"What a productive use of time, West Point," my friend exclaimed, and rather than just agree with him on what an effective and productive use of time and resources the paper represents, I just let his sarcasm stand until I could better address it on my own.
This isn't the first time a study or paper has been issued on this subject; in 2009 a similar report was released by the Department of Homeland Security, and the author, Daryl Johnson, was pilloried by the GOTea and the right-wing media (Faux News, right-wing websites, and conservative talk radio), and eventually left his post at the DHS.
The DHS report, which was coordinated with the FBI, suggests that the current political and economic climates have historically led to an increase in violent rhetoric and action from right-wing extremist groups. This information was gathered using the vast resources at the FBI, and was based on well documented and publicized examples over the previous thirty plus years, and yet, to almost no one's surprise, the GOTea fought against Johnson and the DHS (for the first time, ever), despite factual information being presented as evidence in support of the argument.
The West Point Academy paper seems to vindicate the 2009 DHS report in every way, and strays very little from the path blazed by the Federal government.
And yet, very few of its detractors will likely ever read the paper and analyze the findings put forth by a well-respected academy of the U.S. military. My friend, for example, likely spent little time actually reading the document before dismissing it out of hand.
For example, an "unnamed Republican congressional staffer who served in the military" told the Washington Times (the birdcage liner of "legitimate" newspapers):
“If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero. Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?”
Well...isn't that the job of the deployed military and ambassadors? As far as I knew, international diplomacy and counterinsurgency wasn't traditionally under the purview of the U.S. Military Academy.
And, on another note, exactly on which side of the political spectrum does this man believe Islamic radicals stand? Does he believe them to be secretly fighting for marriage equality and covertly pursuing degrees in Women's Studies?
The Republican congressional former-military staffer continues, “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”
And with fewer than thirty-five words, this man exemplifies what is wrong with the Republican party: they're living in another decade. This guy's problem is that he can't decide which decade he wants to live in - is it the 1950s, with his reference to the short-lived game show, or the 1970s with his reference to the Weather Underground, best known for their evacuating government buildings before bombing them in protest of various issues?
There is something to be said of paying heed to history so as not to repeat it; there is little merit in reliving history while learning nothing from it.
<hr>
Part of the problem that most on the Right have with studies like these is that they feel that equal coverage isn't given to similar groups on the Left. Much to their dismay, there just aren't as many Far-Left radical groups whose actions result in violence and death to balance out the scales.
That isn't to say there are no such examples - there are always outliers. Unfortunately, there just hasn't been much compelling evidence to suggest that the members of Occupy Wall Street are going to do much more than shut down ports, block bank entrances, destroy the grass, and reek of patchouli, and we now know that the FBI made efforts to infiltrate their ranks in order to see if they posed a terrorist threat. I do wonder if any of the TeaTard rallies received similar treatment; if they did, would the GOTea stand for it?
What I suspect the real problem is for most Republicans is that these studies highlight elements of the GOTea voter base that they would really rather disappear. Mind you, they certainly have no qualms about pandering to those elements during the primary season, serving up the rarest red meat they can muster to "fire up the base," only to throw their base's chosen candidates onto the grill and leave them there to char. Todd Akin...Joe "Deadbeat Dad" Walsh...lest we forget...
The trouble with establishing a reliable base for one's party holds true across all political ideologies - once you've got them securely in your pocket, they won't ever go away and they'll hold your feet to the fire.
The Democratic party learned this lesson with the LGBT community over the last four years. After eight years of broken promises during the Clinton Administration, resulting in the now-defunct Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and the soon-to-be-defunct Defense of Marriage Act, the LGBT community finally got the balls to hold the President and the Democrats to their word, and deliver what they promised.
The Republicans, along with the Conservative movement as it stands, both seem destined to die a sad, slow, and painful (albeit hilarious) death, as they have very firmly established who their voting base is: the highly religious, the elderly, the white, the highly paranoid, and the poorly educated. For anyone who's keeping track, only two of these demographics are growing in America, and they aren't the first three. Still worse is their apparent lack of any sort of game plan to get out of their quagmire of their own making.
Honestly, it's a bit sad to see the Republican party thrash about in the throes of self-immolation. What started as a progressive movement in the 1860s spent the latter half of the 20th century doing a total about face, and opt for pandering to the craziest of the fringe elements who had money. They went from the party of big ideas to the party of big ideology; from the party of "No Slavery," to the party of "Hell, No!"
They failed to heed the words of Barry Goldwater:
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
<hr>
So, is my friend correct in his tongue-in-cheek accusation that studies warning against the rise of Right-Wing Extremism in the U.S. are a waste of time? I guess we'll find out when the next Left-Wing Extremist walks into a church and shoots and kills an abortion doctor at point-blank range.
No comments:
Post a Comment