The Militia Movement and the Salafists: Looking for Lost Purity

The armed seizure of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside Burns, Oregon by a right-wing militia group calling itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom puts on the front page an issue of longstanding importance to environmentalists -- grazing rights on federal land. There are several good comments that append today's story "Why the Government Owns so Much Land in the West," by Quoctrung Bui and Margot Sanger-Katz. Paul in Albany, NY says,

The Times is attempting to make rational sense concerning why these people are angry, but it's impossible because these ranchers are not rational themselves! These ranchers ought to be grateful for the federal government and the extremely cheap rents it charges. They should be grateful for the giant subsidies the taxpayers give ranchers every year. Go to Environmental Working Group.com to see how much individual landowners have received each year. The subsidies to cattle ranchers are outrageous in that beef production adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than do all cars! Beef is about the most destructive food ever devised.

Or CGW:

Behind most overly-romanticized notions like a home on the range where wildlife and cattle live in harmony and the Indians keep to themselves somewhere else, is brutal reality.

Driving most native wildlife and people to near extinction aside, the basic economics of why no one wants to take over financial and legal responsibility of these huge tracts of land is why that home on the range can only be provided by the collective strength of the federal government.

Or JustWondering in New York:

What would happen out there if the land was transferred from Federal control to the States? You've got 3 very politically schizophrenic states (California, Oregon and Washington) but the growing progressive majorities are on the coasts and the inland areas are more rightwing. They're not likely to change the management process much; if anything they'll make it more restrictive and raise the grazing fees. State's the would sell this land, who would they sell it too? Small ranchers aren't likely to be able to afford it or pay the taxes on it so it'll likely go to big Ag and they'll rent it back - at market rates.

These guys seem to be dreaming of West that never existed except in a screenwriter's imagination. This is simply based on "belief"; facts are irrelevant. There was an earlier commenter that said that "Common Law" trumps statutory law. It the U.S. at least that is utter nonsense. However, for these folk the "belief" in that idea is where it gets its validity from. These fantasies help spawn things like the Sovereign Citizen' movement and idiocies like Oath Keepers or 3 Percenters.

What is truly galling is that they fly the flag, swear oaths the Constitution, shout out their "patriotism" and not a single one them believes in this Country not one. If they did, this nonsense wouldn't be happening - especially the guns part. Our history lesson here should go back to the Whiskey Rebellion and how George Washington ended that bit of nonsense in very short order.

This idea of a more pure past obviously motivates Citizens for Constitutional Freedom leader Ammon Bundy. This from a story yesterday, "Cautious Response to Armed Oregon Protest,"
by Kirk Johnson, Richard Perez-Pena and Erik Eckholm:

In a forum here last month, Ammon Bundy was explicit about starting a national movement, and said God had instructed him to come here. 

“We can restore the Constitution back to this county, and it can be an example to all the other counties across this nation,” he told local residents. “The people of this country will come to you and protect you if you will make the right stand.”

As Algerian novelist Kamel Daoud related in an excellent editorial that appeared this past Saturday, "ISIS’ War on Christmas," what unites the hard right of the West with the Salafists of the Middle East is this myth of a purified past:

To celebrate a birthday, even that of a prophet, is to accept the existence of Time, whereas Islamists fantasize about eternity. In their eyes, Time itself is a crime, because it is a departure from original Islam. Thus restoration is the Islamists’ second foundational myth. Their goal is to return to the beginning of Time, to T=0. To the moment of Revelation, when the prophet was still alive and God was so close to his ear. To the moment when Islam had not yet been soiled, to before it was contaminated by History and “Fitna,” the first Muslim civil wars, which followed the death of Muhammad.

This quest for purity also explains Islamists’ relation to physical space. In addition to wanting to conquer territory, the Islamic State seeks to negate and destroy any evidence of the passing of time, such as monuments and ruins, in Palmyra and elsewhere. It tries to extend the desert’s domain: to replace walls with sand, to flatten out landscape, to return to a vacuum so as to start history all over again.

The purification myth is not the exclusive purview of Salafists. It also runs through other utopian and totalitarian movements, as well as some of the Islamists’ enemies, like the far-right political parties of today. All of them share the same fantasy of returning to some (imagined) original state of purity.

The far right in France, for example, wants to go back to “la souche,” its roots, and restore the land of its Gallic ancestors to what it was before immigrants, the Stranger, flooded in. Like the Islamists, it glorifies geography and negates Time.

As the jihadists have been used as proxies for concentrated wealth, so too has the American far right. The Tea Party was Jiffy Popped into being owing to the Kochs' and other wealthy conservatives' fear of Obama's 2008 landslide. If it ever looks as if a coherent progressive movement is taking shape, you can count on some sort of well-armed militia showing up and taking over. The police will just melt away.

U.S. Election Day: Democrats Headed for Defeat, Hopefully Some GOP Governors Too

Election Day dawns in the United States. "Beacon of democracy" according to the press release but "Great Satan" to parts of the planet, there are some interesting trends of which to take note today in the land of Lucifer.

The conventional wisdom as blared by loudspeaker in the media monopoly is that today the GOP will roll. I think the conventional wisdom is on the money this time around. The death knell for the Democrats began sounding last year. At first, at the end of the summer 2013, Obama dodged a bullet when he aborted his bombing run on Damascus by clutching at the Russian-sponsored proposal to have Syria get rid of its chemical weapons. Peace Prize winner Obama's move to initiate a war seriously undermined his credibility among the progressive, anti-war wing of his party, which is the informed, activist wing you need come election time.

Then there was the golden opportunity of tarring Republicans for their government shutdown in October 2013 squandered by the disastrous premiere of Obamacare. It has basically been all downhill since last fall --  from ISIS to Ebola to anemic job growth.

