Deep Dive with Shawn C. Fettig

After America E4: White Supremacy, Red Alert - Right-Wing Extremism's Threat to Democracy

• Sea Tree Media

Share episode

White supremacist and right-wing militia groups are threatening American democracy. Join us as we unveil the alarming rise and evolution of these extremist ideologies, tracing their roots from historical moments like Ruby Ridge and Waco to modern-day influences bolstered by political figures such as Donald Trump. In this episode, we uncover how political rhetoric has emboldened these groups, posing significant risks leading up to the 2024 election.

Discover how the internet has become a breeding ground for radicalization, connecting extremists and mainstreaming their dangerous ideologies, shedding light on the role of media bubbles and algorithms in empowering these extremists. The discussion highlights how fringe theories like the Great Replacement have gained traction and now influence public policy and political rhetoric within the Republican Party.

Finally, we delve into the disturbing convergence of white supremacist, militia, and Christian nationalist ideologies, emphasizing their preference for authoritarianism and theocracy. This episode underscores the urgent need for action to safeguard American democracy against these growing threats.

Guests: Dr. Ian Haney Lopez, Dr. Kathleen Blee, Dr. James Hawdon, and Jason van Tatenhove

After America Statement on Political Violence in America

Credits:
LBJ Clip on Civil Rights Act - Courtesy of the LBJ Library
Infados - Kevin MacLeod
Dark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay

Counterpoint Podcast

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock



Shawn:

Hey folks, a quick note before we get started. This episode today about political violence, white supremacy and militia groups in the United States was recorded, produced and in the can prior to the shooting of candidate Trump at a rally on July 13th, so there's no mention of it in this episode. I did, however, release a statement about political violence in American politics last week that is available via the same feed you've been listening to After America on, and you can find a link to that in this episode's show notes. On a quiet night in August 2017 in Charlottesville, virginia, a torch-lit rally of white supremacists marched through the University of Virginia campus, chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans. The next day, violent clashes erupted, culminating in the tragic death of Heather Heyer, a peaceful counter-protester. This horrific event was not an isolated incident, but a stark reminder of the emboldened presence of white supremacists and right-wing militia groups in America. Their roots run deep, but their influence today is stronger and more dangerous than ever. The Charlottesville rally was a wake-up call for many, exposing the deep-seated racism and organized hate simmering just beneath the surface of American society. Yet for these groups, it was a moment of empowerment, a public display of their resurgence, emboldened by political rhetoric that echoed their own beliefs. These groups have moved from the fringes to a more central role in our political discourse.

Shawn:

In the years since Charlottesville, we've seen a disturbing rise in the visibility and boldness of white supremacist and militia groups. From violent rallies to armed standoffs and plots to kidnap government officials, their actions are becoming increasingly aggressive. These groups are not only growing in number, but also infiltrating various levels of government and law enforcement, embedding their extremist ideologies into the fabric of our institutions. One of the most alarming aspects of this rise is how these groups have been emboldened by figures like Donald Trump. His rhetoric has often echoed their sentiments, providing them with a veneer of legitimacy and a sense of empowerment. This emboldening effect has led to an increase in recruitment and activity, with these groups now posing a significant threat to the upcoming 2024 election and our very democracy. So, considering Donald Trump's affinity for right-wing white supremacist militia groups and their loyalty to him, remember they answered his call on January 6, 2021, acting as his frontline troops as he attempted to overturn the 2020 election. Given this, we have to wonder what should we be expecting from a right-wing, white supremacist citizen militia loyal to a madman, as we head into this election season and beyond?

Shawn:

Welcome to After America. I'm your host, s C Fettig. Find, follow and like. Deep Dive with Shawn C Fettig on your favorite podcast platform and on YouTube, and check back every Sunday through September for new episodes of After America as we examine the precarious state of American democracy, how we got here and where we might be headed. The clock is ticking. Democracy is at a crossroads and the time to act is now.

Shawn:

Charlottesville was a rude awakening for many Americans, revealing the persistent and deadly nature of white supremacist ideologies. It also showed how these groups had adapted to the modern era, using social media to organize and spread their message and aligning themselves with broader political movements, specifically the rightward shift in the Republican Party to gain influence. On today's episode of After America, we're going to examine the history of white supremacy in the United States, the ways in which it has evolved, how it's found common cause with right-wing militia groups, how it's been absorbed into the Republican Party and what it means for the future of American democracy. This is Dr Ian Haney-Lopez, a law professor at UC Berkeley who specializes in race and racism and author of the book Dog Whistle Politics, setting the stage for this episode.

Dr. Lopez:

If you start by thinking about the relationship between racism and American politics, just a moment's reflection will illuminate that there's been this constant interaction since the founding of the country, tinged with deep concerns about African Americans, racist concerns, powerful debates about the expropriation of Native American lands and whether the character of Native Americans justified it. The 1800s were dominated by debates about manifest destiny whether God had ordained that the United States expand across the Northern Hemisphere, including having a divine right to take the northern half of Mexico. Then you get these questions of empire and should we be a caste society with overseas holdings? Then you get the questions of Jim Crow in the South. Over and over again, there are express debates about racism, the positions of people of color and the centrality of white people to the country.

