Both sides miss the point in the row over the recently-leaked DHS memo (available via a link here) regarding potential domestic security threats. The administration, in its sense of self-righteousness and view of American history, misses the faults in its assumptions about such threats. Conservatives meanwhile, in their own self-righteousness and certitude, miss key lessons from the history of their own movement. That this controversy has even arisen reveals more about the state of contemporary politics than perhaps anyone would like to admit.
To be clear, the government should take precautions to combat organizations which pose a real threat to the United States and its leaders. The government is also right to take an interest in threats posed by rabid anti-Semites and in groups advocating race hatred of any form. However, this effort should not include the President of the United States once again equating pro-lifers with Eric Rudolph. Certainly, if the earlier government memorandum (available via a link here) on violent left-wing organizations had equated those opposing animal testing with the Earth Liberation Front, then-Senator Obama would have condemned it. More troubling, is that the broad definition presented to the poorly-devised DHS document could well deem much of the president’s own base of support as reactionaries.
Indeed, the document in question seems to portray those concerned about a loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States as “rightwing extremists”. Recall also that in the most recent presidential election cycle, the efficacy of free trade agreements was questioned. This is particularly true in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination. There seems to be nothing the deliberately poorly-reviewed document on whether or not the Obama campaign was practicing rightwing extremism when it characterised Hillary Clinton as “the Senator from Punjab” during the Democratc primaries. Of course, Democrats have also posed the largest obstacles to ratifying Bush-era trade agreements, such as that negotiated with Colombia. Does the Department of Homeland Security really contend that Nancy Pelosi is a rightwing extremist?
Immigration is yet another target of Napolitano’s report. In discussing this topic further, the author(s) of the assessment concede(s) that debate over immigration policy is protected by the first amendment, but then delve into a vague claim about a potential for violence. What goes unstated is that nearly any claim can have the potential for violence. This contention made regarding immigration-related sentiments should worry those who protest war, because seeking redress of such grievances can lead to violence being committed against returning military personnel.
As noted above, those supporting the view of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be alarmed by the tone and wording of Secretary Napolitano’s memorandum:
Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises.
Even if the quoted statement is true, no indication or evidence is given that the only people doing such things are threats to order in the country. Instead, ladies and gentlemen, it appears that gun owners of any and all backgrounds are possibly rightwing extremists and thus potenial threats for wanting to buy supplies before prices go up. Smokers or casual drinkers too must be radicals for stocking up on cigarettes or alcohol to get out of ceding more money to governments every time cigarette or alcohol taxes increase. Anyone who takes the opportunity to shop on a tax holiday, as far as Secretary Napolitano is concerned, could be secretly plotting to overthrow the government.
Further details of the DHS assessment ridiculed above are available in the source material itself. The view of the country seemingly expressed by the aforementioned unclassified document and, arguably, the current administration as a whole is one of widespread ignorance, hatred, mistrust, and intolerance. Such elements do exist, but what makes the United States the country that it is is its general embrace of individual liberty, skepticism about state power, and differing ideas about commerce and politics. Interpretation of the controversial memorandum could suggest that several twentieth century U.S. presidents were right-wing extremists. Perhaps the Secretary of State should rethink her fondness for Theodore Roosevelt.
While blaming the Obama administration for this controversy is fun and, on some level justified, conservatives and libertarians too should share in the blame. In the early era of modern conservatism, William Buckley and others took strong strides to distance the fledgling conservative movement from radical elements such as the John Birch Society and other conspiratorial and racialist groups. Today, however, as conservatism is once again finding difficulty making strides among the masses, elements having nothing to do with its fundamentals are again too close for comfort. The Ron Paul presidential campaign achieved many things of note in the last presidential election cycle, but it was tainted by an underlying presence of 9/11 Truthers and racialists that the candidate himself did too little to eschew. On this basis, some of the absurdities of the Napolitano memorandum are given greater context and seem rather more rational.
Some of the outrage about the controversial intelligence assessment is legitimate, but like so much in contemporary American politics, some of it is phony. Reasons already noted give an indication as to why the outrage across the web is ridiculous on some levels, but so do others. Emil G. Maine is right to argue for Picking the Right Fight because so often those on the right choose the wrong fight, or the wrong tone and approach to the right fight. Do not forget that many of the policies of President Obama and his administration-good and bad-are outgrowths of those put in place by the previous, Republican administration. Secretary Napolitano was right to apologize for her conduct as related to the controversial memorandum, but the fundamentals of this situation remain unchanged.
Last 5 posts by James Kane
- Obama's Accidental Case Against Reconciliation and the Senate Bill - March 10th, 2010
- On "Real" Diversity and Thinking Critically - March 1st, 2010
- Analyzing the Blair House discourse - February 27th, 2010
- Scott Brown, Barack Obama, and the Politics of Change - January 27th, 2010
- The Massachusetts Senate Race Offers a Guide to Competing in November - January 10th, 2010
Napolitano’s use of the 1995 Oklahoma City attack as an example of why US military veterans are supposedly a threat to us all certainly is intriguing-
That bombing was a single event, almost 14 years ago- but hasn’t Al Qaida staged hundreds of attacks on US interests since then? Why so little mention of them since she was appointed three months ago- isn’t keeping a lid on those medieval savages 80% of her job description? Isn’t that why the Department of Homeland Security created in the first-place?
Apparently there is no bounds to what government assets Obama will prostitute for his own purposes… while neglecting daunting, actual threats in the meantime.
So all who wondered why Obama chose this obedient toady to head Homeland Security now have their answer: a serious choice who would have focused upon real terrorist threats -not imaginary, partisan ones- like, say, a Rudolph Giuliani, wouldn’t have been a willing participant in such a sham report.