What Obama Means For The White Nationalist Movement
First of all, I want to thank Leonard Zeskind not just for Blood and Politics, but for all the work he's done over the years tracking the White Nationalist movement. While writing my first book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, I learned how psychologically grueling - not to mention tedious - it can be to spend lots of time in milieus whose values are radically opposed to one's own. Leonard, you've persisted in this crucial work much longer than I ever could have, and I'd be curious to know how you manage it.
Though of course, that's not the most pertinent question here. For me, the one looming issue raised by your book is what Obama means for this movement. I suspect the election of any Democratic president would have resulted in an increase in right-wing terrorism; as I've written many times before, it was no accident that right-wing domestic violence peaked amid all the febrile conspiracy-theorizing of the Clinton years and then fell off under Bush. But obviously Obama takes it to a whole new level - he's pretty much the embodiment of the white nationalist movement's nightmares. There are plenty of disturbing signs out there suggesting growing activity among violent, far-right groups. What are you seeing? And what do you predict?
I'd also be curious to hear your thoughts about the overlap between the mainstream demagogic right - say, Glenn Beck - and the movement you're investigating here. One notable feature of our current moment is the way rhetoric that, in the 1990s, was largely the preserve of short-wave radio and Spotlight magazine is now a feature of prime-time television. Yet I don't think Beck and his ilk are motivated by racism - rather, they're in the grip of the kind of grandiose, closed-circuit apocalyptic thinking Richard Hofstadter wrote about so indelibly in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." The broader right shares some of the narratives of the white nationalist movement - the country is wallowing in decadent decline, beset by cosmopolitan conspiracies and awaiting a patriotic vanguard to rise up against tyranny. But it doesn't share the white nationalist movement's ultimate goal of a white-only society. What, then, is their relationship?
Are you asking for Mr. Zeskind's comment alone, or opening this up to the field?
July 1, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Ms. Goldberg is definitely interested in hearing what the broader group has to say!
July 1, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first comment worked, so I'll chime in. Your first question about enduring ugly milieus opposed to one's own values and possibly existence is an important question for larger reasons: it would be that quality that would enable members of any self-isolated minority group (here, a minority subculture, not race) which felt (justified or not) 'under seige' to coexist without going militant. How do they endure their own discomfort without concluding that their own discomfort is no longer tolerable?
Obviously this goes to the old advice to children that "no one can make you feel bad without your permission." The same goes for fear.
How can these groups obtain self-knowledge, that all-important epiphany that sets people free? Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. That includes the truth about self. It would be by actually behaving as Christians rather than abusing the name only. And that would imply non-aggression.
Your book title included "Christian" which I think shows a bit of bias on your part because Christian by mainstream Christian standards is the last thing the movement you're talking about actually is. Love thy neighbor; love thine enemy...the New Testament is pretty clear that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek nor Scythian nor slave nor free, no male or female distinctions or discriminations before God. The express teachings of the Christian texts are opposite those of the WNM.
July 1, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
To elaborate, by using the term Christian, especially as some of these groups self-identify, you're giving them something they do not deserve to name. You're suggesting something in common with the majority of Americans. That is a mistake of association, but worse, it is an implication by title that somehow, the majority thinks this way.
I'm aware that editors or publishers will sometimes control the title with or without the author's agreement.
Another problem with this is that it tends to offend those in the majority for whom it is offensive to be associated by terminology with such a movement, and then have your publisher reinforce it in a popular title.
How we use language matters, especially labels which can work derogatory results in several directions.
Perhaps quotation marks around "Christian Nationalism" would fix the problem. Hopefully your premise is not against Christianity in general, or else it tends toward factional division where none is warranted.
You may say I'm quibbling about the term "Christian nationalism," but you see there are some nationalistic Americans who are Christians who could easily see themselves in the crosshairs of that title while they totally disapprove of WNM and its premises.
July 1, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of ongoing quandary. Why do fundamentalist Christians consistently quote from the old testament? Maybe we can refer to them as OT Christians?
July 1, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I simply say, "Oh, I see your are Jewish!"
July 1, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Partially stolen concept from one of Lewis Black's routines.
