State of the Union: A status report on the far right
Jan 29th, 2010 | By Sara Robinson | Read more in: Politics
As long as we’re taking the measure of the country this week, let’s look in on the far (and not so far) fringes of the right wing. What’s up with them? And how worried should we be?
For the past several months, I’ve been trying to get a bead on the actual numbers of the far-right movement. To that end, I accrued a motley little collection of surveys, studies, and sociological research pulled together from here and there. I’ve been sort of walking around this pile, kicking at it, figuring out which pieces fit together, in the hope of getting a handle on exactly how many really scary people there are out there right now. It seemed like an important question to get answered.
Finally, I did what I should have done on Day One. I picked up the phone and called Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, who knows more about the hard research on the far right than anyone else in the country.
“Chip, how many far-right wingers are there in the United States?”
I knew the question was vague. I figured, based on our past conversations, that I’d have to carefully define “far right” and qualify who belonged in that group. And then we’d have a discussion about how you slice and dice the various factions and their relationships to the whole, and …
But that’s not what happened. Chip didn’t even skip a beat.
“Ten percent of the population.” He declared this with a jaunty certainty that’s uncharacteristic of Chip, who usually has a sociologist’s inbred caution about putting caveats around his claims.
“Ten percent? That’s it? Flat out?”
“Ten percent. That’s it. It’s been the same number for most of our history, and it doesn’t change much.” He went on to explain that sociologists and social psychologists have spent decades doing on a large scale what I was doing with my little clutch of studies. And invariably, he said, no matter how they define “far right” or “authoritarian,” no matter how they count up the fundamentalists and nationalists and proto-fascists, the numbers always come up somewhere between 7 percent and 12 percent. Or, on average, about 10 percent. Always. And it’s been that way going back as far as they can go.
So there you have it: the answer to the question, “How many really hardcore conservatives are we dealing with here?” It’s thirty million people, give or take.
Still: the number seemed small. Intuitively, it just seems like the crazy is running a lot deeper than that these days. Chip confirmed this: it is, in fact, deeper than that.
“There’s another group of people that are actually more interesting right now,” Chip explained. Dr. Robert Altemeyer, who did the original research on right-wing authoritarian followers, found that there’s a second slice of the American populace—about the same size as the first one, or slightly bigger—who are conservative by temperament, but don’t live full-time in that same overwrought, hyper-vigilant, paranoid space that the ultra-right wing authoritarian 10 percent do. This group, Chip said, usually hews closer to the political center-right, keeping themselves at some distance from the really wild-eyed True Believers in the next cohort farther out.
But according to Altemeyer, I pointed out, these people tend to move away from the center and embrace hard-line conservatism if they’re under extreme social or economic stress, right? Exactly right, said Chip. It’s happened several times before in American history (One example: In Nixonland, Rick Perlstein documented how, back in the mid-1960s, conservative suburban homeowners were driven into the arms of the far right by their fear of neighborhood integration in the wake of fair housing laws. The political careers of both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan where launched on the resulting tide of rage). And it’s precisely what’s happening again now.
This faction’s rightward march is being driven by the Tea Party movement, which is organizing the core of this second slice. It’s actively decoupling itself from the center-right position of the GOP’s mainstream, and forming stronger alliances with the ultra-right 10-percenters—creating a super-right-wing faction that includes upwards of 25-30 percent of the country.
A lot of progressive strategists who are unfamiliar with the factions within the right wing are looking at this newly congealed group as one contiguous bloc. That’s a grave mistake. Despite the growing overlap, the two groups retain essential differences we need to keep our eyes on if we’re going to deal with this new fusion effectively. A few examples:
- The ultra-right clings to racism as an all-purpose explanation for what’s wrong with America. The Tea Party folks (as I explained last week) have largely moved past racism. Not to say you won’t find it (especially among the elders); but it’s a mistake to say — as some progressives do — that it’s a universal motivating force.Which isn’t to say that hate won’t figure prominently in their politics. Conservative politics literally, structurally cannot function without an “us-versus-them” narrative to keep voters on the barricades. But this alliance will be less grounded in racism against the usual black and brown groups, and more deeply rooted in mutual tribal agreements on the evils of socialism, liberalism, and Islam (the only acceptable racism left). We should also keep our eyes on a faint but already growing strain of anti-Semitism within the combined movement, as both groups begin to identify “Jewish bankers” as both the cause of the nation’s current economic distress and the main proponents of socialism and liberalism in America.