Dr. Lopez:

The civil rights movement in the 40s, the 50s, the 60s frontally challenges one of the main beliefs that was simply taken for granted in the United States, and that is that white people were superior and deserved to be dominant and deserved to hold for themselves all of the best things in society the best schools, the best neighborhoods, the best jobs, all of the power in the jobs, all of the power in the military, all of the power in the economy, all of the power in politics. That was what the civil rights movement was challenging. And the civil rights movement pushed the idea that racism, especially against African Americans, but racism in general, was a great moral evil and that no racial group should be deemed dominant or superior, should be deemed instead marginal, or reviled or inferior. And the civil rights movement, to a remarkable degree, succeeds at the level of cultural belief From the 1960s forward.

Dr. Lopez:

It's not possible to say in public, without being broadly condemned, statements extolling white supremacy or statements expressly denigrating African Americans as an inferior race. So here's this incredible, pivotal moment in American history and culture in which the certainty of white superiority is replaced by the belief that racism is immoral and wrong. What happens then in the 1960s to this? Through line of conversations about white dominance that have been so important to American politics since the founding of the country, they disappear on one level, but not because they're actually gone and all of a sudden the relationships between racial groups in the United States are irrelevant, but rather because those conversations go underground. Relevant, but rather because those conversations go underground.

Shawn:

They take a coded form. White supremacy, deeply rooted in America tracing back to the colonial era, is an ideology asserting that white people are superior to people of other races and should dominate society. It promotes the belief that racial hierarchies are natural and justifiable, often leading to systemic racism and discrimination. Historically, it has manifested in various forms, including slavery, segregation and discriminatory laws and policies. White supremacist groups advocate for maintaining or restoring social, political and economic power for white individuals, often through exclusion, oppression or violence against non-white populations. This ideology continues to influence contemporary politics and social dynamics, fueling hate crimes and extremist movements. This is Dr Kathleen Blee, expert on white supremacy and far-right movements, and author of the recently published book Out of Hiding Extremist White Supremacy and how it Can Be Stopped, explaining White Supremacy Ideology.

Dr. Blee:

White supremacy in the United States really has two parts. So one part is what I would refer to as extremist white supremacism and since the end of the Civil War, since the 1870s, that's taken a really particular form in this country. It's a think of as a constellation of certain kinds of ideas and practices and emotions, and those are the ideas that white Western men are superior, are superior, rightfully dominant, and that all others are inferior and many of them enemies of white Western men. It's also a set of beliefs and practices, mostly practices around violence and sometimes terrorism as a way to ensure white domination. And finally, extremist white supremacy since 1870s has always worked on evoking emotions of rage and fear and, on the positive side, white racial pride as a way of mobilizing people into its ranks. So that's the extremist.

Dr. Blee:

There's also what we could think of as ordinary white supremacy or everyday racism that operates in tandem with extremist white supremacy. So that's everyday racism. Is racism targeted at people of color, racism that's explained away by whites as just the way things are. Racism that operates in culture, like racist jokes, and in institutions, like redlining by banks and differential treatment in courts or by the police. So white supremacy is really a package of those two kinds of extremists and ordinary white supremacy that supported each other.

Shawn:

The institution of slavery was the bedrock upon which white supremacist ideologies were built. European settlers imported the idea of racial hierarchy, which was codified into laws that institutionalized the oppression of African Americans and Native Americans. After the Civil War, during the Reconstruction era, having not only lost the institution of slavery but also the social and political control that they had once wielded, white supremacists sought to reclaim their dominance. The Ku Klux Klan, formed in 1865 by former Confederate soldiers in Pulaski, tennessee, quickly evolved from a social club into a violent paramilitary organization. The Klan aimed to undermine Reconstruction efforts and maintain white dominance in the South using terror and violence. Wearing white robes and hoods to conceal their identities, klansmen terrorized African Americans and their allies through lynchings, beatings and arson. The federal government attempted to dismantle the Klan with legislation, like the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871, which aimed to protect African American voters and suppress Klan activity. But despite some successes, by the end of Reconstruction in 1877, federal troops withdrew from the South, leaving African Americans vulnerable to renewed violence and intimidation. This power vacuum allowed for the formalization of segregation and disenfranchisement under Jim Crow laws, which led to a resurgence of the Klan after the release of the 1915 film the Birth of a Nation, which glorified the organization, expanding its targets beyond African Americans to include Catholics, jews and immigrants.

Shawn:

The Klan wielded significant political power in the 1920s, with millions of members holding influential positions in government. But the Klan's influence waned in the late 1920s due to scandals and public disapproval. However, it saw a modest revival in the 1940s, fueled by opposition to the civil rights movement and desegregation, and in this iteration the Klan violently targeted African American veterans returning from World War II, seeking to suppress their political activism and maintain white supremacy. By the early 1950s, the federal government, led by figures like Harry S Truman, began to address civil rights issues more directly. Truman's establishment of the President's Committee on Civil Rights and his executive orders desegregating the armed forces marked significant steps toward racial equality and setting the stage for a landmark legal battle. In 1954, the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v Board of Education declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. This ruling galvanized the civil rights movement and heralded a new era of activism and resistance which ultimately led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which represented pivotal steps toward dismantling institutional racism.

Dr. Blee:

My fellow Americans, I am about to sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Shawn:

The federal government, pressured into action by the grassroots civil rights movement, began to crack down on Klan activities, and the Klan found itself increasingly isolated. The FBI launched a covert operation aimed at infiltrating and disrupting the Klan, which, combined with the growing unpopularity of the Klan's violent methods, gradually eroded their power. By the end of the 1960s, the Klan's influence was significantly diminished. Their violent tactics, once wielded with impunity, now attracted severe legal repercussions and widespread public condemnation, Despite the fact that the Klan had largely ceased to exist. Its message, tactics and widespread public condemnation, Despite the fact that the Klan had largely ceased to exist, its message, tactics and legacy live on. Throughout the 20th century, white supremacy has adapted and evolved alongside a right-wing militia movement that has its own distinct but overlapping history, with the mission of the KKK. Its modern incarnation emerged in the 1990s, fueled by anti-government sentiment, gun rights absolutism, fears of a new world order that undermined their power and influence, and also white supremacy. Dr Blee describes this.

