There’s a reason conservatives coined the term “Culture Wars”.
Ever notice how (with the brief exception of hard-left violence during the 60s and other occasional points) almost all of the domestic-bred terrorism here in these United States have come at the hands of the hard-right? In recent memory, conservatives Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph come to mind. Even back to the horrific lynchings and the like in the 19th century and certainly throughout the 20th century, it has been conservatives committing these acts of violence.
Several others have taken note also as Meteor Blades explains. This violent streak is especially evident in recent weeks (not years, weeks) as domestic terrorism plots have been foiled at scenes as different as a counterprotest at pro-immigration rally in Washington, DC and the funeral of Rev. Jerry Falwell (plus at least a handful of other similar cases on issues ranging from virulently anti-abortion to ardently pro-2A).
The only difference between those two “caught-in-the-act” terrorist plots and the recent Ft. Dix and JFK plans — which garnered a great deal more media attention — is that the immigration march and the funeral plots involved white conservatives (with at least the funeral plotters claiming to be “Christian”) that had enough finances and were caught red-handed with actual, live weapons. Indeed, one of the suspects in the thwarted Falwell funeral bombing actually traveled to Virginia from Ft. Benning, GA in an effort to carry out the attempted terrorist act.
This is as opposed to the Ft. Dix and JFK plots which involved minority Muslims who had no financing, let alone explosive devices or any weapons whatsoever. Moreover, while the march and funeral plotters were each directly involved with conservative movements, the much-more-publicized Muslim guys were rogue al Qaeda wannabe copycatters, not affiliated with anyone.
Watchdog blogger Dave Niewart posits that the underlying issue is that such conservative extremists have fairly successfully embedded themselves into the mainstream conservative movement vis a vis the Republican Party and other entities. This would, in part, explain why the mainstream media has all but ignored these stories — they sadly appear to actually be mainstream enough in and of themselves. Writes Mr. Niewart:
No, the real problem with the far right has been its ability to insinuate itself back within the mainstream during the years of Republican rule in this new century, building on the bridges created during the surge of hateful rhetoric and envelope-pushing that characterized the conservative movement in the 1990s. The extremist right, particularly its racist/paranoid factions, have long been seeking this kind of resinsertion; certainly, the militia movement of the ’90s was a direct manifestation of this effort. The result has been a steady rightward drag of mainstream conservatism, to the point that now it is virtually unrecognizable as anything genuinely conservative.
So far this century, we’ve seen a real growth of far-right rhetoric, and the march of its agenda, manifesting itself in such shapes as the Minutemen — who are in fact almost direct descendants of the ’90s militias — and various cultural eugenicists posing as “immigration reformers” and twisting the national debate on immigration in truly perverse directions; Christian “Dominionists” who want to turn the United States into a theocratic state; and most of all, a real culture of totalism fueled by an increasingly ugly tide of eliminationist rhetoric.
Mr. Niewart takes a national view of things. Of course, here in Illinois we have our own borderliners who may be susceptible to crossing over from angry talk to violent action at any time. The folks at Illinois Carry seem a lively bunch and they really, really like any and all guns … so a citizen can easily put two and two together yourself. (Remember, Tim McVeigh, et al, attacked the Murrah Federal Building in OKC on the anniversary of the Branch Davidian stand-off in Waco, TX. They did so to start a revolution against, in part, a government they thought wanted to take away their guns, among other things.) These are the same folks who came out to counterprotest, and clearly attempt to intimidate, Rev. Jesse Jackson and fellow anti-violence marchers a few weeks ago.
Another branch of the vitriolic conservative clans comes in the form of the just-this-short-of-racist groups misnamed as “Minutmen”, of which Illinois boasts a couple. Nevermind the very oddity of our state being home to such groups since Illinois borders neither Mexico nor Canada … maybe these Minutemen consider cheesheads, hoosiers, bluegrassers, show-mes and hawkeyes to also be highly offensive for pouring over our state’s lines. Every time I’ve seen these folks in action or read their acrid remarks they literally ooze hate and loathing. And being awash in inflammatory statements like “Forth in revolution!” and violent rhetoric like “I have chosen as my weapons — for the time being — a pen — for the pen IS mightier than the sword — but time may be running out”, it’s not too surprising to see learn from Mr. Niewart that such groups often have roots in both radical militia movements and supremacy-based separatist organizations.
Then there are the Dominionist folks at Illinois Family Institute and Culture “we say we’re Christian, but we oppose a Hate Crimes Bill” Campaign (and even related local pushing-rhetoric-to-the-extreme bloggers such as nurse Jill Stanek, Petey “hates gay parents with babies” LaBarbera or those found at Illinois Review) who appear to loathe any interpretation of the Bible or Constitution other than their own narrow, cherry-picked, quasi-literalist views.