The ultra-right includes a higher-than-average number of people who live lives that can only be described as marginal. Their lack of attachment to family, careers, or community often feeds their rage, and stokes their persecution fantasies. It also makes them far more likely to resort to violence than the Tea Party members. This isn’t nearly as true of people in the second slice, who have generally made considerable investment in family, community, business and church ties, and are seeking to protect those investments at all costs. Those commitments keep them tethered a bit more closely to reality, and so they’re typically far less willing to break the law to achieve their ends. However, when this group joins forces with the far right, the dynamics change. Sometimes, their very presence can embolden the violence-prone radicals in the first slice, who feel an increased sense of permission (they’ll be heroes to millions more people if they act), and who may actually receive more widespread community cover if they do commit a crime. Other times, they act as a sort of ballast, anchoring the more radical members back into society in ways that discourage violence as a tactic throughout the movement.- The ultra-right is in this fight for life. Many of them were raised in families which have clung to extremist beliefs for generations. But for those joining the new Tea Party movement, their activism is more situational. They haven’t done anything like this before. They’re only stepping up now because they’re worried and frustrated (as we all are) about the way power is being used in Washington and Wall Street. There’s no telling how strong their commitment to this new alliance is, or how long it will last.
- The Tea Party congealed due to significant funding from GOP lobbyists, with a huge assist from Roger Ailes at Fox. You occasionally find the odd antediluvian fat cat giving money to ultra-right racist, nationalist, and militia groups, too; but it’s been a long while since this faction got the kind of concentrated corporate fertilizer that’s being lavished on the teabaggers.
There are more points of differentiation, but you get the point. There are two groups here: one comprising our perennial crop of evergreen wingnuts, and another that’s only recently decamped from the center right and moved hard right to join them.
And it’s the combination of the two that’s worrisome. On their own, the far-right wingnuts can’t elect a dogcatcher (and even trying to do that much would no doubt cause a schism that would wind out for years in court. It’s just how they are). But controlling 25 or 30 percent of the American electorate — while not enough to take over the country in straight numeric terms — is enough for the combined group to win limited but serious victories here and there. And, of course, their power is further magnified by the vagaries of the electoral college and the way we choose senators. In real terms, the system is set up so that this 30 percent can wield the political clout of 50 percent. That’s where we are now — and it’s one reason we’re running into so much gridlock in trying to govern the country.
I’ve also noted before that even though this 28 percent is a minority in straight democratic terms, the history of revolutions is that it’s also more than enough to take over an entire country if the combined group should decide to resort to violence (The Nazis are the case I use most often here). Two or three guys with guns can subdue and terrorize entire city blocks full of unarmed citizens. Strength in numbers is irrelevant — just as democracy is irrelevant— if you’ve got superior firepower and are willing to use it.
And this brings us down to the real driver that will determine which way this plays out. The ultra-right has steadily ratcheted up its calls for violence as the Obama administration unfolds and the economic stress drags out.
Will the “second slice” Tea Party folks follow them down that path?
Or will their strong attachments to the larger community keep them on the side of civilization?
Or, perhaps, will the ultra-right overplay their hand by launching a run of domestic terror that sends their new allies scurrying back toward the center, ending the coalition? It’s happened before.
Much of the future of the conservative movement in America is riding on these questions. And there are other variables at play that will also affect how they’ll be answered. One is Fox News — which, according to a poll last week, really is now the most trusted name in news (Fortunately, those numbers are easily disputed; one of the rules of thumb when dealing with the right is that conservative groups of all types always grossly inflate their numbers, which is why figuring out how many of them there really are can be so fraught).
