Category: Politics

NPR published an article recently claiming that white supremacist and white nationalist groups were responsible for “…the deadliest and most active form of domestic extremism…”. The source they are using (the Anti-Defamation League) claims that “…right-wing extremists collectively have been responsible for more than 70 percent of the 427 extremist-related killings over the past 10 years…”. However, I believe that the story is presented in a way designed to maximize reader outrage and to demonizing those on the “right” – even though few on the right would ascribe to the beliefs of the groups identified with extremist terrorism. Further, I believe that the limited timeline of the last 10 years was specifically chosen to minimize the impact of acts of terror committed by other extremist groups.

The 70% (299) of the 427 extremist-related murders attributed to far right groups is appalling, but so is the remaining 30% (128) committed by other extremist groups during this same 10 year period. However, these numbers pale in comparison with the 155,166 people murdered in the U.S. in the 10 year period from 2008 through 2017 (the last year where full data is available from the FBI UCR). When considered in the light of these other murders one realizes that right wing extremist groups were responsible for less than 1/5 of 1% of the murders committed in U.S. during a 10 year period (with 1/12 of 1% committed by the remaining extremist groups). The number of people killed by these extremists has been very small relative to other murders, which suggests that we have far greater problems than domestic right (or left) wing political extremism.

Furthermore, the limitation posed by the time period considered (the past 10 years) conveniently allows the ADL and NPR to ignore the 2996 killed and more than 6000 injured at the hands of Islamic extremists on 9/11/2001. To include 9/11 would certainly steer focus away from the right-wing extremists targeted by the article, and would also make the story less politically useful.

In my opinion this story is designed to exaggerate the impact of these white supremacist and white nationalist groups, and to associate them with the current administration explicitly and Republicans in general. I believe that this is for the purpose of diverting support from the right to more liberal, left-leaning candidates in the next election cycle. I expect such tactics from the media these days, but I am appalled that NPR has taken it to a level where it is necessary to demonize an entire political party, the vast majority of whose members would be outraged to be associated with such groups. I am also appalled by the article’s attempts to maximize the apparent effect of these extremists groups by limiting the timeframe considered, particularly given their small impact overall relative to other terror groups or general crime rates.

Shame on you, NPR. I expect non-partisan reporting from an entity that claims to be an “independent” news organization.

Oregon democrats have decided to close the state Senate due to an unspecified militia threat:

Oregon Senate closes due to ‘possible militia threat’ after Republican walkout

A vague statement was made by the state police regarding the supposed threat, but there are no details that can be used to gauge the threat or even corroborate its existence:

Oregon State Police, in a statement, said it has been “monitoring information throughout the day that indicates the safety of legislators, staff and citizen visitors could be compromised if certain threatened behaviors were realized.”

Frankly, this sounds like a political hatchet job aimed at embarrassing Republicans by insinuating that their supporters are violent thugs (but the liberal Antifa crowd, they’re just activists, right…?). This is simply payback for state senate Republicans having denied the Democrats a quorum in the senate and thus stalling their carbon cap-and-trade legislation. If actual credible threats had been made we would have seen arrests rather than accusations.

I’m offended by these tactics; we should expect better from our elected representatives.

… and it’s not lawmaking. They are now dedicated to making sure than an opposition president, duly elected by the citizens of the United States, is prevented from operating effectively.

The House has passed a vote that “…clears the way for more lawsuits against Cabinet departments, administration officials, bankers, accountants and more…”. Essentially, it’s a fishing expedition with virtually limitless scope paid for by the American taxpayers. But wait – it gets worse:

“The goal — as Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said in a hearing of his panel on Monday — is for the House to both investigate and keep its calendar clear enough to legislate: “To walk and chew gum at the same time,” McGovern said.”

Well, it’s nice of them to set a little time aside for legislating – although that should be their first priority rather than an afterthought. With all the issues facing the country today – which their “investigations” will not solve – they have plenty to do already.

Frankly, I’m tired of this McCarthy-style witch hunt. As Obama is alleged to have said:

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

It’s time to get out of the way and stop the obstructionism. After all, elections have consequences…

An interesting read from The Volokh Conspiracy over at Reason.com; highly recommended.

Perils of “Democratic Socialism”

I have repeatedly heard left-leaning publications decry the rise of populism or nationalism and extol the virtues of liberalism. Here is an example from an NPR book review of Jill Lepore’s “This America”:

“To fight mainstream populism and nationalism, Lepore argues, supporters of free, fair, and inclusive liberal government can’t just hold their noses and wait for voters to realize that of course democracy is better than autocracy, and of course immigrants shouldn’t be vilified and ostracized.”

Such statements seem to vilify populism and nationalism, implying that they are not democratic and will lead to autocracy. But I would argue that they rise precisely from democracy; it is the people who have voted nationalists into power in many countries. It may not be the democracy you envision, but it is democracy nonetheless.

I would instead argue that it is frequently liberals who lead us to autocracy. For instance, if liberals “…can’t just hold their noses and wait for voters…”, just what do they propose? Isn’t the alternative to “…wait[ing] for voters…” autocracy? Remember, too, that is is frequently liberal or socialist uprisings that lead to autocracy – usually in the name of the people. Hitler rose to power as the head of the German Workers Party, and eventually the Nazi party (National Socialists German Workers Party), on the premise of supporting the labor party and wealth redistribution (Berlin, Rheinmetall-Borsig Works — Speech of December 10, 1940). Yes, the Nazi party was nationalist; but it was also liberal at its roots.

This same NPR article also associates nationalism with anti-immigration sentiments (“…and of course immigrants shouldn’t be vilified and ostracized…”). But this position, too, is misleading. In fact, many countries have strict requirements for immigration, including the requirement that immigrants not be a drain on their social systems. Are all of these countries “nationalist”? Do they “vilify” immigrants, too?

I am disheartened by such attempts to mislead the public into believing that  anything other than liberalism is un-democratic or anti-immigrant, and leads only to autocracy or dictatorships. History shows that liberalism (via socialism) is frequently a precursor to autocracy – even though it is often veiled in claims of democracy.