Given the short leap from heated, angry vitriol against one or another minority demographic to actual violence against those folks and their allies … it’s easy to see how the extreme rhetoric from the groups could easily become a catalyst that pushes some impressionable acolyte across the line (even as IFI, CC, Illinois Review and the others may not overtly promote violence themselves). In fact, as Dave Niewart points out, the acid-tongued militantism of Ann Coulter, G. Gordon “shoot ATF Agents in the head” Liddy, and more serve to poke and prod borderliners into actually crossing over toward violence and self-believed vigilantism as was the case with hoax anthraxer Chad Castagana whose sole aim (inspired by Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and the Free Republic forums) was to harm people he considered liberal because he hated them.
From a top-line, forest-view perspective it’s fascinating to see how the once grand national Republican Party has allowed itself to be cored and have that hollowed-out center of a formerly moderate to right-leaning political organization replaced with extremists who are constantly pulling, even jerking, the national party to a hard-line brand of conservativism (see this discussion of the simmering 2006 internal debate between Republican operatives and Dominionist leaders as witness to the current importance of the hard-liners to the party). Contrast that internal acceptance of the Republicans’ extremist ranks to the national Democratic Party which in recent times has generally rejected the similarly extremist hard-left, leaving those folks to go to the budding Green Party or other organizations.
It’s also very interesting to see how Illinois’ Republican Party and that of a few other states is different from the RNC in this regard. While we do have our local conservative firebrands (here, here and here, among others) constantly trying to tug political debate rightward, whether subtly or overtly, there are a great many other ‘channels’ toward which Illinoisans can choose to tune their attention (whether “tuning” their radio, their reading, their Net surfing, their TV, etc)… and thus they are not incessantly bombarded by a singular hard-right viewpoint.
“Combine” that with Illinois’ historic reputation of legislative across-the-aisle back-scratching and perhaps this is why the Prairie State’s small band of conservative bedfellows is forced to simply nip at the heels of this state’s Republican Establishment, rather than be wholly embraced by it.
(h/t Meteor Blades for the pertinent summary of nationally-oriented essays on this topic.)
(c/p at Rich Miller’s Illinoize.)

13 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 4, 2007 at 11:52 am
c-rockjr1
dude,
the only ones in this state, trying to do social re-engineering is-Leftists.
You want to ban guns in societ,
you want to shove gay marriage down out throats. You want Abortion on demand.
illinoiscarry are a fine bunch of folks, I am proud of those folks. And I am glad to be a part of them too. Dont you dare shove those good folks in with terrorists. Those folks are fighting for your right to self-defense.
Plus illegals cost you and I. Your in 214, you want to know how many million are spent to educate illegals in 214?
I know teachers in those programs. They do their best, but when you got a kid with a 2nd grade reading level in SPANISH, aint much going to happen with english. So they try to improve their reading in spanish first. So they dont get assimlated. Plus you got kids in MS-13 in those schools. I am sorry, but if your a young adult, with no skills, and bangin’, you need to be deported.
June 4, 2007 at 2:06 pm
robnesvacil
If you re-read the post you’ll note that I did not say any of the folks referenced are terrorists (except the guys actually caught with guns, bombs and plans to kill).
What I did say is that these folks are dangerously close to crossing the line. Is it too close for your comfort that I point this fact out?
As to your specific claims, who wants to ban all guns?
I’ve asked you before C-Rock but you have yet to actually name someone with any power who wants to do such a thing. Certainly there are some folks who would like to place reasonable limits on firearms, just as we currently have reasonable limits on place in terms of our freedom of speech, etc in order to maintain an orderly society that isn’t hell-bent on destroying each other…
And, who wants to shove gay marriage down anyone’s throat?
If you don’t want to marry a man, don’t. No one is forcing you to marry someone you don’t want to marry. But some are trying to continue to force couples who do want to marry to not marry.
Why should America — the land of the free and the home of the brave — continue to support segregated commitment policies for couples in love whereby heterosexual folks can be married and enjoy all the legal and conceptual benefits thereof but gays and lesbians are relegated to attorney-written contracts at worst or segregation-style “civil unions” at best (and even so still not enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage)?
And as for illegal aliens costing you and I, in particular in District 214, there is actually a flagship ESL program in D214 which has earned a great many honors for its efficiency and effectiveness named the Vanguard Program. You forgot to note that not all the folks in ESL classes are children of illegal immigrants — many are here legally on green cards or are naturalized citizens themselves. Moreover, many of these students were born here and are thus citizens, even if their parents are illegal immigrants.