Still, the Fox effect is out there. My newly-retired parents took a long road trip last week, during which they stayed with several friends. In every house they stayed in, their hosts — all of them educated professionals in their 60s and 70s, most of whom had been liberal-to-centrist all their lives — had stopped taking a daily paper and were watching Fox exclusively. Whatever this says, it’s not good. Given the constant stream of overtly eliminationist hate speech that flows from Messrs. Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, and the rest, Fox may well be the biggest influencer determining which direction the Tea Party slice decides to go.
Another driver is the Democrats’ continued fecklessness in clearly communicating the coherent moral values at the heart of the progressive worldview — and their extreme reluctance to support any kind of progressive populist agenda. Everybody knows now that there’s a rising populist tide in America. Average Americans, left and right, are uniting behind an implacable fury at the big banks — and at Congress and Obama, who seem determined to enable criminal behavior rather than make any serious attempt to control it.
You don’t need me to tell you that the tide is rising. We’re seeing the signs of political climate change all around us. But most of the Village still regards any kind of populism as a dangerous (and avoidable) impulse. “Responsible” consultants are cautioning Democrats not to get out front of that wave and ride it. In 20 years, historians will record this as a mistake on the same magnitude as the one they made in 1972 when they started backing away from the unions. It’s going to be the biggest missed opportunity since … oh, damn, it’s hard to say, since the Democrats have already missed so many big ones that it’s hard to keep track. But this one could, in the end, trump them all.
Even though the odds against the newly amalgamated Tea Party right controlling Congress or electing their own president are slim to none, this group will continue to be the GOP’s main base as long as the populist wave crests and they can avoid succumbing to schisms (always the bane of conservative organizations). And though they won’t change the way the other 70 percent of us vote, they’ll probably hold onto enough power for the next while to keep doing serious damage to our democracy.
Any progressive strategy to weaken the right should begin by finding a way to peel the second slice back off from the ultra-right and bring it back toward the center. That alliance is the keystone on which the entire strength of the conservative movement is resting right now; pull that stone, and the rest of it crumbles. Reviving a vital progressive populism is the best wedge and sledge we’ve got right now. And that’s why we shouldn’t hesitate to reach back to 1910 to inform the kind of politics we’ll need to win in 2010.
Orcinus
Campaign for America's Future
Subscribe by RSS feed
Follow on Twitter
Got Kindle?
Is that it, Sara?
Your expose on the status of the far right is limited to asking other progressives what they think of the far right and madly dashing about gathering the usual Timothy McVeigh strawman as the poster child of conservative thought?
Oh, my.
If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that you don’t even know a conservative that you could actually ask a few questions to fill in some of the blanks in your understanding.
Allow me, if you will, to assist you.
In your post, you said:
“In every house they stayed in, their hosts — all of them educated professionals in their 60s and 70s, most of whom had been liberal-to-centrist all their lives — had stopped taking a daily paper and were watching Fox exclusively. Whatever this says, it’s not good.”
In my case, I grew up in the Boston area and from early childhood was an avid Globe reader. But as time went by it became apparent that the Globe was far more interested in promoting their progressive agenda than they were in objective and honest journalism. I stopped buying and reading the Globe not wanting to reward them for lying to me. I think that their circulation numbers and tenuous avoidance of bankruptcy shows that many of my neighbors feel the same way that I do.
That your parent’s friends are educated professionals should give you pause as to their motivations for eschewing the print media and their choice to view the Fox News Channel. Are you saying that your parent’s friends are becoming suddenly stupid? I think that it is more likely that they have done a sort of due diligence in their viewing habits and settled on Fox for any number of reasons. When it comes to news coverage, Fox reports in the same manner as does the other news gathering outlets. What sets them apart is their approach to opinion journalism. We can certainly agree that is rightward leaning. Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Am I not free to grab my remote and switch from, say, O’Reilly to Olbermann? Of course I am. I also do not begrudge the CNN’s and MSNBC’s their political point of view – I just decline to give them my viewership. Freedom of the Press, you know.