Dr. Blee:

Parallel with those threads of extremist white supremacy are the militia movements, the right-wing militia or paramilitary movements and those kind of come and go. They're very counter-cyclical to whichever party's in control of the federal government. So when Democrats are in control of federal government and the presidency, militians often rise up. When Republicans are in control they often go down, and that's because they are often mobilized around fear that the federal government, if it's controlled by Democrats, will take away guns and ban militias. So those have been periodically very strong elements of the far right in the United States.

Dr. Blee:

They took on a particular direction in the late 20th century that continues today, which is they became some of them, not all of them became fairly focused on anti-Semitic messages and they became quite opposed to government, especially federal government, which they came to term as ZOG, z-o-g for Zionist Occupation Government, and from that ideology came some of their strategies of turning power over to the county level, attacking and disabling the federal government. So those are kind of the main strands historically since the 1870s. In the very recent years a lot of that is fragmented and you see all kinds of other groups and communities that don't fit neatly into any of those categories the Patriot Front, the Boogaloo Boys, proud Boys, the kind of so-called lone wolf phenomena. What we see now is more of a fracturing of the organizational aspects of the far right, but not a diminishment of the far right. So people are moving in and out of different groups. The groups are less organized but still very active both online and off In the 1990s.

Shawn:

this modern militia movement was fueled by incidents like the Ruby Ridge standoff in 1992 and the Waco siege in 1993. These events were interpreted by many as examples of government overreach, galvanizing a new generation of militia members who believed they were defending constitutional rights and individual freedoms. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by Timothy McVeigh, a right-wing white supremacist, was a wake-up call to the deadly potential of these ideologies. It highlighted how these fringe ideologies cannot be ignored. They can lead to catastrophic real-world consequences. The militia movement receded from public view somewhat in the late 90s and early 2000s, but it never went away and with the advent of the internet, white supremacy and militia movements found a new life, using social media and online forums to recruit and radicalize. Waiting for just the right moment. That moment came in 2008. Here's Dr Blee explaining what happened and how it got as far as it did.

Dr. Blee:

So Obama's first election. It's just heralded as a time of great racial reconciliation. That was when so many white supremacists emerged and got on Stormfront. That's a digital platform one of the earliest digital platforms used by white supremacists that the platform collapsed. So you had the same time Obama coming to office and this giant rise of white supremacism. You know 2017, the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Again, people acted surprised. It came out of nowhere. It was a huge event really pulled the far right together. No response.

Dr. Blee:

And then January 6th. Of course you have a lot of people who are not affiliated with far right groups, but you also had the violent Proud Boys, the military extremists, three percenters mixed in. So at every junction where these very visible actions of the far right in terms of violence and terrorism emerge, there's an opportunity for society to deal with this. To deal with this through criminal prosecution, to deal with this through education, to deal with this in terms of changing policing, changing understanding, prevention, helping people who are involved in the far right de-radicalize All the ways that we know can be effective in curbing far right activity and violence. Opportunities were missed at each of those. There wasn't a societal response of any note, there wasn't a federal response, and so I mean part of the reason the far right's accelerated over time is simply that there has been very little standing in their way.

Shawn:

The election of Barack Obama, the first Black president, was a pivotal moment in American history that also sparked a significant backlash. White supremacists and right-wing extremists viewed Obama's presidency as a threat to their vision of America. This period saw the rise of the Tea Party movement, which, while primarily focused on fiscal conservatism, also harbored elements of nativism and xenophobia and thinly-veiled racial resentment, as we discussed in the first episode of After America, along with a proliferation of conspiracy theories like the birther movement, which falsely claimed that Obama was not born in the United States. This further stoked racial tensions and provided a rallying cry for many white supremacists. As a result, this period saw a surge in the activity of far-right groups, with the Southern Poverty Law Center documenting a 755% increase in their numbers between 2008 and 2012.

Shawn:

Then came the Trump era, which brought white nationalist ideas from the fringes into the mainstream of Republican politics. In a way, it marked the first time since segregationist legislators roamed the halls of Congress that the political establishment, specifically candidates and legislators in the Republican Party, reflected and embodied the values and ideologies of white supremacists and militia groups in government. Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016, with its slogan Make America Great Again, was seen by many as a nod to white nationalist sentiments. Trump's rhetoric on immigration, his criticism of the media and his ambiguous responses to questions about white supremacy were interpreted as signals of support by these groups. This perception was solidified after the Charlottesville rally, when Trump infamously stated that there were very fine people on both sides.

Shawn:

The political climate born and nurtured during this time acted as an implicit rallying cry and provided fertile ground for white supremacist and far-right militia groups to grow and spread their influence. And the internet played a crucial role in this evolution. As the internet grew, becoming more omnipresent, sophisticated and accessible, online forums, social media platforms and encrypted messaging apps such as Telegram and Signal allowed white supremacists and militia members to communicate, organize and radicalize new recruits. To communicate, organize and radicalize new recruits, memes, videos and other digital content became powerful tools for spreading propaganda and normalizing extremist views. Dr James Hawdon, director of the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention at Virginia Tech, explains how the contemporary media bubble and algorithms allow, even encourage, extremist individuals and groups to connect, recruit and plan.

