The Result of Rhetoric: Fear and Violence From The Far-Right Wing

Yesterday at a rally, McCain asked  "Who is Barack Obama?" and a member of the audience yelled out  "Terrorist!" Today, at a Palin rally,  she was speaking about the Ayers connection, which triggered angry "boos!" from her supporters, and then more frighteningly, a"Kill him!"  When she referenced a (distorted) remark from Obama about US troops ‘air raiding villages and killing civilians’, there was a cry of "Treason!" And when she blamed her poor interview answers on Katie Couric’s questions, the crowd turned their anger towards the press area, shouting and yelling obscenities, including the N-word and "Sit down, boy!" directed at a  black sound-man.

This is scary stuff.

It’s also predictable, after a year of smears about how Obama is unpatriotic, a radical Muslim, a friend to both domestic and foreign terrorists, a racist, and not even born in America.  His popularity and ability as an orator has earned him comparisons with Hitler.   The "left" has been painted as an angry mob,  which (it’s been said) will inevitably riot no matter what the outcome of the election - a conclusion I’ve seen linked to both racist and liberal stereotypes. 

With the McCain campaign now stressing the terrorist angle, and Palin peppering her speech with repeated  claims that Obama is "dangerous" in a time when Americans are flat out scared for our futures,  It’s not surprising that folks on the right are starting to channel their anger and fear where its being directed by the McCain campaign and his supporters, from pundits to Palin - and I’m increasingly concerned that it will turn to violence.  

I’ve been voicing that concern since the conventions, that the far right was being whipped into a frenzy of fear and hatred against the left.     My own more conservative friends (and the co-workers of my husband) have scoffed at the idea, and repeated the meme that it’s the left that is angry and dangerous, that the far right presents no real danger. 

But they do.  The extreme right is just as dangerous as the extreme left. 

"Name one example!" has been the response to date. 

But the examples are so evident,   so integrated into my world view, that when challenged, I suddenly doubted my own knowledge on the subject.

Having having double-checked my memory and overall impressions, it seems incredible to me that anyone could have doubts about the dangers of the extreme right. 

How can anyone have forgotten Timothy McVeigh? 

McVeigh was responsible for this country’s largest terrorist attack outside of 9/11:  the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing that killed 168 people and injured 800.  Casualties included a 3 month old infant, and 3 pregnant women. McVeigh said that his  destruction of the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building  was politically motivated retaliation for the government actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and he was undeniably on the right.

He was registered Republican in NY,  left Buffalo because it was "too liberal" and later self-identified as Libertarian (presumably  because of the more conservative aspects of their platform, rather than the liberal ones).  He had a strong sense of pride in the country, was a decorated veteran of the Gulf War, believed himself to be a staunch defender of the Constitution, and especially of  the 2nd Amendment.  He reportedly quitting the NRA’s because he felt their stance on gun control was too weak.  

I’m not sure why American’s have forgotten Oklahoma City. I can’t explain why it wasn’t at the top of my mind as an immediate example.  Maybe in our minds, it has somehow  merged with the Twin Towers,  until we’ve forgotten that this was home-grown terror, perpetrated by a man who believed himself to be a Patriot, defending the nation instead of attacking it.  Maybe we’ve willed ourselves to believe there must have been unknown Islamic Radicals behind it, because we simply cannot understand how a man who served his country in the Gulf War, and was awarded a Bronze Star could blow up a Federal Building, believing he was still serving his nation.

Granted, That Was 18 Years Ago…

Is July of 2008 recent enough to count?  That’s when 58 year old Jim D. Adkisson opened fire on a Knoxville Tennessee UU Church Congregation,  killing two, wounding seven. His reasoning? 

According to a sworn affidavit by an interviewing officer:

"During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office."