For a rundown on the election check out "What to Watch For as G.O.P. Expects Big Night at Polls" by Jonathan Martin and Nate Cohn.

Colorado is a designated bellwether:

Republicans are closely watching Colorado, where Senator Mark Udall and Gov. John W. Hickenlooper, both Democrats, are in danger of losing. Mr. Obama won the state twice, and with a younger, increasingly progressive population, Colorado has been trending Democratic. If Representative Cory Gardner can defeat Mr. Udall, who made his campaign almost exclusively about abortion rights and contraception, it will demonstrate that Republicans still have strength in a state that could be essential to regaining the presidency.

Colorado passed gun control legislation post-Sandy Hook and legalized cannabis in a 2012 vote, both under Gov. Hickenlooper. For the Republicans to take him out, as well as a Udall, a name synonymous with liberal Democratic politics in the U.S., would be a significant victory.

On the other hand, The GOP is walking the wire with its union-busting governors in the industrial heartland:

The polls also show up-in-the-air races in Michigan and Wisconsin, where the Republican incumbents, Rick Snyder and Scott Walker, appear to hold nominal leads. 

If the Republicans lose one or two of these races, it will complicate what might otherwise be an impressive performance for them in governors’ contests nationwide. Republican governors in competitive states have no business losing in what should be a good year for the party.

The wounded Dems are relying, once again, on the Obama coalition -- blacks, women, Latinos, students -- to hold on:

Every vote counts, of course, but some constituencies — especially those that made up Mr. Obama’s victories — will play a crucial role in shaping the outcomes on Tuesday. 

Democrats will need to counter a strong Republican advantage with men by winning women by nearly as much. That might require an even larger gender gap in some states than the 18-point one in the 2012 presidential election. Democrats will also need a much stronger turnout among nonwhite voters than they received in 2010. Black turnout in Georgia and North Carolina will be especially important: Follow whether the black share of the electorate approaches or exceeds 2012, when blacks represented 23 percent of North Carolina voters and 30 percent in Georgia.

I don't see students, women and Latinos strongly motivated to turnout this polling season; blacks on the other hand might very well show up in numbers greatly exceeding the last midterm. The reason? All the Republican-sponsored restrictive voting laws requiring photo identification and doing away with same-day registration are clearly aimed at diminishing the black vote.

Read Erik Eckholm's excellent synopsis of the GOP's voter suppression efforts, "Election Tests New Rules on Voting":

New rules to limit same-day registration or require photo identification will be in effect in some states, even as their constitutionality is argued in the courts. Most of the changes were adopted by Republican legislatures in the name of electoral integrity, even though evidence of voter fraud was negligible. They are opposed by Democrats who say tighter rules are aimed at discouraging minorities, poor people and college students from voting. All those groups tend to prefer Democrats.

“A significant number of changes are going into effect that will make it harder for millions of Americans to participate,” said Wendy R. Weiser, director of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “In close races, the impact might be larger than the margin of victory.” 

But Republicans say such concerns are overblown. 

“We believe these claims are made for partisan purposes to rile up the Democrat Party base,” said Michael B. Thielen, executive director of the Republican National Lawyers Association in Washington. 

Numerous reports of voters facing obstacles have emerged from early voting in Texas and Georgia, among other states. But quantifying the impact of the altered rules is challenging, especially in a midterm election expected to have low turnout. In states like North Carolina, liberal groups hope that public anger over curbed voting opportunities will provoke a backlash that motivates Democratic voters, offsetting possible losses.

Another tactic Dems use to juice turnout is by placing minimum-wage increases on the ballot. Labor reporter Steven Greenhouse weighs in this morning with the informative "Little Opposition Seen in Some Votes to Raise State Minimum Wages":

In Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota, binding referendums would raise the state minimum wage above the $7.25 an hour mandated by the federal government. 

These measures are so overwhelmingly popular in some states, notably Alaska and Arkansas, that the opposition has hardly put up a fight.

“These groups have noticed that minimum-wage increases can easily pass — they have seen this in the past few years,” said John G. Matsusaka, executive director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. “They can’t get it through the legislatures in these red states, so they do it this way.”

Some Republicans say that the main reason for these initiatives is to mobilize low-income voters to help re-elect embattled Democrats, like Senators Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska. But supporters deny this, saying they are pushing to raise the minimum because so many workers are struggling and because the minimum wage has trailed inflation. 

The measures in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota would set the minimum wage lower than the $10.10 an hour that President Obama has asked Congress to pass, to no avail. The ballot initiatives in Arkansas and South Dakota call for a minimum of $8.50 an hour, while Nebraska’s would go to $9 and Alaska’s to $9.75.

***

Seattle has adopted a measure that will raise its minimum wage to $15 in several stages, while San Franciscans will vote on Tuesday whether to approve a $15 minimum wage. Residents in nearby Oakland will vote on a $12.25 wage.

In a surprising twist, hardly any business groups in San Francisco are opposing the $15 proposal, which is expected to pass easily.

Seattle, where I reside, has one interesting race. Jess Spear, a young climate scientist running as a socialist who was Kshama Sawant's campaign manager (Sawant's victory in 2013 paved the way for increased minimum-wage measures nationally), is taking on Speaker of the House Frank Chopp, an entrenched corporate-friendly Democrat, in the 43rd Legislative District. Spear won't win. But she has run a good campaign, and she has hit Chopp hard and repeatedly, forcing the moribund machine pol to actually defend himself and campaign this time, touting his accomplishments for the district. It is what democracy is supposed to look like and sound like and be like. Going forward, we need more vibrant, youth-oriented third party campaigns.