Dr. Hawdon:

So I think a lot of it. Well, there's a number of things. One, we have entered a new era of capitalism, I feel, and this is, you know, largely stealing the ideas from Veracocas and his notion of a techno feudalism, thinking about the way that capitalism works. Now, what he argues is that the markets are dead. There's really no competitive market anymore. It's you know. If you think about how we buy most of our stuff now, it's online, right, and the way this works is, if you have a product, you have to pay Amazon or whoever to privilege to write the algorithm that privileges your product, you know. So if we're both selling jeans, for example, and you have paid to have the algorithm, show people your jeans and I haven't, you're going to win right? So what this has done is has really created a system that creates a hyper surge of inequality.

Dr. Hawdon:

Right that where we all feel we aren't getting ahead. It is difficult for people. You know, the days of one parent working and being able to comfortably provide for your family are long gone, right, and it's just gotten worse. And when we combine that with the fact that we are constantly reminded about everything we don't have and everything that everybody else does have, you know, there's just a sense of. I think there's a far greater sense of precarity than there has been for a very long time. So that kind of sets the tone of the situation where people just don't feel like the system's working for me anymore. You know, you even see this from people who have very good jobs. They just don't. There's a kind of an ontological insecurity and a sense of precariousness that is pervasive. So when you add to that social media and the fact that this media bubble is very personalized, right with a bunch of algorithms, so when you search for genes, the next thing you know you're going to get to see a bunch of ads for genes. Your experience online is very personalized and driven by these algorithms.

Dr. Hawdon:

And what this does is that we have this sense of something just doesn't feel right. And then we get sucked in by clickbait that's promoting these alternative truths. And once we get there, you know there's a systematic attack against traditional authority, traditional attacking, you know, science, attacking these truths and these kind of social guidelines, and these are devoid of the standards of science and journalistic integrity that we have played by for some time now that at least tries to verify claims, truth claims before they're disseminated. This new media is devoid of that. So, given this sense that something's just not right, I'm looking for something that makes sense.

Dr. Hawdon:

When we see these things that are exciting, tantalizing, sensational, we click on them, and what this does is it just kind of helps us reaffirm our sense that something's wrong and I'm just not making it. Everybody else seems to be making it, but I'm not. Social media gives us all an excuse to kind of be jealous, envious and this kind of a sense of victimization and, in essence, gives us all a reason to hate, and there's plenty of people out there that will tell you who you should hate and why it is that you're feeling the way you are, whether that's the influx of immigrants or the government's helping the poor too much, or pick your group that you want to blame, there's somebody out there that will give you that narrative.

Shawn:

When we think about white supremacists and militia groups, we often associate them with violence the Charlottesville Unite, the Right rally January 6th, etc. But the influence of these groups now extends beyond violent actions and into the realm of policy and public discourse. Their rhetoric and ideology have seeped into mainstream politics, influencing debates on issues like immigration, gun rights and federal authority. This influence can be seen in the increasing extremism of the Republican Party and the rise of populist movements that reject traditional political norms. They're taking an active role in shaping the Republican Party platform and rhetoric, with many GOP politicians now embracing the Great Replacement Theory, the xenophobic conspiracy theory that suggests that a deliberate and systematic effort is underway to replace the white population of the United States with non-white immigrants and other white nationalist hawking points. Here's Dr Blee again.

Dr. Blee:

What you're seeing right now is that the far right has an opportunity and is seizing the opportunity to do mainstreaming. So at some periods of time the far right is very marginalized, very sort of off in its own corner, very separate from the mainstream population. And then there are opportunities where they can sort of move into mainstream society through some vehicle. And right now there's multiple vehicles for far-right influence into the larger culture. So Christian nationalism is a vehicle. Some organs of the Republican Party have been a vehicle. Some connections to far-right parties in government in Europe have been a vehicle. So there's multiple portals right now in which they found the opportunity to move into society. So why do they want to move into society if their goal is social collapse? The idea of moving into society is to have the mainstream institutions carry their message forward. The actual groups in the far right are small and many of them don't want to get too big because they're interested in security and safety and secrecy, but they're interested in pumping their ideas forward and a really good example of that is the great replacement theory. So 10 years ago you know I probably without exaggerating too much, it's only a handful of people who could tell you what great replacement theory was. It was a very arcane kind of obscure thing that was going around the far right. So people who studied the far right knew about it, some of the far rightists knew about it, but it was a very kind of niche idea and you know it gained some traction in the far right sort of circles and onlines but still really stayed within those contours of that movement. As they began to mainstream, as they found portals into the society outside the extremist white supremacy, other persons and organizations started to carry that message forward.

Dr. Blee:

So Tucker Carlson was talking about great replacement theory. You know candidates in the Republican Party were talking about it, commentators, you know, all of a sudden it wasn't. It changed from something that was so. So out there such a terrible idea. And just to remind everybody, great replacement theory is the idea that a group of hidden elites are engineering the migration of non-whites into quote white nations to undermine them. So it's applied in the US to talk about movement across the Mexican border into the United States.

