It’s no accident that potentially violent rightwing militias have proliferated and become more aggressive during Trump’s time in office. He encouraged them.
Before 2016 “these groups operated mainly on the political margins,” two political scientists wrote in a Foreign Affairs article (read it here) published in October 2020, before Trump’s re-election defeat. “But the president’s rhetoric has lent legitimacy to their agendas,” they wrote.
I don’t need to spend much time on this point. He’s cultivated “a favorable ambiguity” toward them, and “even when he has denounced such groups, his comments have often been delayed, conditional, or intertwined with criticism of their opponents.” And by downplaying the threat they pose, his administration created a “permissive environment” for them to operate in.
A U.S. President aiding and abetting domestic terrorists to further an extremist agenda? Yes, that’s one of the things this “norm-busting” (some say lawless) demagogue did to our country before 81 million voters kicked him out of office, over the objections of 74 million foaming-at-the-mouth radicalized supporters who now think they were robbed because their lying, corrupt, and incompetent pied piper lost.
It wasn’t so long ago we were fighting wars to keep other violent and dictatorial ideologies from taking over societies by force. Now, we have our own homegrown Maoist-like insurgents to worry about (see photo above).
The problem is complicated by the fact that much of law enfocement is often in sympathy with these “Second Amendment” groups. As the political scientists wrote in Foreign Affairs, “[I]n the United States’ fragmented, politically malleable, and decentralized system of law enforcement, local authorities often have the autonomy to ignore or tolerate the activities of militant groups if they want to,” and some “even cultivated direct ties” with them. Even worse, in some cases, these groups have infiltrated the police, and their adherents are the cops (see my previous posting, with links, here). A number of actual police officers were Capitol rioters, and some of the Capitol Police who were supposed to be guarding the building apparently fraternized with them, and may have let them in.
So, what now? Trump is history, at least in terms of wielding presidential power and influence, but can these groups be rolled back by the new management? These two political scientists, who studied what happened in other countries, advised,
“It is an open question whether the gains made by armed groups in the United States can be reversed. Even if the election proves decisive and violence free, the strategies that Trump has pursued and the permissive environment he has established could be emulated by other politicians. Unless there is a clear political cost to Trump’s strategy, his relative electoral success may make embracing armed groups an attractive tactic in the future.”
Well, as we know, the election was decisive but not violence-free; in a desperate last bid to stave off defeat and cling to power, Trump instigated a violent attack on Congress to prevent the tallying of electoral votes. The imperative to impose a “clear political cost” on this behavior provides a strong argument for conducting an impeachment trial after he leaves office, and expelling any members of Congress who aided or abetted the attack. If congressional leaders don’t do that, we have to expect more of this behavior in the future.
There are other ramifications, too. First, tolerating these groups gives them “space to recruit and organize,” increasing the danger of future political violence. And while “direct and overt … election-linked coercion” may not happen, “low-level political violence … might deter civil servants from carrying out their duties,” among other things. That’s not hypothetical; some public health officials have already quit because of threats.
What to do? These experts suggest the “best chance of holding the line” against these groups is “uniform disavowal” by both parties, a coordinated law enforcement response, and the media shaping public opinion against them. “Showing these groups little sympathy would increase … political risks for politicians who cultivate them,” they say.
They believe that, “Although it will be difficult to roll back the gains made by armed right-wing groups during the permissive Trump years, the next administration has the opportunity and the tools to combat them. Coordinated and bipartisan action can free U.S. democracy from their influence.”
But I think it’s pollyannish to expect much cooperation from Republicans, given their blind advocacy of unrestricted gun rights, and the GOP’s sharp swing to the right. The Biden administration and Democratic governors should plan on doing this alone. As I wrote here, the GOP no longer stands for law and order. I hope they make it a priority. As a Georgetown law professor told NPR last summer (here), private paramilitaries are illegal in all 50 states. That gives the U.S. Department of Justice, governors, and state attorney generals something to work with. These laws should be used, not to rein in this groups, but to disband them.