And there are a variety of other folks — from guns to gays, for and against — who also cost you and I through a variety of law enforcement and political process expenses. Such is the price of democracy, where we all get a say in how we the people run our government. But you curiously didn’t consider that, did you?
June 4, 2007 at 4:25 pm
robnesvacil
PS: Re abortion…
You spin this by writing, “You want Abortion on demand.”
I want medical privacy. Period.
If a woman decides with her physician that she needs to abort, then that she be left to her private discussion.
I want what my doctor and I (or my wife and I) talk about and decide to be left between us.
The next step (as we’ve already seen) is having conservatives pretend to be able to make medical decisions based on a few minutes of video and thus attempting to take away the right to personal medical decisions that should more properly be left to your closest loved one instead of a batch of politically-motivated hacks playing dress-up for their base.
June 4, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Windypundit
You started out with a pretty good point about right-wing domestic terrorism in this country, but I think you subverted it yourself by trying to implicate some of your bloggy opposition in possible future terrorism.
“I want medical privacy. Period.”
So, does that include medical marijuana? Recreational drugs?
June 4, 2007 at 9:42 pm
robnesvacil
How did I implicate them? By pointing out a few of the many areas where they serve to prod their conservative base?
I just wrote back to JB at Illinoize that these local groups presumably try to engage their followers in the civic political process, but that unfortunately the same actions and statements done toward that end can also serve to push borderline malcontents toward violence.
Witness the case of the would-be bombers at Rev. Falwell’s funeral. Here are a handful of folks who are supposedly Christian and morally upstanding citizens. Yet they prepared bombs with thoughts of killing their perceived Christian opponents. Falwell radicalized those wannabe terrorists himself with his own heated rhetoric over the years.
Given the many goofball posts at Illinois Review falsely claiming Sen. Obama’s church is some sort of “separatist” organization it’s pretty clear that some radical, loner conservative might get the idea to “take care of” those “separatists” once and for all. Several other Ill. Review posts also discount Sen. Obama’s need for Secret Service protection which at once serves to both anger conservatives opposed to Obama’s politics and also discount the very real existence of the many radical right-wing white supremacist organizations in this country (plus the militias tied to those groups).
And that is the jist of my post.
That these folks are any sort of “bloggy opposition” has nothing to do with it. I’m simply connecting the dots laid out in front of us all regarding the tempers and anger they can serve to set boiling. (The same case could just as easily be made with regards to, say, a batch of California’s conservative cheerleaders because this radicalizing phenomenon is national in scope, even as it manifests itself both through various national- and state-based entities.)
As to your sidenote about medicine…
Is a doctor able to prescribe those drugs legally? No (at least not in Illinois).
If a logical case can be made that such drugs are better or more effective than others already available then the Federal government (likely the FDA) should weigh the case and either recommend that Congress realign drug classifications or not (and, call me a prude, but I don’t partake in such illicit drugs so I wouldn’t know the first thing about it).
June 5, 2007 at 11:30 am
c-rockjr121
YOu called the borderline. Like they are just ready to blow up, and feed the hogs.
Mr. Niewart takes a national view of things. Of course, here in Illinois we have our own borderliners who may be susceptible to crossing over from angry talk to violent action at any time. The folks at Illinois Carry seem a lively bunch and they really, really like any and all guns … so a citizen can easily put two and two together yourself.
News to you buddy, your aint worth a bullet. People around here are just talking about moving to a gun friendly state. You can keep the illegals, you can keep your gun laws, your deficits, and corruption. With companies already leaving, you can live in your socialist paradise. Just dont follow us. Stay and reap what you created.
Any gun bans- we will say no to it. Its Simple as that. 5 counties in IL have said they will not enforce the law. 1.5 million FOID holders say no too, and that is why SB1007 is dead. They couldnt even call for a vote.
June 5, 2007 at 1:33 pm
robnesvacil
C-Rock, all it takes is one po’ed punk (whether conservative or liberal) to read a bunch of comments like “step up the attacks” to cross the line and go postal. My point is that most of those sorts of incendiary comments appear to come from well-known conservative sources (whether they be well-known nationally or locally, or both).
Do firebrands at DU or Kos also make such statements — sure. But when was the last time a liberal brought enough armaments to play Rambo at an abortion clinic, or a reverend’s funeral, or an immigration march…?
Yes, given the facts I do believe that out there right now is some hard-line conservative Tim McVeigh-wannabe ready to set things off and over-the-top calls for “attacks” and “revolution” are the exact catalyst that will light the fuse. Within the past few weeks our nation has seen mass shootings, bomb plots and sniper plans all come to light — and all either from self-proclaimed conservatives and/or against “liberal” targets.
You are, of course, free to ignore the evidence as I and others present it. That’s your decision to make.