Dr. Blee:

It's used in Europe to talk about movement from Northern Africa into your countries of Europe. And in all cases it's not a demographic shift. Demographic shift, it's an engineered plot. So it fits so well into this far-right conspiratorial idea. It's kind of a really out there far-right idea that there's just, you know, the world is being manipulated from the shadows. That went from being a really kind of crazy idea out in the world of the far-right communicators to being something that people talk about all the time as if it's real. I mean it's now in the mainstream discussion. There's great replacement going on in this country. That's a really great example of a horrifying far-right victory. They've mainstreamed one of their most important concepts. They also mainstreamed memes and symbols and words, all kinds of things, by getting them to be picked up by other people, kind of not in the far right but on the right edge of politics, and carry them forward.

Shawn:

And beyond just acceptance, republican politicians are exploiting, generating and actively spreading misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories that have a genesis in white supremacists and militia groups. Dr Lopez explains this.

Dr. Lopez:

This is an incredibly important story to tell. The 1960s were a pivotal moment for the United States. We had come to see that racism was evil. We'd come to see that racial hierarchy and white supremacy in the South was backstopped by inhumane violence. This was the importance of the nightly news showing the southern police with their dogs and their fire hoses. We'd come to see and we learned through World War II, through Nazism, just how horrible, how inhumane, how brutal, how violent racism and eugenicism were, and we as a country vowed to turn against it.

Dr. Lopez:

Now, with any change, there's always anxiety, and all the more so when there's change in people's relative status, when we're saying to people who thought themselves superior you're not superior, you're one among equals, welcome others as your equal. And in moments of change, what any society really needs is a set of leaders who say we recognize the anxiety of change, but we're here to tell you we're going to be okay, we're all going to be fine. But instead, what we got was a set of leaders who said you know that anxiety you're feeling. You're not scared enough. These people are killers, they're rapists, they're ripping off the system, they don't respect you, they hate you. In fact, you know how they're talking about white racism. The truth is, they're racist against white people, and that's the rhetoric that we've gotten for the last 50 years a moment of change, but then a political leadership class that leans into and exaggerates all of the fear and anxiety that change would otherwise produce.

Dr. Lopez:

Now let's fast forward over that 50 years. The strategy on the right for winning elections is promoting notions of fear and hysteria and a sense of threat. That's an emotional state that cannot be maintained except by continually inventing new fears and by continually heightening the language of threat. And so it's not just hey, the racism of the 60s continued, or wow, we didn't make as much progress as we thought in our fight against the racism of the 60s. It really is the case that some of the most powerful people in the United States have been investing in keeping alive, but also vivifying and inventing new sorts of racial hysterias. So there's this process in which racism is getting worse and worse and worse, and again it's getting worse because it's a strategy, and it's a strategy that is being pursued by very powerful people who. This has been the main strategy for the Republican Party for the last 50 years.

Shawn:

In 2018, house member Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke at the Mother of All Rallies in Washington DC, an event that featured several militia members, including those from the Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters providing security. During her speech, she praised these militia members as the very definition of our Second Amendment and emphasized their role in protecting against a tyrannical government. And emphasized their role in protecting against a tyrannical government. House member Paul Gosar has retweeted and shared content from figures known for promoting white nationalist views and conspiracy theories, such as white nationalist Nick Fuentes, amplifying their messages and giving them a broader platform.

Shawn:

And during the first presidential debate on September 29, 2020, moderator Chris Wallace asked Donald Trump if he was willing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and urge them to stand down and not add to the violence in cities like Kenosha and Portland. Trump responded proud boys, stand back and stand by. This phrase stand back and stand by was interpreted by many as a call to the Proud Boys to be ready, rather than a condemnation. This interpretation was bolstered by the Proud Boys themselves, who almost immediately began creating and sharing images, memes and merchandise featuring the phrase Stand Back and Stand by alongside their logo and other symbols. The phrase was used to boost morale and recruitment within the group. The Proud Boys' online presence increased as they rallied around the perceived endorsement. It was used in posts that called for new members and encouraged existing members to prepare for future actions, particularly in the context of the upcoming election and potential post-election unrest. Dr Hawdon expounds on this.

Dr. Hawdon:

You know, one of the big warning signs is the mainstreaming of the, or the advanced priming of the narrative, and we saw this with January 6th. We saw this. I mean, even going back to the 2016 election, right, trump kind of implied that if he lost it was because the election was rigged. He explicitly said that prior to the 2020 election, right, and of course, he is saying very similar things now, and so you know, that's just kind of undermining the faith in our democratic system. That's the first sign and that sign is flashing big red flashing sign already.

Dr. Hawdon:

And when you see, you know the data I haven't seen the most recent data. The last I saw a poll the majority of people having doubts and questions about the integrity of our elections. This has been going on for some time. I mean, if you think back to the 2000 election, you know this was an election that was decided by the Supreme Court stepping in to decide a state that one of the candidates' brother was the governor of right and just happened to decide it in his favor, and then subsequent investigations found out that that was probably the incorrect decision. So the integrity of our elections have been coming under increased scrutiny for some time. This just went into hyperdrive in 2020. But it was started.

Dr. Hawdon:

That narrative began long before 2020. Trump started talking about this in 2016. And you now have a large percentage of people who agree with him that there was something questionable about 2020. No one could find evidence of it, but there had to be something right. So that's warning sign one. And then, as you get closer to the actual event, what the authorities need to look for is just a lot of online chatter. We saw that before January 6th. We saw that before the incidents in Charlottesville. Anytime there's a rate increase in chatter about a specific event, a specific place, a specific time. That should put people on high alert.

Shawn:

This mainstreaming of white supremacy militia movements and the political violence associated with these groups, bringing their ideologies and values into American government, poses a grave threat. There is a tangible influence that these groups have on modern politics. They seek to shape public policy, undermine democratic institutions and promote candidates who align with their views. This influence can be seen in various areas, from immigration policy to gun rights, to racial inequality, to community safety, and all of their policy preferences are skewed, favoring exclusionary and oppressive measures. So I want to put a fine point on this, some clarity about the policy goals these groups seek to achieve, the country they want to impose on all of us. They want to establish and maintain the dominance of white people over other racial and ethnic groups. They would achieve that by promoting policies of segregation, anti-immigration and opposition to affirmative action and multiculturalism. Dr Blee explains what this might look like.

Dr. Blee:

Tipping points are very difficult to discern among the far right for a variety of reasons. One is their danger is not really coalescing. They are not necessarily more dangerous when they're coalesced. They can be more dangerous when they're fragmented. It's also not size. They can be much more dangerous.

Dr. Blee:

You know a small, relatively small handful of far rightists who are involved in, say, accelerationism. That's the idea that you want to cause social chaos and social collapse that will precipitate a race war of all against all, after which white domination will be assured. People who hold those kind of beliefs are people who are, you know, threatening infrastructure, power plants, you know mass kind of violence. So the threat of the far right is not necessarily its organization. The threat of the far right is its tipping point toward violence, toward terrorism, and that's not easy to pick up in the way that you could pick up.

Dr. Blee:

How well they're getting organized, how violent they're becoming, is a little bit more subtle. But you know, this is the reason people are monitoring the online chatter and the communications among these groups, to see when they are more and more engaged in violence and terroristic discussions and what precipitates them. Those kind of discussions are usually what they see as opportunities. The far right is an extremely opportunistic movement. They can change a lot of their ideologies pretty quickly based on the opportunity. So if they see an opportunity, which might well be something like the society is fragile and it's possible now to put pressure in the form of violence or terrorism to kind of tip the society toward a more chaotic form, that's the kind of tipping point that I would fear would move the far right forward and energize the far right in a very destructive way.

Shawn:

These groups also often oppose federal government authority, advocating for states' rights and local control. They're against international organizations and treaties, viewing them as threats to national sovereignty. So, in their world, the federal government is neutered, states have massive control over our personal lives and the United States pulls out of the international community. These groups place a strong emphasis on the right to bear arms, opposing gun control measures and advocating for a heavily armed citizenry as a safeguard against perceived government tyranny.

Shawn:

White supremacist and militia groups promote a strong national identity, often coupled with stances in foreign policy to prevent perceived dilution of national culture and interests. This is where anti-immigration and isolationist policies come in. Some of these groups also advocate for policies based on their interpretation of Christian values, opposing secularism and promoting Christian teachings in public institutions and laws. In total, the mainstreaming and normalization of these violent and authoritarian ideologies from the fringes to the heart of the Republican Party, embracing the tactics and rhetoric of white supremacist and militia groups, framing their arguments in terms of patriotism and constitutional rights, has been reshaping our country. The consequences of this influence have been profound. In the 2021 American Values Survey, 30% of Republicans expressed support for the idea that true American patriots might have to resort to violence in order to save the country. Dr Lopez expounds.

Dr. Lopez:

I don't think you can understand the crisis of democracy in the United States without a serious examination of the evolution and expansion of dog whistle politics over the last 50 years. The strategy of the right has been to promote social division in order to break our confidence in each other and in liberal government, and I think that strategy starts initially as a way to win elections, as a way to cut back on New Deal programs. But the very success of that project of sowing social division as a strategy of class war, the very momentum it has gathered over the decades, and certainly the acceleration it received from Donald Trump, has really pushed us to the point in which social solidarity is on the verge of collapse in the United States, to be replaced potentially by widespread sectarian violence. We got here we are here now because of a political and economic strategy of pushing social hatreds into the veins of the American population, and 50 years of that on, we're about to rip each other's throats out.

Shawn:

This disturbing trend highlights a critical issue. While white supremacist and militia groups may use democratic processes to gain power, they often oppose democratic norms and institutions, seeking to undermine free elections, press freedom and judicial independence, and so they pose a significant threat to American democracy. The ideologies of white supremacists, right-wing militia groups and now the Republican Party itself are fundamentally anti-democratic. Rooted in exclusion, division and the belief in the superiority of one race over others, these groups undermine democratic principles by promoting violence, spreading misinformation and seeking to erode trust in democratic institutions. Dr Blee explains this threat.

Dr. Blee:

Extremist white supremacy poses a fundamental danger to democracy in a couple ways. One, its core characteristics are that it's conspiratorial and it has an extreme sense of people like us versus the people not like us. In other words, the people who are the good people and the people who are the evil people, or the people who are friends versus the people who are enemies. Those are very anti-democratic ideas, right, they are saying. In the case of conspiratorialism, they're saying going to the polls and voting doesn't matter, because there's somebody behind the scenes who is controlling who's going to get elected. Pressuring your elected officials doesn't matter, because they are puppets of somebody else. So conspiratorialism is an idea that's really antithetical to how we think about democracy, because it says that nothing you do when you think you're participating actually matters.

Dr. Blee:

The extreme us and them idea of white supremacy is also antithetical to democracy, because democracy is really based on the idea that people in the democracy all have a place, all have rights, all have and should have a voice in how the society runs, and ideologies that cast a whole segment of the population as outside of that, as threats, as enemies, that's not society in which democracy can really flourish. In addition, extremist white supremacy is openly hostile to democratic strategies and goals. They really see kind of the governance of democracy as mainly concerned with protecting minority groups and gaining rights and of course in the last decades as itself a puppet to a larger Zionist occupation government. So it's not only that extremist white supremacists don't participate in elections, but everything about how they believe and their goals are really the opposite of democratic goals.

