The mainstreaming of America’s far-right
There has always been a far-right movement in the United States; indeed there having been shadows of mainstream culture at both ends of the political spectrum. But while considerable effort was expended in the 20th century to eliminate, as far as possible, the communist component of society there was relatively little attempt to remove the far-right. Now, the consequences of that imbalance are becoming visible.
It is unsurprising, perhaps, that the right should have found mainstream America more hospitable than the left. For much of the 20th century the US’s chief opponent on the world stage was the communist USSR, so naturally proponents of its policies would be considered a threat. Also, many adherents to far-right ideologies are in favour of a capitalist society. It is a common (and sometimes deliberate) category error to define socialism and capitalism as opposing ideologies. Socialism prescribes both a moral and an economic model; capitalism provides for an economic model, but not a social one. A devotee to far-right philosophies can blend in with mainstream capitalist society whereas a communist is automatically set against it.
There has been a steady rise in the number of far-right groups in the US. The Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) breaks down right-wing extremist groups into three categories: Hate groups, which have beliefs (and often engage in practices) that attack an entire class of people, typically for their inherent characteristics, such as skin colour; the ‘Patriot movement’, comprising organisations who perceive the federal government as their principal enemy and base their philosophies on conspiracy theories; and ‘Nativist extremist’ groups that go beyond calling for the tightening of immigration policy and go so far as to actually confront those they suspect of being illegal immigrants, and the companies who employ them.
Accurate statistics are difficult to find and compile as groups are continually changing their names, or splintering into different factions; very few make their membership lists public, so there is no way of knowing exactly how much overlap there is between groups, and therefore how many individuals are actually represented by the number of identifiable extremist organisations. However, figures from the SPLC (which are generally acknowledged as being as accurate as it is possible to achieve, and certainly indicative of trends) published in 2011 show that in 2010 there were 1,002 Hate groups in the US, a 7.5% increase from 932 in 2009, and a 66% rise from the 602 operating a decade earlier. It could be considered a milestone that for the first time since the SPLC began tallying them in the 1980s the number of Hate groups has gone over 1,000. Nativist groups also increased in number between 2009 and 2010, rising 3% from 309 to 319. The biggest growth in the radical right, however, was seen in the Patriot movement. The number of groups increased by a dramatic 61% between 2009 and 2010, from 512 to 824. This is the largest number of active Patriot movement groups since the last peak of 858 in 1996. The most worrying statistic within this increase is that the number of armed militias grew a staggering in 160% in a year, from 127 to 330.
Taken together the increase in the three categories of the radical right represents a boost of 22%, growing from 1,753 groups in 2009 to 2,145 in 2010; the increase followed a 40% increase between 2008 and 2009.
The recognisable growth of the far right combined with the fact that there is overlap between the groups leads to an uncomfortable conclusion. The sharing of ideologies and homogenisation of dogma means that the far-right, which used to be a disparate array of radical organisations, is finding a way to conglomerate. The differences in the extremes of the ideologies increasingly are being put to one side with the consequence that the far-right is becoming a legitimate political force. As long as any extremist facet of society comprises a disorganised handful of fanatical organisations it can be dismissed as the lunatic fringe and will be ignored by the ‘civilised’ core. But once it begins to find a voice that can speak for all the individual groups it becomes a danger. The real threat in this case is that the majority of the US population is ignorant of the existence of the radical periphery that is developing from a subculture into a counterculture. In any case it is incorrect to think of the far-right as a separate entity which has no contact with mainstream politics. There is sharing of ideas across the entire political spectrum (and it is graded spectrum, not binary left-right) so if communication is increasing between the very far right and the more moderate elements then it is inevitable that these ideas will have a greater influence on the mainstream. As long as there is little or no public acknowledgement of this development then this increased influence that the radical-right has on the US political arena will go unchecked, and unrecognised.
In the past it may have been the case that far-right extremists were looking for an outlet for their dissatisfaction and used whatever issues were current to vent their anger. Thus, when the mainstream acknowledged their argument they lost their impetus. However, according to Mark Potok, editor of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report, far-right extremists have remained highly energised, even though politicians across the country have co-opted many of the radical ideas and issues that are important to them. “This success in having their voices heard in the political arena, where they have long occupied the fringe of conservative thought, might eventually take the wind out of their sails,” he said, “but so far we’re not seeing any sign of that.”
The religious right
It is well recognised that much of the political right in the US tends towards fundamentalist Christianity, but this is not enough for some groups. Some people, desperate to mark themselves out as different from, and indeed better than, the people they wish to eliminate from society turn to more extreme forms of religion, such as Christian Identity. Adherents believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the “Lost Tribes of Israel.” Many consider Jews to be the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Devil (sometimes the serpent), while non-whites are “mud peoples” created before Adam and Eve. Although the “mud people” were created by God, they were not created in the image of God (ie white) and therefore have no souls. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Identity’s racist and anti-Semitic beliefs are usually accompanied by extreme anti-government sentiments. Christian Identity influences virtually all white supremacist and extreme anti-government movements, and the ADL estimates it has between 25,000 and 50,000 adherents spread across the US.
Even this extreme form of religion is not enough for some and radicals such as the notorious Richard Scutari, currently serving a 60 year sentence for extremist activities, have turned to warped versions of the ancient Norse religions such as Odinism, which Goodrick Clarke described as a “spiritual rediscovery of the Aryan ancestral gods...intended to embed the white races in a sacred worldview that supports their tribal feeling”.
Why now?
The trigger for this coalescence of the radical-right was an event that many hailed as breakthrough for the civil rights movement, the electing of the first black president of the Unites States. Ferocious hostility toward the Obama administration has proved to be a unifying force in bringing together social and religious conservatives. The right-wing but mainstream American Family Association has described Obama as “a scary, scary individual”. Republican Trent Franks has gone further and called Obama “an enemy of humanity” who “has no place in any station of government”. Political rhetoric is to be expected against any president, and some of it is bound to be vociferous. The danger is that extremist views can slowly gain traction without the majority of the population realising it is happening. Paradoxically, the electing of a black president may have been both unifying and divisive; the right is coalescing so that the far-right has a greater influence but the left is remaining somewhat static. The ultimate effect of this could be a redefining of the political centre somewhere to the right of where it is now.
SIDEBAR
“So far as what’s happening is concerned and who’s making it happen, I’m on the same page as Anders Breivik.”
Supposedly moderate columnist John Derbyshire, referring to Norwegian mass murderer of perceived liberals in a podcast on 29 July for National Review arguing that the “ethnic masochism” of “leftist white elites” is a threat to “European civilization”.
Source: SPLC
SIDEBAR
“The main tendency of organisations is mainstreaming…The movement imperative is towards the Tea Parties, running for office, anti-immigrant mongering – not roadside bombs.” Leading expert on the radical far right Leonard Zeskind, in Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream.