Homegrown Extremism

Author: Lauren Wells

Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing. In 1995 Timothy McVeigh, with the help of Terry Nichols, parked a U-Haul truck loaded with 4,800 pounds of explosive material just outside the Murrah Federal Building killing 168. The anniversary comes at a time when a man has recently flown his small plane into the Austin IRS building killing one person and when nine members of a militia were arrested on suspicion of plotting to kill police officers. Many are concerned about the growing intensity of political rhetoric in our country and how that manifests itself in the form of right-wing, anti-government terrorism.

Domestic terrorism is not a new phenomenon. To the contrary, extremism has a long and varied history in the United States which has played host to several extremist groups and individuals. Motivations for violent action have ranged from anarchism, socialism, animal rights, and environmental activism, to racial hatred, anti-abortion, and anti-federalism agendas.

For the most part, leftist terrorism has waned extensively from its heyday in the 1970’s. However, environmental and animal rights based terrorist organizations remain very active, causing more financial harm than casualties. A brief look at the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database reveals that the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) are responsible for a large percentage of terrorist attacks perpetrated in the past twenty years, at least in terms of numbers and cost of damage.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and several notable events in the US, there was a shift toward right-wing, or anti-federalist, focused individuals and groups. The Sothern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) tracks domestic extremist and hate groups in the US. In a recent publication, the SPLC reported that right-wing organizations, often called “Patriot” groups, really increased after the Branch Davidian incident in 1993. It should also be added that the shooting at Ruby Ridge and the adoption of various national gun laws in the mid-1990’s have also been used as rallying cries for many “Patriot” groups. The movement generally died down by the turn of the century, but again resurging in the past year; reportedly growing 244 percent in 2009. And while “Patriot” groups have been active for the past twenty years, their activity level has remained low. Some researchers have suggested that these militia groups act more as a political protest movement, rather than a push for violent action. Instead, the majority of anti-government terrorist activity has come from “lone-wolf” terrorists.

One and two party actors have historically been responsible for larger and more deadly attacks. The most well known “lone-wolf” terrorists being Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice, Terry Nichols. Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh and Nichols were previously members of a Michigan militia group, even starting their own militia group at one point. However, at the time of the bombing, neither planning, nor action was carried out by any one organization, but two individuals acting on their own accord.

Again in 1996 Eric Rudolph, acting alone, detonated a bomb in the crowded Centennial Olympic Park during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. While he had previously bombed abortion clinics, Rudolph targeted what he viewed as “global socialism” and hoped his actions would cancel the games. In 2001, several anthrax laced letters were sent to various political and media outlets killing five and injuring seventeen. The FBI’s primary suspect, Bruce Ivins, was a researcher at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. He killed himself in 2008 prior to being charged with the attacks. Less than a year later, Luke Helder sent pipe bombs to various individuals across the Midwest. Helder was found to be too incompetent to stand trial, but had made several anti-government statements in reference to the motive behind his attacks. Most recently, Joseph Stack III flew his small plane into the Austin IRS building after posting a lengthy rant against the US government and the IRS on the internet.

It is evident that while anti-government sentiment is not the only form of homegrown extremism facing the US, right-wing terrorism is certainly active and is on everyone’s mind. It is too early to tell whether the rise in militia membership will lead toward increased incidents of terrorism. Historically speaking, these groups have not been directly responsible for large acts of terror, but their rise in membership does appear to coincide with the rise in individual acts of terror. This would make sense in that the same social and political climate drives the two. So what should be done about the rise in anti-government extremism?

It is a difficult situation and authorities must walk a careful tightrope. They must balance awareness and law enforcement to prevent future attacks with restraint. If federal authorities were to crack down on militia groups, they risk exacerbating the problem. Militia members and supporters view their existence as constitutional. Any action that could be perceived as unnecessarily would be viewed by supporters as a constitutional violation and further “proof” of the growing intrusion of the federal government. This would ultimately lead to increased militia membership and act as motivation for future lone-wolf terrorists as Waco in 1994 did for Timothy McVeigh.

Last week, Former President Bill Clinton made waves when he said that in the current political climate, public officials should be careful what they say. He argued that people need to take responsibility for the consequences of their words. He is exactly right. When politicians and media personalities use language such as the need for state secession, watering the tree of liberty with blood, and the increasing tyranny of government, it gives credence to extremism and fringe organizations. And while increased membership in militias is not a direct concern, it does warn of the increased possibility of “lone-wolf” actors who turn to groups for similar ideology but become frustrated by their lack of action. Perhaps the only problem with Mr. Clinton’s comments was his intended audience. Just as equally important, Democratic politicians and media personalities should be cautious in their language. By labeling opponents as crazy or their concerns as ridiculous there is a risk of further radicalizing the far right. All public officials must be aware of their words and the potential power they have.