Shawn:

So if not democracy, then what? White supremacists and militia groups aren't necessarily on the same page, but their stated goals and policy preferences include elements of a number of forms of government that could all exist to varying degrees in tandem with each other, none of which are democratic. First, these groups have a preference for a strong centralized authority with limited democratic processes, so they support authoritarianism in which a dictatorial leader or an oligarchic system concentrates power in the hands of a few who share their ideological beliefs. This is the fastest and easiest way, in their minds, to impose their will on a majority that doesn't agree with them. Donald Trump cuts a great figure to them in this regard. His administration exhibited authoritarian tendencies, such as undermining democratic norms, attacking the press and questioning the legitimacy of elections, and this year he's promising more of it.

Shawn:

These groups are also interested in ethnocracy, a government structure where policies and power are explicitly designed to benefit one ethnic group over others. This often involves systemic discrimination and exclusion of minorities from political and social life. Richard Spencer is an example of this, a prominent white nationalist who's openly called for the establishment of a white ethnostate in North America. Increasingly, white supremacist and militia groups are embracing some form of theocracy, where laws and policies are based on their religious beliefs, often aligning with Christian nationalism. This has already gained a strong foothold in our American government, with figures like House Speaker Mike Johnson and Missouri Senator Josh Hawley.

Shawn:

With Christian nationalism, this has already gained a strong foothold in our American government, with figures like House Speaker Mike Johnson and Missouri Senator Josh Hawley embracing the Christian nationalist movement that seeks to apply Old Testament laws to modern society. These groups, especially militia groups such as the Oath Keepers, three Percenters and Proud Boys, also place a heavy emphasis on military strength and preparedness, with support for paramilitary activities and organization that can act independently of or in opposition to the state, and this portends the potential for significant escalation and incidents of political violence in the United States. Here's Dr Hawdon discussing how these groups have been primed by Donald Trump and the impact that could have this election year.

Dr. Hawdon:

In terms about worried about political violence. I am extremely worried. I'm worried because I think, regardless of what happens, the possibility for political violence is pretty high. Of course, if Biden wins, I think we can expect Trump to claim the election was fraudulent. He's already, as I said, he's already hinted that that's the only way he could possibly lose. So that stage has already been set and there's already murmurs from his supporters that they're not going to accept the election, that they're not going to take it lying down like they did it last time. So if Biden wins, I think we definitely have to be on the lookout for kind of insurgency and this rhetoric talking about stealing the election, and then you know people acting on that rhetoric. But even if Trump wins, I fear that the violence is going to happen. It's my I don't think it will be in the nature that we will see if Biden wins, where you know kind of a grassroots, but I fear that it'll be more be more systemic.

Dr. Hawdon:

Trump has shown strong tendencies towards dictatorship and you know he has openly called for revenge against his political rivals. You know, in his first term he already asked about if we could use force against protesters openly, attack the press openly, attack the judicial system. These are all textbook signs of marching towards a dictatorship. And the scary thing is, this time he won't be a deer in the headlights like he was in 2016. He is far more seasoned at the position 2016. He is far more seasoned at the position and I think he's learned not to surround himself with people who will stop him. The succubants are lining up for positions close to him, so all we have to do is listen to the people the large list of people who worked for him during his first administration talking about what a threat he is and about how he is not fit for office.

Shawn:

Jason Van Tatenhove, former employee of the Oath Keepers, who testified in front of the January 6th Commission about the threats of right-wing militia groups, now a journalist and author, shares these fears.

Jason van Tatenhove:

I think when Trump talks about retaliation and revenge, I don't think he's just saying that in passing. I don't think that's something that's going to go away. I think this is something we see when other nations have fallen from democracy and gone into an authoritarian regime. I think we're going to see the dismantling largely of the free press libertarian regime. I think we're going to see the dismantling largely of the free press. I think that we will see, you know, more state-sponsored propaganda outlets.

Jason van Tatenhove:

I think that you know the states will try to fight it and retain their own independence, as we're seeing now with the abortion issue and other issues. You know, whether it be human rights with LGBTQ plus communities, you know we're already seeing this kind of doubling down as to what each community and each state kind of believes and what they're about. You know. So it's just, unfortunately, is going to lead to a lot more division. I think there's a possibility for a lot more violence. We have an appetite for violence, to paraphrase Hunter Thompson. You know we're one of the best armed nations in the world and we have no compunction with perpetrating violence upon anyone who makes us feel uncomfortable.

Shawn:

So if we put all of this together, we get a clear picture of the country that white supremacists and militia groups, in conjunction with their supporters in halls of power, the Republican Party, hoped to achieve and kind of seem like they're on the cusp of realizing. If these groups have their way, the United States will become a white Christian authoritarian nation. In that case, we can expect to experience continued erosion of democratic norms and institutions, with white nationalist ideas becoming even more mainstream in the Republican Party. We would see more frequent incidents of political violence, much like January 6, 2021, as these groups, threatened by demographic and cultural changes, actively work to subjugate the rest of us through intimidation, terror and force. This, in turn, would contribute to increasing polarization and fracture. This, in turn, would contribute to increasing polarization and fracture, which could lead to a kind of soft secession, with some states essentially ignoring federal authority and creating separate ethnostates. Here's Dr Glee again.