July 1, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry mike, but when it comes to religious affiliation we have no choice but to take people at their word. if you call yourself a christian, you're a christian. if you call yourself a muslim, you're a muslim.
no objective standard exists that allows us to differentiate between the 'true' christians and the 'fake' ones.
July 2, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why mention it at all if it isn't the actual problem?
"Christian" used by a white nationalist group is a label to attempt to get mainstream support. No sane person actually thinks these people are followers of Christ. However, knowing this yet using the term despite that knowledge is itself a sort of back handed bigotry toward Christians.
There is breast cancer. As I understand it, the breast is not the problem. It's the cancer.
July 10, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
you ignore who these people are and misunderstand what they believe if you think they just use 'christian' as a label to get 'mainstream support'.
July 15, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
They refer to themselves as Christians because they believe they are. Their version involves cherrypicking verses and misinterpretations to fit their preconceived notions. Although they do meet for Bible study it is a tool for confirmation rather than any type of understanding or enlightenment. It's not PR spin at all; they truly believe the Bible justifies, condones, and supports their hatred.
July 21, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am interested to read what everybody elese says about the questions Ms. Goldberg asks, so I will make only two points quickly.
The number of victims of white nationalist violence may have been greater during the Clinton years, but that was simply because of the Oklahoma City bombing--not because there was less violence under Repub licans. During the Reagan years, The Order and a number of other groups created the first instance of a armed white underfround circa 1983-1987.
As to whether Beck and his ilk are motivated by racism: you don't have to openly proclaim your goal to be a whites-only society to be motivated by racism. Witness Pat Buchanan, et. al. And I spend a considerable amount of energy in the point trying to parse out some of the ways that white nationalism and ordinary racism both intersect and bifurcate.
I will leave it at that for now.
July 1, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Zeskind, do you have any idea what size Glenn Beck's audience is, and of those, would you be able to accurately represent how many members of his audience are motivated by racism, other than by simply assuming that they are?
What specific criteria would you set for deciding on an individual audience member basis which member was motivated by racism versus another, if you could gather such information via audience interviews / surveys?
Would there be something other than your assertion that they were racist or might be, that we could readily identify with the larger racism that you imply?
Also, is nationalism itself necessarily racist in your view? I realize that it could have race elements to it; but it could also have cultural-historical elements to it not rooted in racial superiority screeds but in common sacrifice for democracy. If so, what are your reasons for saying so.
July 1, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" using ideology, hate, paranoia and demagoguery.
July 1, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The white nationalists and a subset of conservative Christians share a number of interesting characteristics.
1. There is always an "other". I can guarantee you that Beck and the majority of his brethren sincerely believe there is nothing racist about them. They would probably not do/say anything racist on purpose. Oddly, they are certain their position is the least racist. With them the "other" isn't race, not overtly. It changes according to the perceived threat of the moment.
2. Both groups tend to have a Machinean type worldview. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong. Period.
3. Both groups while not necessarily lacking in intelligence (and some are very bright), appear to have a fundamental inability to apply any intellectual curiosity regarding divergent views. It's like subconscious purposeful ignorance. They are so convinced of their position they believe they do not need to examine any other.
4. Their belief is their identity. I think this is a key point and explains a lot of what looks like incredibly irrational beliefs and behavior. If they question their beliefs it necessarily calls into question their very identity.
July 21, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Sullivan posted this. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/where-the-far-right-now-is.html
It's America Firster anti-semite Michael Scheuer (former CIA dude) telling Glenn Beck that we need a major AQ attack on this country to deter the liberals.
This sounds treasonous to me.
But it opens up the possibility of a weird alliance between fascists and the AQ-type terrorists they hate. Why not help them out if you think that only an AQ attack that kills lots of Americans will save the country from Obama. That seems to be where they are heading.
July 1, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
REMEMBER THE MAINE?
July 1, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right wing extremism is, in part, a victim's narrative. They don't say "we're in the wilderness" or "we lost an election," they say they're "the silent majority" and then they make up all sorts of insane stories to justify the label.
Remember during the Clinton years that white conservatives claimed to be the victims of "reverse racism" in the workplace and on campuses.
Then during the Bush years we got the insane notions of a "war on Christmas" and the portrayal of Christians as somehow oppressed!
