How a government protects its people is certainly a pressing topic. It’s hard to know who to trust in the local and international realm. I recognize the necessity of taking measures to ensure the physical protection of citizens. But at times, the infringement upon privacy and personal expression can be too much. It began with President George W. Bush in the hyperbolic fervor of post-Sept. 11 U.S. policy, and now President Barack Obama’s administration is perfecting it to an art form. When safety and security becomes paranoia and fear-mongering, the results can be pretty dangerous.
According to numerous newspaper outlets, a report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” was sent from the desk of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security chief, Obama appointee Janet Napolitano, to local police and sheriff’s departments across the country on April 7. With the plethora of various groups promoting one thing or another, some distinctively anti-government, the report would seem to be pretty normal.
The problem arises, however, in the wording of this particular report. Rather than giving a clear definition of “rightwing extremism” and citing historical examples of what specific groups have threatened the property and lives of citizens, the Department of Homeland Security report used a couple of troubling qualifications which have caused no small stir in a pair of large groups in the U.S.; the politically conservative population and military veterans.
Why is this report so distressing to these two large U.S. populaces? Because both are specifically cited as potential security threats. First, in the case of war veterans, the controversy of the Iraq war and the single example of Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing were apparently enough to elicit the warning that “disgruntled war veterans” should be monitored for their possible extremist activity. Understandably, the reaction to this report and its footnotes has been one of anger, as those who have defended a nation at their own risk are now stereotyped when they return home.
The other group that is affected is the politically conservative. These fall into two groups. The first was reported by the Washington Times as “including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” Amazingly, those who oppose an intrusive and all-powerful national authority far removed from the individual needs of a specific state can now be profiled as “extremist.” As such, the reaction to this is also strong, with more conservative leaders questioning the viability of such a statement. The politics of such a move by the Department of Homeland Security bleeds political liberality rather than national security. Again, I understand the need to be aware of radical violent militia-type groups. But, people who favor state’s rights?
The report isn’t finished there. Not only does it call state’s rights advocates out, “it may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as abortion or immigration.” A group that actively opposes governmental policy on an issue is now considered to be a homeland security threat? What country are we in again?
Freely expressing ideas and dissent peacefully is one of the benchmarks of a healthy and balanced society. Many nations struggle under the oppression of rulers who are highly sensitive about any kind of spoken opposition, and who enforce their ideas through force and intimidation. Historically the U.S. has, in theory, been a place where such opposition is defended (although not always for every group) by law. Imperfect as it has been, the freedoms afforded here have been unique and valued. I don’t have a pseudo-romantic notion that any country is perfect, because it is made up of people. But putting the power of who gets to say what into the hands of a few governmental agencies and people seems to contradict any kind of protection of opinion variance.
As such, I would openly question the motive and method of the language of the Department of Homeland Security report. I would agree with David Rehbein, chief of the American Legion, who according to Breitbart.com called the report “incomplete, and, I fear, politically-biased.”
Not qualifying what she means by groups of veterans and small-government promoters says volumes of the allegiances of Napolitano, and continues the legacy of big spending and unproductive watchdog activities which the last 10 to15 years have brought. Attaching the label of “rightwing extremist” to those who oppose a governmental policy in any way does little of anything productive but only further drives the wedge of current partisan U.S. politics.
Jon Malone is an English education graduate student.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Bubba 3 years, 1 month ago
Jon, what a great, logical writer you are. But, I don't agree. America has just suffered an 8-year Wedgie-Maximus from the Bush Administration. It's wedged so deeply, other countries feel sorry for us. Now it's time to return the wedgie, and since Obama is taller than Bush, it's going to smart a little more. Now, locally, I couldn't agree more with the "watching out for extremists". Once I went up to a Baptitst Church, and in the lobby was suited up one of Norman's Finest. Now, what could the Baptists be planning that is so divisive and horrific that they need to pay a police officer to guard their pews. I mean, church homicides notwithstanding, couldn't a regular old security guard do? I retract that, there have been a lot of church-homicides in America. Church is somewhat safe. So, you think radicals can't come out of the hellfire and brimstone? Sometimes you can hear the fervor of a manic preacher here in Norman from a block away! These guys don't even need a microphone. If you're having to yell your message to reach someone, maybe it's a scary message. I hope the report is a little politically biased, there is a whole lot of sunshine that needs to be let in a whole lot very dark places.
"W" easily stands for Wedgie! Wedgie! Wedgie!
-Bubba