Dr. Blee:

Democracy is facing a very serious stress test in the United States. I don't think we can take for granted that it's going to continue in the recognizable form that we're used to I. The idea that democracy, once set up, exists forever is something that all of us can recognize. Is not true. We've seen democracies fall in all kinds of different countries. Speaking for myself, it didn't seem like that would actually ever happen in the United States, but now it seems like a possibility. So we know that it happens. We also know how it happens that democracies crumble and unfortunately, I don't think there's any reason to think that the United States is immune.

Shawn:

The impact of all of this on the global order and stability would be profound. A fractured United States would weaken its position as a global leader, reducing its influence in international organizations and alliances such as NATO and the United Nations. This could embolden authoritarian regimes such as Russia, china, north Korea, iran, even Cuba, and destabilize regions relying on US support for security and economic stability. Global markets could experience increased volatility due to uncertainty about US policies and relationships, potentially leading to a more fragmented and less cooperative international landscape and a global economic disaster that would touch all of us. These economic and political implications are devastating enough, but the psychological impact of living in a society where white supremacy and militia violence are prevalent, where these policies begin to creep into our daily lives, cannot be underestimated. Fear and anxiety stifle civic engagement and discourage participation in the democratic process, which, in turn, further strengthens these groups. It's a cycle that feeds itself to no good end. Jason Van Tatenhove describes the country that he fears these groups will create.

Jason van Tatenhove:

You know, we, unfortunately, we are at a crossroads right now, in this moment, where by the end of the year we may see the end of our democracy as we know it. I mean, if you look at the plans, that and again, it's not even a far right anymore. It's just the GOP in general with their vision 24 and just you know what they're doing. And then, on a state level, I mean the Colorado GOP, just this week, has been urging their members to, you know, all parents to pull their kids out of public education. They're calling for, in my opinion, what is the commission of hate crimes? They're calling for people to burn every pride flag. They see, this is just crazy, coming from a foundational institute like the GOP, where I just don't recognize it anymore.

Jason van Tatenhove:

We have Ken Buck, who just resigned from Congress and because he didn't want to continue participating according to his interview with Jon Stewart participating in this system because it is going so crazy and he didn't want to have to adapt to that misinformation and that dishonesty that's happening, that right now we are living in such historical times and I don't think a lot of people realize it that you know the very future of America and the human rights that you know, my daughters and your children and your listeners, children, the world that they're going to live in is going to depend on our decisions coming up here very, very quickly. And does the majority of America give into that emotional, that strong, emotional response and get caught up in that mob action kind of, or do they take a step back and a breath and say what's the world, what's the future America? I, you know, my kids and grandkids are going to live in and what do I really want that to look like? And America isn't perfect. By you know, I'll be the first one to admit that we, we we've been grappling with so much for so long, but we've got a really good thing go good thing going here, and I don't know if there's much else out there that's any better right now.

Jason van Tatenhove:

Well, maybe right now, but I believe in America and I believe in democracy. You know, my journey over the past eight to 10 years has really led me to reconsider some of the views I held up about government and just. You know where we are as a nation and you know I don't want to see that go away. I want to see a better future for my kids. I don't want to see them inheriting a world that looks eerily reminiscent to the Handmaid's Tale.

Shawn:

The state of political violence in the United States is alarming. With the ideologies of white supremacists and right-wing militia groups seeping into mainstream politics, the country faces an unprecedented threat to its democratic fabric. Instances of violence are not only becoming more frequent, but are also increasingly tolerated and even encouraged by some political factions, particularly the Republican Party. This normalization of violence creates an environment of fear and instability, where citizens feel threatened not only by physical harm, but also by the erosion of democratic norms and principles. That's our future.

Shawn:

For many, this situation raises a difficult question Should we stay and fight to protect democracy or leave to find safety and stability somewhere else? The impulse to flee is understandable. However, there is a virtue in choosing to stay and engage in the battle for democracy. Staying means committing to the ideals of equality, justice and freedom and working to restore these values in our society. It involves confronting the threats head-on, participating in democratic processes, supporting institutions that uphold the rule of law and advocating for policies that promote inclusion and peace. By choosing to remain and resist the forces of authoritarianism and violence, we not only honor the legacy of those who have fought for democracy before us, but also lay the groundwork for a future where democracy can thrive once again. For those of us committed to democracy, this is our country too. I'll leave you with Jason Van Tatenhove's thoughts about this. Check back next Sunday for another episode of After America.

Jason van Tatenhove:

My family line helped create this country. You know I can, on one part of my family I can. I can track back my family line to the second supply of Jamestown. You know I'm, I'm directly related to Patrick, patrick Henry, and you know, give me liberty, give me death, and, Nicole Pepper, don't tread on me flag and Jefferson indirectly. So half my family helped create this country.

Jason van Tatenhove:

You know, for good and bad. Unfortunately it was on the back of genocide and thievery. But the other side, you know, grandpa, literally jumped ship in front of Ellis Island and swam to the shores of New York City because he was worried he wouldn't make the cut. You know. So he was at for a time, you know, what some would term an illegal alien, an undocumented immigrant. He went on to storm the beaches of Normandy in World War II as a CB in the Navy and then helped clean up Hiroshima and also served in the Korean War. So my family's I feel there's a certain amount of family legacy that now the torch has been handed to me and a lot of people say they're going to leave the country. But I just don't think that's the right answer either.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Shawn C. Fettig

Host