Liberals, even the extremists, just aren't like that. Can you imagine the reaction from today's Obama-birthers if, back in 2000, the Supreme Court had handed the election to Gore? Can you imagine the reaction of the people who accused Bill and Hillary not only of murder but of using Arkansas to bring cocaine into the country would have reacted to that?
Fact is that liberals, even the most extreme, reacted to the 2000 travesty without any violence at all. We all know that if the Supremes had chosen Gore that the domestic terrorists from the militia movement would have leapt into (probably inept but possibly tragic) action.
July 1, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, your comment is testimony to both partisan camps' tendency not to own or take responsibility for their own extreme members or identifiers and their excesses. Perhaps this is more often done in private.
CBS reported this about Timothy McVeigh and Unabomber Ted Kaczynski:
"They found they had a lot in common although, as McVeigh says, Kaczynski is "far left" while he is "far right" politically. "I found that, in a way that I didn't realize, that we were much alike in that all we ever wanted or all we wanted out of life was the freedom to live our own lives however we chose to," McVeigh told Bradley."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/03/13/national/main171231.shtml
The above link takes you to the CBS piece which also outlines McVeigh's motives as rooted in sentiments against government's unjust or excessive use of force in Desert Storm's bombing campaign and at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Consider how that sentiment intersects with anti-war sentiment, despite that using unjust force against the Oklahoma City victims was McVeigh's irrational solution. But note, he was anti-federal government and his bombing killed many people of anglo origins. Was it a racial mass homicide crime, or did he use racists associates to carry out his own motives?
When you say that liberals, even the most extreme, didn't engage in violence in 2000, you ignore eco-terrorism. It seems that the left does not care so much about America as a nation-state with an identity so much that they would risk violence to keep it a certain character, whereas right wing extremes do have notions of what is and isn't 'American'. Leftist extremists expect America to uphold certain values they identify with if it is to be a good America, and if it doesn't, violence is not ruled out by extreme elements to enforce their value systems.
My premise is that partisan activity, provocation and politics fans the flames of extremism across the board, in part because certain racial identifications "tend" to identify their group interests with one party or another and by so doing adopt the competitive animosity of party on many issues into race-political interest; and both parties seem pretty good at making promises to such constituents and continuing on with their banners overhead, even if not really practicing what they promise. What seems to happen is that money ends up the undertow beneath all such supposed ideals and the irresolution of racial-cultural conflicts causes more pressure over time, pressure that each side hopes to make into political gain.
As to racist attitudes among the larger populations, it has been said that assimilation is essential to immigration into America. It seems to me that assimilation works the other way too, that is, older immigrant groups must assimilate themselves to the new diverse whole because they rely on the work of new immigrants to keep their prices low and make their standard of living higher But they must extend the ladder of opportunity to the new, or it is a form of indentured servitude. This assimilation at the very least must mean racial acceptance, the accord of civil rights, and fair-across-the-board immigration policy. Interesting that the George W. Bush administration for all of its targeted actions, moved toward more practical and permissive cross border policies rather than the non-merry go round of abusive immigration enforcement that accepts their labor without traditional American respect for those who work for the greater American good.
July 1, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any source, other than the assertion of Timothy McVeigh, that Ted Kaczynski was a "far left" extremist?
Do you have any other examples of domestic terrorism associated with the left, or left-leaning groups, aside from the eco-terrorist you mentioned?
-- ARG
P.S. I do not support the tactics of eco-terrorists, but it seems to me that they have caused far fewer deaths. The attacks I'm familiar with involve the destruction of property, mainly (burning down of new condo/apartment complex, mass vandalism of SUVs at a car delear). They don't tend to shoot people or bomb them.
July 1, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
By that definition, the far-right extremists have mostly flapped their gums rather than killing people.
Not to say they haven't caused some deaths, but I think the implication that many or most on the right believe these insane things keeps democrats from ever fashioning a true governing majority through co-opting the moderates who make up the vast majority of the republican party. Right now all they hear from "the left" are insults and accusations of extremism when none exists, which only puts them in defensive mode.
I think the biggest missed opportunity right now for the democratic party faithful was an inability to put aside what they are seeing in the corporate media in the interests of driving grassroots change in both parties. Without We The People pushing from below, nothing will ever change at the top, no matter which party is in charge.
July 2, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not mean to offer any proposed "definition" for anything.
