The Threat of the Far-Right to the Homeland Security of the United States
Author: Assad Asil Companioni, Oxford University
Introduction
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the fear of terrorism in the United States has dominantly been the fear of Islamist terrorism, such that the threat of right-wing terrorism has been overshadowed by this fear.[1] Although the label terrorism is suitable for many of the attacks committed by the far-right, I will nevertheless avoid the problematics of the term terrorism and refer instead to right-wing political violence in the United States more generally. In this policy paper, I will empirically demonstrate the threat of right-wing terrorism, elaborate on its nature, consider the factors which strengthen the threat, and explore policy options by which the threat can be curtailed.
Right-Wing Political Violence in the United States
The rise of right-wing political violence has reached the point that right-wing attacks have become more common than Islamist ones. According to a Government Accountability Office report, “Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001 [until December 31, 2016], far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).”[1] An important caveat worth mentioning though is that despite this fact, the death toll from Islamist attacks is often higher than those from right-wing attacks[2]—though the total death total is approximately the same from September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016.[3]
One of the most recent acts of right-wing political violence was the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting that took place on October 27, 2018.[4] The attack was very likely motivated by the perpetrator’s—Robert Bowers—anti-Semitism.[5] This is not an isolated instance either, as evidenced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s findings that hate crimes in general in 2017 have gone up by 17%, and anti-Semitic hate crimes in particular rose by 37%.[6] In other words, the shooting was symptomatic of a general trend in the United States: that of rising right-wing political violence.
Seth G. Jones details this trend in the following terms: “Between 2007 and 2011, the number of such [right-wing] attacks was five or less per year. They then rose to 14 in 2012; continued at a similar level between 2012 and 2016, with a mean of 11 attacks and a median of 13 attacks; and then jumped to 31 in 2017.”[1] The victims of the right-wing political violence tend to be religious, ethnic, racial, and gender and sexual minorities. According to
Quartz, “almost two-thirds of terror attacks in the US last year [2017] were tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations.”[1] In addition, Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union reports a rise of transphobic and anti-non-binary violence in 2018,[2] and CNN reports that, according to the Human Rights Campaign, “2017 was the deadliest year on record for the transgender population”.[3]
Aggravating Factors of Right-Wing Political Violence
There is a serious issue of complicity between the US State Apparatuses and the far-right actors who commit political violence. First, there is the issue of the police forces in the US. Instead of becoming a bulwark against the far-right, the police have far too often facilitated the growth of the far-right.
One case of such facilitation is that of the California police, which came to light as three anti-fascists were charged with felonies being involved at a protest in Sacramento.[1] The lawyers of one of the charged anti-fascists “obtained numerous examples of CHP [California highway patrol] officers working directly with the TWP [Traditional Workers Party], often treating the white nationalist group as victims and the anti-fascists as suspects.”[2] A CHP investigator went as far as to warn Doug McCormack—a TWP fascist—that the police might have to release his name due to a public records request, but that the officer “would try to protect McCormack.”[3] This is therefore without a doubt a clear case of collusion between the police and the far-right.
In another case, the journalist and activist Cedric O’Bannon was stabbed by neo-Nazis at a rally in Sacramento while trying to capture fascist violence on camera.[4] O’Bannon claims that he police did little to protect him from the stabbings. After the attack, instead of targeting the perpetrators in order to seek justice, the police targeted O’Bannon instead: officers…monitored his Facebook page and sought to bring six charges against him, including conspiracy, rioting, assault and unlawful assembly.”[5] A police officer was initially dismissed by one department in Oklahoma for possessing neo-Nazi ties.[6] Yet, soon enough another department hired that very same police
A police officer was initially dismissed by one department in Oklahoma for possessing neo-Nazi ties.[1] Yet, soon enough another department hired that very same police officer. This case is representative of an alarming closeness between the police and the far-right.
In a less direct case of police complicity with far-right activities, Berkeley police publicly shared the names and photos of anti-fascist activists they arrested.[1] In fact, these were shared before any formal charges were made.[2] In anti-fascist activism, to have one’s information released is to effectively open the gates to their harassment by their far-right opponents. Hence, what the Berkeley police have done is, in effect, a service to the far-right. Berkeley police spokesperson Bryon White defended the action, claiming that “People are coming from out of town and bringing weapons and are committed to violence…We don’t want people to be able to do that with anonymity”.[3] The problem with this statement is that when the police cannot be relied upon to protect minorities—given that black people make up 50% of homicide of victims,[4] and that blacks were 2.8 times more likely to be killed by police than whites[5]—minorities and their allies must fend for themselves against far-right extremists who despise their very being. Releasing the identifying information simply jeopardises anti-fascist activity, which, as Mark Bray suggests, is a form of collective self-defence.[6]
Second, there is also the problem of legislation which hampers anti-fascist activism. Police in some states have used existing laws which were initially meant to target the KKK in order to suppress anti-fascist activism.[1] In addition, there is currently a proposed bill explicitly named the Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018.[2] This proposed bill would send any anti-fascist activist who wears a mask to prison for 15 years.[3] Naturally, there is fear that this proposed legislation would embolden the far-right.[4] After all, it would make it difficult for organised opposition to the far-right to remain anonymous. However, why would this inability to engage in activism matter, why can’t the US government take measures to prevent the organising of the far-right and therefore prevent further right-wing political violence?