That survey that you mention about the cable network that Americans trust the most. You do realize that it was prepared by PPP don’t you? Not exactly in the same camp as National Review, I am sure you realize. And I agree that it is just one survey – no concrete conclusions can be drawn. But what cannot be disputed is that Fox out draws its competitors by a wide margin; the results aren’t even close. I think that the reason for that is they put out a quality product that people and advertisers like. Personally, I think that the give and take between Juan Williams, Mara Liasson and Charles Krauthammer does not have a parallel elsewhere in cable news. Two commentators from the left, one from the right mixing it up. Good stuff.
That political cartoon is funny, too. Did you know that the Obama Joker poster was created by someone on the left? I think it is brilliant myself. And the swastikas? A figment of Nancy Pelosi’s imagination. Obamacare? Sorry, just like the pro-choice folks say “keep your hands off my body”. I’d say uterus, but I don’t have one. And the bubble quote is just too funny in light of Chris Matthews remarks the other night.
I have to get going but please feel free to ask me any of those deep dark questions about conservatives you posed to your progressive friends.
I promise, we don’t bite.
[Reply]
t-dude, i have step in here to let you know mrs. r has nothing to do with the images on her post. i do that. i select the images i think are appropriate — sometimes directly, sometimes more subtly and sometimes off on a different tangent altogether. tim mcveigh, while not a poster child for conservative thought — and nobody i know would say such a thing — is THE poster child for right wing extremists and their violent tendencies. as for the cartoon, picking apart different pieces of it misses the point entirely. and sara only spoke with one of her “progressive friends,” Chip Berlet, to ask how much of the population is “far right.”
What I find interesting is your jumping to defend the far right — the extremists. I don’t find it particularly surprising since in your other posts you’ve alluded to a support for that ideology. But I’d suggest you think long and hard about associating with that end of the spectrum. They are not the “patriots” they claim to be.
I’ll leave your “analysis” of Faux News for others. Let me just say I got a good laugh out of it.
I don’t know if Mrs. R will respond — sometimes she does, sometimes she doesn’t. But she’s not as patient as I am with those who focus on small parts and ignore the larger picture. And she’s way smarter than I am.
[Reply]
turfmann
Reply:
January 29th, 20102010-01-29T17:57:56ZF jS, Y at 12:57 pm2010-01-29T17:57:56Zg:i a
Hi, NW. Thanks for the clarification on the illustrations, I trust that Mrs. R will take that into account if/when she reads my comment. If it was not clear in my post, I enjoy political art of all ideological stripes – I am amazed at the ability of talented illustrators to put into practice the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words”.
I am not sure that any differentiation is afforded between those who would self-describe as Conservatives and what the author would deem far right extremists. It seems to me that from her perspective we are all being lumped in together and constitute a hate-filled mob without principles or convictions that we are wiling to stand up for.
And you are correct when you say that in other posts between us I did mention that there is evidence of a huge stockpiling of armaments going on. I want to make clear that I am, first, not one of them (I do not own a firearm) and second I do not condone violence against the state or anyone else. I do want to make clear that my understanding of the Second Amendment is that it is the last resort available to a citizenry that finds itself under the jackboot of tyranny. That day is thankfully not upon us in my estimation and that we can solve our differences within the confines of the First Amendment.
Big picture, small picture, patient, impatient, doesn’t matter. I will happily discuss conservatism with anyone. I am not interested denigrating.
Hope all is well with you, NW. Stay warm (if you happen to be in an icy grip of weather like I am).
[Reply]
newswriter
Reply:
January 29th, 20102010-01-29T21:43:29ZF jS, Y at 4:43 pm2010-01-29T21:43:29Zg:i a
I think Sara does make a clear distinction between the “far right” and the “not so far right.” But what we’ve seen many times in our history is a tendency for the not so far right to slip ever closer to the far right — and that’s what’s under discussion here: Whether that not so far right slice of American politics will superglue itself to the far right or get a clue that rousing the rabble at this point in time is awfully dangerous.