I simply wish to question the assertion above that (to paraphrase) "both sides do it" -- that extremist activities from left and right represent essentially equivalent risks in our society. I am not convinced that this is true.
I have not read Mr. Zeskind's book, so I don't know whether he is trying to exaggerate the risk of right-wing extremists, as you seem to think he is.
I am certainly not advocating any extra-Constitutional means to deal with some imagined threat from within. Normal law enforcement practices should suffice. But I do believe that there are a number of dangerous and pretty well armed nut-jobs out there, and that we ignore them at our peril.
-- ARG
July 2, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my main point was the choice isn't just Ignore Them or Freak Out About Them.
I also think that comparing relative levels of crazy doesn't really move the conversation forward. Mostly, it leads to back-and-forth partisan arguments that pivot around the issue and never really come to any conclusions. We do that with all our political debates.
To your main point, though, extremes of any stripe will always involve varying levels of insanity or justification on the part of the ideologue.
July 2, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't call either criminal normal. However, if you look at it, the extremes have different ideological emphases, however, similar extreme reactions to the demands of their own ideology. You didn't read too closely: McVeigh got help from righties, but he was anti-government because of experiences in a war launched and carried out under a rightward administration. That the Clinton Admin happened to be in power when McVeigh managed to pull off what he did is incidental. Because the left's ideology would prefer to lump someone like McVeigh with the right, then the labeling began. But in reading McVeigh's account of his anti-government leanings, it sounds similar to leftist terrorists from days gone by who were revolutionary in nature.
It does no good from a law enforcement or military law enforcement perspective to profile these terrorists according to their specific rightist or leftist ideology; instead, these folks share willingness and capability to take it a step into protest violence.
Interestingly, I sometimes wonder if more extreme persons whose profile includes signs of capability and willingness to carry out terrorism were given press time to reveal their inner spleens on national TV, they might then de-radicalize. I'm not sure, but it is just an idea running through my head. The coverage should be honest, let them speak, and then be as exacting with them as it would questioning other sources of news. Would this take wind from their sails? Or popularize them? It's worth a discussion. Perhaps some media organizations have interviewed extremists with such profiles and have data on how many went on to do terrorist acts or protest violence / vandalism.
July 12, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the goals of Beck and his kind are not completely in line with the objectives of the WNM, they share a racist root. It is also a mockery of sympathy that Beck et al generate when acts of violence erupt. They say the right thing, but everything else about the declaration is insincere. The statement of feigned outrage is gratuitous. Sure, question how I can know that, but if one compares their disgust to the fact that the women's health doctor, Dr. Tiller, was murdered to their disgust that people thought they had some accountability for that deed and one can see where my assumption originates and that it is not completely unfounded. The WNM is a useful tool for Beck, but he appears to keep himself far enough away that people can write articles such as this, questioning any relationship. There appears to be one, but there are no concrete ties. I advocate for the Dems, but I'm an independent ... and so is Lou Dobbs. hahahaha
July 1, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd think you'd want more data simply to craft a more enlightened response rather than assume the motives and connections are secret. If any mainstream guy's connections included violent radicals, don't you think those connections would be investigated by the FBI / HS?
As for symmetry, is that necessarily collusion? If you can prove collusion, that would be more convincing than assuming it must be present. Such assumptions are based in fear that they may be, so just in case, we'll err on the side of believing in collusion, or even conspiracy.
That simply doesn't resolve the problems that these authors bring up in their books.
July 1, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would hope they would be, but I am not so sure. It seems during the past Administration, a lot of the Right Wing whackos were ignored in favor of PETA.
As for collusion, I was trying to suggest they do not actively communicate, there is no collusion, but I believe they do share a basic racist foundation. They're singing from the same playbook, if you will.
July 2, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The varying sophistication and motives of these groups needs attention.
Non-partisan education would tend to give extreme partisan terrorists less fuel. Unfortunately, throughout schooling (which in US public schools includes inculcation of socializing values) we have partisans injecting their preferred political ideologies into the classroom, pitting a child's loyalty to their parental sources against the institution, and making the powerful institution appear an indoctrinating machine designed to brainwash students and take their freedom away. You look at the popular music and culture young people listen to and there has always been a suspicion of this sort of thing --- "We don't need no education ... we don't need no mind control .. no dark sarcasm in the classroom .." etc.
July 12, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Extremists home school.
July 22, 2009 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the more numerous, organized and vocal a radical group is the easier it is to locate and penetrate with informers and tap telephones and look at money movements.
The people who really frighten me are the loners that don't talk, don't threaten, don't blog, don't twitter, just sit home cleaning their guns and brooding.
July 1, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember how the Patriot Act was written before 9/11?
Ya know how Constitutional safeguards have been significantly been chipped away at, under Bush and continuing under "lefty" Obama?
If there was a shadow government intent on eliminating all democratic threats to its ever strengthening hold on power, it might use people like Glenn Beck to agitate right wing militancy and hope for or assist in an attack., as M.J. suggests.
Not only would such an attack prove the failure of "liberals," but it would excuse these "liberals" to continue the assaults of our Constitution, which, as I mentioned, is already underway by Obama/Rahm.
The American population could be divided and conquered, as right wingers cheer whatever attack(s) are carried out in their name, and left leaning Americans are convinced that further Constitutional sacrifices are necessary to protect them from the right wingers.
The people of America lose, but those who have the power to make Obama turn into Bush/Cheney light win big-time.
Remember Naomi Wolf's 10 steps to closing down an open society:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html
They created an external threat in al Queda/Iraq/A-rabs, and took away some of the freedoms they claimed bin Laden hated us for.
Now they want to create an internal threat, so they can continue to put the squeeze on us.
Amazingly good timing on the release of this book...
July 1, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember this Pentagon quiz from a couple weeks ago?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527181,00.html
The question asked:
“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”
— Attacking the Pentagon
— IEDs
— Hate crimes against racial groups
— Protests
The correct answer, according to the exam, was "Protests."
And let's not forget that Obama hasn't issued any statements condemning the continued recruitment of Neo Nazis into our armed forces.
If this is such a left/right issue, why is our lefty president continuing to allow the training of Neo Nazis for their much fantasized race war?
July 1, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's Rachel Maddow tearing apart Obama's claim to indefinite detention, to an extent that even Bush never tried:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY
Who puts these policies in his mouth?
July 1, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an awkward war. It is not against a nation we fight, but an ideal. If this was a real war, and we were up against a nation, we would hold the captured until the war was over and that nation was defeated. So how will we know when this war is ended so that we could release them? These are enemy combatants, not soldiers of a nation. Now, I am not advocating the newly developed double-speak of the Bush Administration, I am just asking in whose army did they fight and will that army negotiate an early release for them? Where can we send them?
July 2, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the idea that this is a widespread problem just waiting to burst forth is the sort of myth as mainstream republicans tell themselves about liberals getting ready to institute a communist state. When are we going to stop debating isolated extremism as if it encompasses the ideals of the silent majority?
Politicians and their press stooges always latch on to the most extreme ideas from their ideological enemies as a way to classify and dehumanize them using partisan language that essentially says, "If They are that crazy, then how could we possibly work with them? They will just need to shut up and get used to the idea that We are now in charge."
This ideological ping-pong match continues to pollute our national efforts.
July 2, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
but who are you talking to/about here?
who here is offering 'the idea that this is a widespread problem just waiting to burst forth'?
July 2, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The entire tone of this conversation is exactly the same as the terrorist talk from the right. It is meant to engender a feeling of fear and distrust along with the implication that somehow this fringe ideology is followed by way more people than can actually be proved.
July 2, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
i guess i'm not reading the tone of this conversation the same as you. maybe you could provide some concrete examples.
July 2, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't speaking of this conversation in particular, just the notion that this is anything but a fringe ideology in general or that we need to pay any sort of special attention to these clowns beyond normal law enforcement activities. "White Supremecists" can easily become the liberal equivalent of a terrorist behind every tree for conservatives.
July 2, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, and I see your point. We have nothing to fear except panic itself. Devil's advocate: Extremist groups/ideas that eventually "take over" all start small. That isn't necessarily a good argument against their potency or potential danger.
Maybe the answer is: We need to keep pruning the hedges, even when they "look" fine.
July 3, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Goldberg...Mr. Zeskind...have either of you looked into the work of Professor Kevin B Macdonald and its relation to any of the ideas and movements you're discussing here?
July 2, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink