified by the massive migration of the mostly white and middle-class to the West, a West free of the multi-racial, entrenched political parties and dingy surroundings of the Midwest, North and southern California. But these are not a people yearning for extremist expression; to my mind they're just tired of the hassle that comes with living in and around US urban areas in this latter part of the 20th century and want to have control of things their way. Their antecedents, their spiritual predecessors, are not fascists but the seekers and founders of the New Jerusalems which are very much a part of this country's social history.
166. BoomerJeff - July 13, 1999 - 8:15 AM PT
#165 above...
Well said.
167. ScottLoar - July 13, 1999 - 8:19 AM PT
"...the number of kids being home schooled has increased 7 percent to 15 percent nationally in the past five years, the National Home Education Research Institute says" (Chicago Tribune, Section 7, p.3, July 13) which I would also interpret as testimony, in part, to disatisfaction with government and society. Yes, when polled parents may largely deny so but I do think home schooling is in large measure a reaction to the indiscipline and perceived excesses of public schooling; again, disatisfaction with government and society.
168. 109109 - July 13, 1999 - 8:36 AM PT
People home school for the same reason they are impressed with school choice/voucher proposals. Suburbanites and the rural disaffected have lost a great deal of faith in the public school system because they perceive that it delivers a lesser education, they have no confidence in a shared value system amongst peers, they sense that public school has become, in many areas, glorified day care, and in an age when children are very advanced sexually, as well as more aggressive to peers and adults, they fear having a child with no education, or worse, injured.
169. 109109 - July 13, 1999 - 8:38 AM PT
These delicate concerns over a shared value system are a soccer mom's way of articulating that the government has kicked God out of the classroom.
170. 109109 - July 13, 1999 - 8:44 AM PT
Minus the "God" part.
171. ScottLoar - July 13, 1999 - 8:58 AM PT
It goes even further. Home schooling, the move to the West, are shouting declarations that these people can no longer bear the tolerance expected of them in almost every sphere of public and private life. This "tolerance" has become insufferable.
172. Wombat - July 13, 1999 - 9:00 AM PT
There is a political continuum--or trajectory--that can take a person from conventional politics to activism to extremism to terrorism (and sometimes back). It is applicable across the board, regardless of ideology or cause.
In a country living under the rule of law, with a reasonably responsive political system (which, of course cannot satisfy everyone), and a strong tradition of individual rights, this continuum usually leaves off at the activist level, with extremists and terrorists being almost completely marginalized.
It is interesting to note, however, that in some cases, parts of the political establishment find themselves acting as apologists for extremists and terrorists. Examples are parts of the Democratic Party in the 1960s and 70s with antiwar, left-wing and black power groups, bipartisan apologists for the IRA (Paul O'Dwyer then, Peter King now), and elements of the Republican Party with right-wing extremism in the 1990s. To deny this is shortsighted and potentially destructive to our system of government.
173. 109109 - July 13, 1999 - 9:07 AM PT
Loar
I think you are correct for a great many middle class folks. The "tolerance" that would oppress the upper-middle and upper classes can be financed out or weathered with regard to education, i.e., you can pay for a rigorous private education with a very high percentage chance that your child will be educated amongst peers with shared values OR you have enough money that even if your child ends up being a dumb cluck with minimal education, his nest is feathered sufficiently that he can be absorbed with little effort.
Most people, however, don't have these options. And I agree. They are looking for alternatives to kids with ADD, and bi-lingual education, and condoms in school, and teacher strikes, and violence, and value-neutral environments, and discipline-free settings, even if it means foregoing a "free" public education.
174. ScottLoar - July 13, 1999 - 9:35 AM PT
Having said all this I would think that the Patriot Movement (scoundrels all if "patriot" yet retains its famous definition) is as repulsive to almost all these middle-class folks we've described as would be L. Farrakan's (am I getting that spelling right?) screed.
175. 109109 - July 13, 1999 - 9:37 AM PT
If they have a clue what it is, which they don't, because it is somewhere far and away, and irrelevant to their hub.
176. ChristinO - July 13, 1999 - 10:27 AM PT
I was just recently in Sacramento----right after the bombings in fact----and discussing these phenomena with another former long-time resident of the area.