June 5, 2007 at 1:46 pm
c-rockjr121
I think you fear your fellow American too much, you should direct that fear to something useful. Like volunteering at a local HIV clinic, or maybe at a Leper colony.
Why do you fear gunowners? Are you projecting your anger onto them, if you owned a firearm?
June 5, 2007 at 2:04 pm
robnesvacil
C-Rock,
What gave you the idea I fear gun owners? Why would I? Most are decent, hard-working, law-abiding citizens — just like you and me. You’re leaping to illogical conclusions C-Rock.
And rather than being fearful, I’m aware of the potential for prompting someone to go over the edge that the rabble-rousing rhetoric incites. And being aware of a possibility means you can plan for it.
You can highlight the red-hot talk coming from conservatives and start demanding a change toward civility.
You can work to engage people who might be on that edge and bring them back from the point of no return.
Can you imagine if folks had listened to G. Gordon Liddy saying Americans ought to shoot ATF Agents in the head and then worked to tone things down? Instead, we got the Oklahoma City bombing — the worst act of domestic terrorism in our nation’s history.
And, again, all throughout the years since OKC and in a growing pattern of seemingly random acts in recent weeks (unnoticed by most mainstream press) we’re seeing another lead-up to some type of devastating domestic terrorist act.
I’m connecting the dots.
It’s not gun owners that are at the heart of this phenomenon. It’s conservative firebrands and, as I’ve already described, the recent spate of extremist conservative activists who are erupting after being “inspired” by commentary they rightly or wrongly perceive as seditious.
Stop twisting my words to imply things I’m not saying.
June 5, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Narc
Back to the domestic terror issue, can you imagine the sheer roar from the right-wing if it a Muslim had actually planted a bomb in a public place in the US recently? The Fort Dix plot is getting quite a bit of press; if it had been an actual bomb, even a small one, we’d never hear the end of it.
So why isn’t the recent bombing attempt in Austin getting any press? Oh yeah, it was a Christian that did it.
June 5, 2007 at 11:59 pm
robnesvacil
Narc,
Based on what I’ve read about the Austin abortion clinic bomb scare it appears the culprit, Paul Ross Evans, is a mental-health patient with a history of destructive behavior. In 2002 he went on a ‘crime spree’ through his hometown of Lufkin, TX and held up a local burger joint.
While he had spoken with friends near his home about Tim McVeigh, the OKC bombing and the Branch Davidian standoff at Waco it’s not yet entirely clear what his motive for placing a bomb at an abortion clinic. His fellow Lufkin residents describe themselves as being in the Bible Belt and the local Planned Parenthood office (which does NOT perform abortions) was shot at in 2004 by a college student using a high-powered rifle in another act of domestic terrorism.
I will note that in recent years extremists associated with the radical animal-rights outfits have bombed animal testing facilities and that Mr. Evans did not choose to go that route with his homemade device (a device strong enough that the Austin Bomb Squad had to detonate it and Federal ATF agents helped with the case). Were Mr. Evans a liberal, that might seem a more logical site to bomb as opposed to an abortion clinic — which is a target favored by conservative terrorists like Eric Rudolph and the Lufkin gunner mentioned above, etc.
Your points about the bizarre silence from the mainstream media on these instances of domestic terrorism is well-taken (esp. when compared to the news channels’ barrage of Ft. Dix, Brooklyn Bridge, JFK and other assorted wannabe Muslim terrorist copycats who actually have neither weapons nor means of acquiring them).
As I mentioned, these recent spates of domestic terrorism have been conducted by white folks who either outright declare themselves as conservative (Castagana, Uhl, Froatz) or by all intents and purposes appear to be conservative (Evans) and it’s odd that the media focuses their attention on brown folks instead… (hey, I’m white myself and I notice the difference in coverage). Just sayin’.
Narc, you’ll appreciate that quite a few others are also recognizing the bizarre lack of interest in actual acts of domestic terrorism as opposed to bright spotlight shone on the bad ideas in some malcontents’ heads (and here we thought conservatives complained about “thought police”).
And conservatives here and elsewhere wonder why folks are connecting these dots that are laid out before us….
June 19, 2007 at 11:25 am
Every threat must be taken seriously « Illinois Reason
[...] June 19th, 2007 in “Grassroots” Conservatives by robnesvacil A few weeks back I posted on the apparent propensity for conservative partisans to go to the extreme — to cross the line toward threats and, indeed, violence including preparing home-made bombs [...]
September 17, 2007 at 5:26 am
Potato, Pot-ah-to … Peraica, Pariah « Illinois Reason
[...] on the part of many conservative partisans. This blog and others have commented before on the effects over-the-top vitriol from partisans can have on “rogue” activists who skate the line between activisim and violence, sometimes committing the [...]