From our perspective, peeling folks off that trajectory is a good thing, not only for progressives but for the entire country, which really doesn’t need to descend into anarchy at this point.
But I’m wondering how to do that? t-mann here can see much of what we have in common, but an awful lot of these other folks can’t even consider that possibility, let alone actually see it. And turfmann’s still not ready to turn back from certain destruction. Some days I swear I feel like Pandora of the proverbial box.
I did want to point out this one thing — Jefferson’s comment about watering the tree of liberty, etc. He was fond of the thought of a little smackdown from time to time between malcontents and the government. But I don’t think he’d agree were he to get a look at now. For one thing, Shay’s boys didn’t have automatic weapons, night vision goggles and kevlar vests.
[Reply]
My aunt and uncle are another case in point, like your parents’ retired friends. Union people, through and through — my aunt was even a state employee! Yet they do watch Fox, and shop at Wal-Mart, one of the most anti-union companies out there, without thinking about the consequences of their own actions (or bothering to find out? You’re not going to find Fox doing a story about that, that’s a little too lefty for their advertisers. And where is Glenn Beck’s outrage over stores that sell products made in China, a Communist country?).
[Reply]
It’s true most of you don’t bite. This story was about those who do. It doesn’t always have to be about you, Sir. NW notes correctly that you seem to have an affinity for defending it by making about something else. That’s just lame and makes you look even more like a pointless, self infatuated troll.
The fact is you and conservatives in general just don’t ever seem to have anything to say that I find enlightening or particularly useful. But at least I don’t go about commenting on your sites and making it a point to tell you so. Neither do I point others to those sites for the sole purpose of making a nuisance of themselves where clearly no common ground exists.
I know you don’t care what I think but since you seem to enjoy hanging around my blog let me say again… Speaking only for me… The feeling is so very mutual.
kim g.
[Reply]
turfmann
Reply:
January 29th, 20102010-01-29T19:23:27ZF jS, Y at 2:23 pm2010-01-29T19:23:27Zg:i a
I do owe you an apology. Your accusation of my pointing others here is true. But just as you were able to ferret that out, you will also find that it was an isolated incident. In retrospect, and considering the conversations I’ve enjoyed with NW, that was a callous thing to do. You seem to have no use for me, that’s fine, but strange as it may seem that I would think so, you have a very interesting blog to read. Granted, I may not agree with much or any of what is said but what good is a set of principles if you are not interested or willing to challenge them or defend them?
I have to take issue with your assertion that no common ground exists. My conversations with NW have lead me to believe that I have more than just a little bit of common ground with her – albeit we arrive by completely different means over utterly different routes. But when we arrive at the destination, we suck up to the bar, she calls me a no good teabagger, I call her a dirty hippy and we clank our shot glasses together and enjoy the company – metaphorically and digitally, of course.
All the best to you, too. And thanks for not banning me or slapping me with one of the dreaded intellectual advisory notices.
[Reply]
progressive girl
I am a conservative-liberal, the fact that I take the time to educate myself by opening my mind and reading or watching something that may oppose my views and values is the difference in the two of us. There can be no common ground when we fail to communicate. I voted for Obama, and to say I feel mislead is an understatement. If you are so sure of your views and opinions why are you so afraid to debate those on this site that disagree with them? I am shocked to actually see someone write “The fact is you and conservatives in general just don’t ever seem to have anything to say that I find enlightening or particularly useful. But at least I don’t go about commenting on your sites and making it a point to tell you so. Neither do I point others to those sites for the sole purpose of making a nuisance of themselves where clearly no common ground exists.” You know the old saying “if you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen” Referring to an individual as a “self infatuated troll” is that how you defend your points and position? Frankly I am tired of the intolerance.
[Reply]
Ricky…
I don’t debate fence posts either. Conservative liberal? Ok : )
“self infatuated troll” was an observation, rick. Not a defense. There is a difference.
kim g.
[Reply]