A major problem with state complicity with the far-right is not just the fact that the they are facilitating their emergence, but also the fact that they are undermining possibly one of the only direct means by which far-right politics can be combatted. The US state cannot actively take measures to eliminate opportunities for the far-right to organise and act, as under the protection of the First Amendment, far-right figures are effectively immune from legal consequences for engaging in hate speech. One of the relevant exceptions to limitations on hate speech would be that which was signalled by the Supreme Court in the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that “speech loses First Amendment protection if it calls for and is likely to lead to “imminent lawless action.””[1] The key word here is “imminent”, which has allowed the Supreme Court in 1982 to rule that “civil rights activist Charles Evers did not incite violence when he said blacks who did not participate in a boycott of white-owned businesses would “have their necks broken” by their own people. The statement was not specific enough to incite violence, the court said.”[2]
Thus, any effective state action against the growth of the far-right, by, for example, restricting hate speech, would be unconstitutional. Hence why, for instance, no legal action has been taken against the far-right Gavin McInnes, who called for, in his own words, “more violence from the Trump people. Trump supporters: choke a motherfucker. Choke a bitch. Choke a tr**ny. Get your fingers around the windpipe.”[1] Given this, the curtailment of the threat of the far-right would require the activism of civil society, for the state is legally barred from performing that function. So, if the state apparatuses make anti-fascist activism from civil society increasingly difficult despite the state’s own inability to curtail far-right activity, then the state apparatuses are complicit with the right-wing violence that has recently risen.
Policy Recommendations
The United States cannot continue to do little in the face of the grave threats to homeland security posed by the far-right. Right-wing political violence is an issue at the very least as serious as Islamist political violence. Considering the explication of the aggravating factors of this threat, I am compelled to recommend the following policy options.
First, there must be a strengthening of federal government oversight over the activities of the police. In particular, there ought to be a Federal Police Oversight Board (FPOB) with the power to subpoena individual police officers and departments alike, including those affiliated with the FBI. The FPOB’s primary task would be to ensure that rigorous standards of procedure, and to investigate any credible allegations of police complicity with right-wing political violence.
Second, I recommend an increased role for background checks for police recruitment, in order to avoid those with ties to violent groups or ideologies, such as the police officer recruited in Oklahoma with neo-Nazi ties, from joining the ranks of the police forces. In addition, there ought to be regular investigations of police officers in order to discharge those who do have far-right ties. It would be the FPOB’s responsibility to ensure that police organisations across the country are complying with such standards.
Third, all states should repeal laws which criminalise the wearing of masks in protest activities. As I pointed out earlier, such laws have been often used against activists who conceal their identity in order to stay safe from being later identified and harassed, either by the far-right or the police who generally target the far-right to a lesser degree. Although many such laws were initially placed in order to curtail the activities of the KKK, they have had more detrimental effects against opponents of the far-right who do prefer to wear masks than the far-right themselves, who often do not mask themselves. Repealing such laws is therefore important in order to avoid state legislation facilitating the rise of the far-right and consequently right-wing political violence.
Conclusion
Given current trends, action must be taken in order to curtail the threat of the far-right and the right-wing political violence that they engage in. Their threat has already reached levels comparable to the threat of Islamist violence. A primary means by which right-wing political violence may be addressed would be through the elimination of various aggravating factors which heighten the threat. This policy paper demonstrated that a key set of aggravating factors is the complicity of the US state apparatuses themselves. In particular, I brought up cooperation between the police and the far-right, the police’s prioritisation of repressing anti-fascist activists as opposed to the far-right, and anti-masking legislation which discourages anti-fascist activities from civil society which aim to curb the far-right and the violence they bring. Given these aggravating factors, this policy paper recommends tackling them through the following means: (1) stronger government oversight over police across the country through the establishment of the Federal Police Oversight Board; (2) increased efforts to remove police officers with far-right ties from the police force, and preventing those who far-right recruits from joining the police force; (3) revoking legislation which makes it difficult to safely counter-protest far-right activities.