In the category of less actually violent, more terrorist threat, we have  Chad Castagana, who in 2006 sent fake anthrax letters to prominent Liberal politicians and media members, including  Jon Stewart( of The Daily Show, political humorist) David Letterman (Late Night Talk Show Host) Keith Olbermann (MSNBC Journalist with MSNBC) Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) (who was about to be named Speaker of the House) Sen. Charles Schumer (D).  

In the affidavit filed by FBI Agent Mary Hogan, she said that Castagana ‘described himself as a compulsive voter who votes Republican, and he said that he sent the letters to specific individuals because he did not like their liberal politics.’

And extremists in the Anti-Abortion Movement are still active. Although they barely seem to register on our consciousness anymore, the threats and violence against abortion providers and women’s clinics continues, including 2 attempted bombings and 3 cases of arson  in 2006/2007 - the most recent of which was less than a year ago.   

Religiously motivated hate-groups like Westboro Baptist Church (they’re the ones that picket military funerals (among others) with signs like "Fags Die, God Laughs". )  They are not perpetrators of physical violence, but their actions are tough to see as anything but attention-seeking terrorism, and their message is certainly on the extreme right.

The Militia movement is on the rise again, too, fueled by 9/11, fears over the gun-control debate, increasing Democratic influence in Congress, illegal immigration, and belief that there is a need to defend against"The New World Order" and corrupt governmental conspiracies (including conspiracy theories about 9/11). 

Traditional White Supremacists have admittedly lost much of their power in recent years, but they’re still out there, and have been issueing threats against Obama since the primary.  And while conservatives mocked the threat against Obama during the convention as ‘not-credible’, and laughed about it, I don’t find white supremacists with guns and a bullet proof vest who admitted they’ were "going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a … rifle sighted at 750 yards," funny.  Was it a credible threat? Could they have pulled it off? Almost certainly not.    But it is evidence that even a month ago, the anger from the right was brewing.

But racist hatred has a new target in Latino immigrants, especially illegal immigration, with groups like American Border Patrol, which encourage vigilante groups that gaurd the US/Mexico border, and promote the idea that Mexico is actively seeking to conquer the SouthWest, with illegal immigration  as the first wave of a war, infiltration.

These are dangerous groups, with histories of violence, threats and hatred. 

They are also undeniably on the far-right wing of conservatism.   These groups and individuals are not  representative of the Republican party, but the current fear-mongering rhetoric of the Republican campaign speaks to them deeply,  stirring them up and increasing the likely hood that they will take action. It also creates sympathy for these groups from the mainstream -another dangerous effect.

This does not deny or dismiss concerns about far-left extremist groups. There are dangerous elements amid the anti-war, anarchist, animal rights, and environmental movements, among others that I’m sure I’ve forgotten to mention.   But the denial that the right is dangerous keeps people from objecting to the rhetoric that is whipping up the anger and resentment.

I understand that McCain is behind in the polls.  I understand that to date, the most effective tactic against Obama has been to stir up doubts about his heritage, patriotism and ass0ciations.

Do I expect McCain to drop the Ayers connection? No.  Although I personally am not concerned by it, I do think it’s fair game for election fodder.   But for the sake of the country, there has to be a limit to this sort of talk, and it’s  McCain and Palin’s responsibility to actively and strongly speak out against any suggestions of hatred and violence against Obama, the media, or liberals of any stripe. 

This country is already facing the biggest challenges in my adult lifetime: an economy in shambles, healthcare in crisis, an aging population, environmental concerns, international tensions, two wars, and ongoing terrorist threats.   We do not need an already anxious population whipped into a fear-driven frenzy for the sake of winning an election. 

We need leaders who can project calm, and guide with a steady hand, not rally the troops with fear to uncontrolled levels of lashing out against fellow Americans.  I’m  hopeful that we’ll see McCain address the nation on this topic during the debate tonight, and that he draws a clear distinction between concerns about Obama’s judgement in associations, and the suggestion that Obama himself is, in anyway, supporting terrorists or terrorist agendas.  That’s the McCain I expected to see in this campaign, and I’m still hopeful he may emerge.