Two things that everyone in the area knows are that Oak Park/South Sac is a hotbed of non-white gang activity and that Citrus Heights is full of sheetheads.
For those of you unfamiliar with the area South Sac is predominantly non-white and poor and Citrus Heights is almost completely white and middle class. These are not the Oakies of Placerville or the trailer park dwellers from accross the river. These people are not marginal. There is quite a bit of money in the area and while the vast majority of them are not meeting in warehouses dressed in hoods they tend to turn a blind eye to those who do.
177. cllrdr - July 13, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
Spud -- Two key questions:
1) Do you have a publicist?
2) Have you approached, or have you been approached by any of the cable news shows? MSNBC par example.
178. cllrdr - July 13, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
"they sense that public school has become, in many areas, glorified day care"
(adopting Bette Davis intonation)
But they *are* glorified daycare Niner, they *are* glorified day care.
179. CIGARLAW - July 14, 1999 - 12:52 AM PT
imho, most people in this country who don't daily suck at the govt's teet are simply tired of being protected from themselves.
180. AzureNW - July 14, 1999 - 1:04 AM PT
imho, from the heart of God's country, we are most
tired of not being protected from cold-blooded, predatory profit.
181. ScottLoar - July 14, 1999 - 4:51 AM PT
Message #179 and Message #180 sum up the contrary attitudes to life and government in these United States.
182. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
Scott:
My apologies for the day away yesterday. I had my hands full. Your responses are quite rich and will take some time to go through. But here were go:
Message #156: “I'm supposed to interpret the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City not as the act of two goofy and twisted extremists but the first act of some drama playing out in your head?”
You're clearly buying into a model of analysis called “Centrist/Extremist Theory,” an offshoot of the chief sociological model of the ‘40s and ‘50s, “Collective Behavior Theory,” which stressed irrational dimensions of movements and often saw them as potentially dangerous, temporary aberrations in the otherwise smooth-flowing social system.
Let me recommend a resource for more on this point: Public Research Associates' page on “Studying the Right,” which has a large amount of material on C/E Theory.
I'll quote from Chip Berlet's explanation: “Under centrist/extremist theory, dissident movements of the left and right were portrayed as composed of outsiders -- politically marginal people who have no connection to the mainstream electoral system or nodes of government or corporate power. Their anxiety is heightened by fears that their economic or social status is slipping. Under great stress, these psychologically fragile people snap into a mode of irrational political hysteria, and as they embrace an increasingly paranoid style they make militant and unreasonable demands. Because they are unstable they can become dangerous and violent. Their extremism places them far outside the legitimate political process, which is located in the center where "pluralists" conduct democratic debates.
183. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT
"The solution prescribed by centrist/extremist theory is to marginalize the dissidents as radicals and dangerous extremists. Their demands need not be taken seriously. Law enforcement can then be relied upon to break up any criminal conspiracies by subversive radicals that threaten the social order.”
You can read through the rest of the above piece to see why and how Centrist/Extremist Theory has become discredited. But the coup d'etat was delivered by a study that is important to this discussion, James Aho's “The Politics of Righteousness: Idaho Christian Patriotism.” (“Christian Patriots” is what the movement called itself in the 1980s and then morphed into the more secular and simple “Patriot movement” by the early 1990s.) Aho, who conducted a complete study with a full statistical sample, found that while a number of Patriots indeed fit the profile predicted by Centrist/Extremist Theory, the majority did not. He found that they were often well educated (their average education was above the average American's), held regular jobs (though they did experience a higher degree of occupational isolation), and appeared “normal” by most measures: “Idaho's patriots in general do not seem more socially alienated from their communities than cross-sections of Americans or Idahoans. ... Out of the seven alienation vairables on which information was gathered, statistical support for the theory of mass politics [another term for C/E theory] is found for only one.”
184. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT
An important note here, though, from Aho: “Still, it is important to acknowledge that while the theory of mass politics may not in a mechanical sense accurately portray the reality of Idaho Christian patriotism, it may be valid if understodd as part of a dynamic reflexive process. In other words, if Idaho's radical patriots did not start out socially isolated, they certainly ended that way. And my impression is that once label “Nazi,” “criminal” or “crazy” by authorities, they will be forcibly expelled from the larger community and its consensual restraints. Common sense and deviancy theory alike tell us that this expulsion should encourage their radical propensities. The question for policymakers is how to respond effectively to antidemocratic variants of the politics of righteousness without inadvertently driving it underground and increasing its own psychological hold over its proponents, to their detriment and our own misfortune.”
185. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
More from Message #156: “Do these people vote? It seems that the most extremist of them reject all contact with the federal and local government except to declare their "natural rights". Hell, a coterie of peanut farmers has more political clout than these overweight saps running about in fatigues.” But only the most extremist of them don't vote. The chief portion of them do, and their numbers have been steadily growing. Count on them providing, for instance, a good portion of Sen. Bob Smith's support in his independent presidential candidacy. As to their actual clout: Consider that not only have they in fact helped elect a couple of members of Congress (Chenoweth being the notable example) as well as Sens. Conrad Burns, Jesse Helms and Bob Smith, but they have been fairly active in getting Patriots elected to state legislatures and local school boards. Sen. Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader, openly associated with a Patriot offshoot -- the neo-Confederate movement -- until he was called on it. (And more than a few of us suspect Tom DeLay of being a closet Patriot, which also represents a great deal of clout.)
186. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
From Message #158: “I still cannot see (blindingly obvious though it should be) how the Patriot Movement can ‘inject its issues into the broader arena and thus is capable of changing the national landscape politically.' They want to mainstream their views?” They not only want to, they have been succeeding with great regularity. I've already mentioned the Clinton-hating aspects of this phenomenon. But there are many others. How many times have you heard lately, in the debate over guns, that the Second Amendment is intended to arm the populace for the purpose of insurrection against its own government (or, as it's more often put, “to defend against tyranny”)? How many times have you heard theories about taxes being “unconstitutional”? How about the idea that “international bankers” are really running the economic show?
There's a whole parcel of issues that have their origins in the far right and that find their way into the mainstream, shorn of their racist/anti-Semitic underpinnings and sold and debated as purely mainstream political ideas. They make their way there through a variety of “transmitters”: people with one foot in both worlds and who pick up the ideas from the echo chambers of the far right and carry them over to the mainstream as being worthy of including in the debate. They include politicians like Chenoweth, Smith, DeLay, Lott or Bob Barr; talk-show figures like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved; religious figures like Pat Robertson and Jerry (“the antiChrist is a Jewish male” Falwell; and nowadays, through Internet sites like The Free Republic.
187. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
More from Message #158: “And please, why the equation with Nazis which party gained power not through popular acclaim (it was largely discredited by the time Hitler reached the Chancellory) but by a blunderous political appointment?” If you'll go back to my original post, you'll see that the comparison is specifically to Italian and German fascism in their formative stages. For Italian fascism, this includes the years 1914-21, particularly the postwar period of 1919-21 when the _Fasci di combattimento_ formed armed “action squads” or _squadrismo_ in rural Italy, particularly in northern and central Italy. For German fascism, the period of reference is 1918-1925, when _volkisch_ elements gradually focused from a proliferation of proto-fascisms into Hitler's NDSP. As I detail in the book, the similarities are many and deep.
And for good reason: The Patriot movement is directly descended from clearly proto-fascist elements in the United States, particularly the Klan of the 1920s and William Dudley Pelley's Silvershirts of the 1930s-40s. The Posse Comitatus and Christian Identity, from whom the Patriots arose, are directly descended from these earlier elements. (It's all there in Chapter 3.)
Secondarily, for the movement, religion largely gives them a context, but its stress has been almost purely political as it attempts to mainstream itself. The religious background is important; a text I strongly recommend in this matter is Michael Barkun's _Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement_. I think comparisons to the movements, mostly religious in nature, you mention can be useful, and I certainly hope it meets the same fate. But it is not particularly an apt comparison, because its chief focus is secular politics.
188. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
At any rate, the facts of Hitler's ascent (rather different from Mussolini's, you'll note) are not relevant to the comparison I made, which was to the formative stages of a fascist movement, when it's more accurate to call it proto-fascist. I haven't any notion or prediction about what route the Patriots might take to achieve power -- though your example does raise an important point that it is possible for fascists to achieve power without ever winning an election. Like you, I am skeptical that they have the ability to do so, at least at present. As you say: “Can the Patriot Movement grow beyond being a minor and insignificant problem? Yes, improbably so, but yes, but the roll of the dice in history could also favour any other number of probabilities.” That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, though. And it doesn't mean they don't represent a problem, and a potentially major one at that, in the interim.
In that sense, I rather strongly disagree with your characterization that they represent “a minor and insignificant” problem. I don't think the current spate of domestic terrorism, rising (as I've demonstrated) since 1995, is an “insignificant” phenomenon. You seem unwilling to discuss this aspect of the movement and focus on its non-violent players, but the violence emanating from it is one of the chief reasons it's a cause for concern.
189. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
A postscript to the above: Even if we do wish to compare the Patriots to the many religious or political sects that have paraded across the pages of history and disappeared, it's worth remembering that a few of these small groups always succeed. A prime example is the LDS Church, which began as a tiny cult in northwestern New York state, and is now one of the world's major religions.
190. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
More from Message #158: “Where we differ Spudboy, you and I, is that I -- who admittedly know far, far less about the code, thought, organization and character of these groups than you -- am not so godawful sure that the Patriot Movement can morph itself into the mainstream or seduce the sensibilities of the average American.”
Well, I think I've shown here to a lesser extent and in more detail in the book that the movement is perfectly capable of capturing an audience with the average American. I can't tell you how many of the people who go to militia meetings and “constitutional law” seminars and “preparedeness expos” are truly average people, but my experience has been that they overwhelmingly form the basis for the Patriot movement's numerical successes. However, I too wonder to what extent the movement can ever morph itself into the mainstream, though I think it's obvious that the more Patriot issues receive play among mainstream conservatives, the more the mainstream itself is transformed by the ensuing debate.
“I will allow that the very idea of the Patriot Movement and its evil tentacles reaching out to clutch the very life from the body politic appeals to the melodrama which animates much of the discussions in this forum.” Well, I've been hoping to avoid melodrama and discuss the situation rationally. You'll note that I am particularly opposed to the drama queens who call themselves “the Anti-Nazi Coalition” or whatever and show up to protest the Patriots by screaming epithets at them, and then walk away smugly self-satisfied because they took action while the locals supposedly just “sat on their hands” (which was the case recently in Coeur d'Alene). I think if you take the time to read my book you'll see that my approach is fairly deliberate.
191. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
Message #167
“But these are not a people yearning for extremist expression; to my mind they're just tired of the hassle that comes with living in and around US urban areas in this latter part of the 20th century and want to have control of things their way.” You're quite right. But a large number of them a sympathetic and ultimately somewhat susceptible to Patriot ideology. When they move out here and all their neighbors are espousing Posse tax theories, what do *you* think happens?
And while the numbers of actual Patriots is far from overwhelming in rural America, I would say that the number of people who sympathize with them is. I would to have counted how many times I (and others who work the field) have heard neighbors, friends and relatives of Patriots say: “Well, I don't buy everything they say, but I think some of it might be true, and I certainly can understand why they'd feel that way” (or some variant thereupon). In fact, it's rare when you can find a rural dweller out here who doesn't say something like that.
192. spudboy - July 14, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
Message #174:
“Having said all this I would think that the Patriot Movement (scoundrels all if "patriot" yet retains its famous definition) is as repulsive to almost all these middle-class folks we've described as would be L. Farrakhan's screed.” Hardly. See above.
Cllrdr: RE: Message #177 ....
“1) Do you have a publicist?”
Sort of. WSU Press has a marketing person in charge of getting publicity arranged. However, I've been doing most of it myself.
“2) Have you approached, or have you been approached by any of the cable news shows? MSNBC par example.”
Not about the book. I was on MSNBC recently to discuss my domestic-terrorism report. It was a very brief appearance. I'm afraid I'm going to have wait until Jane Kramer reviews it for the New Yorker (supposed to be imminent in the next couple of months) before I get much, if any, national attention.
193. BoomerJeff - July 14, 1999 - 3:27 PM PT
How about a few examples of political ideas that are advocated by Rush Limbaugh, Medved, Barr, DeLay, etc that have their roots in the patriot/militia movement and are "transmitted without their racist underpinnings."?
194. ScottLoar - July 14, 1999 - 7:32 PM PT
I had not expected nor was prepared for such measured reply but now see that old Chinese adage realized, "May the brick I throw attract jade from others".
I had not understood I was buying into the Centrist/Extremist Theory of which theory I was thoroughly ignorant until you credited me (great minds think alike). Yet you agree that "a number of Patriots indeed fit the profile" but a majority do not. Again, even the most extreme do not vote yet "the chief portion of them do". By that and other of your comments I understand the Patriot Movement has its extremists and its centrists, its small share of nuts and goofs seemingly recognizable and so defined, and its larger membership (is it a membership? Card carrying? Or just those who "identify" in varying degrees of sympathy with the movement? Or even those who coincidentally share some few similar views?) of really quite average persons remarkable only for their above average degree of education but otherwise quite normal, with the stunning exception that they belong to or sympathize with this Patriot Movement. But, how will I know them? You have a prescriptive listing of opinions on topics which defines a member or sympathizer of the Movement? And as proof of the evil of the Movement and its insinuation into the mainstream you parade "politicians like Chenoweth, Smith, DeLay, Lott or Bob Barr; talk-show figures like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved; religious figures like Pat Robertson and Jerry...Falwell" (what about actors like Heston and Seleck? Just guessing) who are tarred alike as political extremists (fascists?) and recognized Clinton-haters, further identifiable by their views on gun control, taxation, and often somewhat improbably "the idea that 'international bankers' are really running the economic show". And this is supposedly proof that fascism is percolating into American mainstream political thought? What, pray tell, are we to do? Vote
195. ScottLoar - July 14, 1999 - 7:34 PM PT
Vote like you? Think like you? I confess I don't feel comfortable with you opening closet doors and prodding for Patriots. Hell, you're likely to find a Clinton-hater like me among the dirty clothes.
196. Mazaska - July 14, 1999 - 9:12 PM PT
This is an interesting discussion.
So interesting that I have now ordered spudboy's book and subscribed to Slate.
I look forward to contributing to the discussion once my copy of the book arrives and I can read it.
(from what has been said, I should invest in a magnifying glass?)
197. ScottLoar - July 14, 1999 - 9:23 PM PT
Small print daunts me.
198. arkymalarky - July 14, 1999 - 9:50 PM PT
Welcome to the Fray, Mazaska.
I've still got to pick up the book, hopefully in the next few days. I agree that it's a very interesting discussion.
199. patsyrolph - July 15, 1999 - 12:52 AM PT
Hello and welcome mazaska. Yes the type is teeny.
I have failing vision and need a very bright light
such as a halogen lamp to read most things, for spudboys book i did indeed need to use a reading glass; irritating at first but the book is interesting enough to propel one forward lens in hand.
200. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 2:43 AM PT
Scott:
You're veering off on the same tangent as BoomerJeff, so again I need to emphasize that I'm not suggesting that echoing Patriot propaganda means you are a Patriot; it just means you're picking up ideas or pseudo-facts from questionable sources. More to the point, I've never claimed “proof that fascism is percolating into American mainstream political thought”; what I've said is that a proto-fascist movement is gaining momentum by wedging its issues into the mainstream, and gradually drawing the mainstream toward it. I'll further illustrate the point in a way that I hope answers both of your questions. (I suppose I can take some comfort in the knowledge that at least Scott won't denounce me as a coward, liar and general scumbucket afterward.)
Here are some recent examples of what I'm talking about:
-- One of Sen. Bob Smith's major platforms is “defending American sovereignty.” Listen to his speeches and you'll find them sprinkled with references to the looming “New World Order” and demands that the U.S. pull out of the United Nations. He considers Patriot martyr Michael New, a Marine who refused to don U.N. regalia and was court-martialed, a hero. He frequently holds forth on how the nation has to “return to its constitutional roots” or “constitutional rule” (a favorite refrain of the Patriots, as though we don't currently live under the Constitution). And of course, he now has pulled out of the GOP because it isn't conservative enough -- a course of action frequently recommended by Patriots.