|
by Matt Williams |
When I tell people I’m doing my senior essay on the militia movement, most of them get this blank look on their face for a moment and then say, "Oh, like the guys who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City!" While the accused bombers certainly have ties to the militias, this act of terrorism does not fully or fairly reflect the attitudes or beliefs of the militia movement. Neither do other popular images, such as those of gun-nuts, racists, apocalyptic religious fanatics, and paranoid conspiracy theorists. Not that these images are wrong, but they do not present a full picture of the movement. These images make it easy to lampoon and dismiss the militias. Considering that the militia may well be the fastest growing social movement in America, such dismissal is dangerous.
One thing most people don’t grasp is how new the militia movement is. Paramilitary culture has been an element of the far right since the sixties, but until recently its main manifestation was survivalism--the belief that an apocalypse is immanent (not such a crazy idea given nuclear proliferation and ecological devastation) and that each individual must prepare to survive it on his own. The idea of forming paramilitary units was tossed about by various leaders of the far right, and a few white supremacist groups actually formed them. These militias, however, were short-lived and little came of them. The current militia movement dates back only to 1994--two years ago--with the founding of the Militia of Montana (often known by the lovely acronym of MOM).
There were two events that pushed far right leaders into trying once again to form militias. These were the sieges of Ruby Ridge in Idaho and the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas by federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the FBI. Ruby Ridge was the isolated home of white separatist Randy Weaver and his family. Federal agents attempted to arrest Weaver there in 1992 for failure to appear in court on charges of violating gun control laws. They botched it, and the situation become a eleven day stand-off, during which one federal agent and Weaver’s wife and teen-age son were killed. It was only ended when the FBI allowed Bo Gritz, a popular spokesman for the far right, to negotiate Weaver’s surrender.
The 1993 siege of the Branch Davidians, an unconventional religious sect, was again the result of a botched raid and the issue was again violation of gun control laws; the accused was the sect’s leader, David Koresh. Despite their knowledge that the Davidians had been warned of the planned raid, ATF agents followed through with it anyway. As you would expect, the Branch Davidians defended themselves and the situation once again became a drawn-out stand off. This one ended with the sect’s compound going up in flames, killing many of its members, including small children. All evidence indicates that the fire was started by the besiegers, possibly deliberately.
The Weaver family and the Branch Davidians became immediate martyrs to the far right. No matter what your position on the political spectrum, it is clear that in both of the above cases, the ATF and FBI displayed a great disdain for basic human and civil rights. To leaders on the far right, these incidents appeared to be more. A federal crack-down to destroy all remaining freedom and dissent in America appeared to be underway. One of their responses was a new cry for the formation of militias. John Trochmann, (picture on page 10) his brother David and his nephew Randy, all former members of Aryan Nations, heeded the call and founded MOM in the spring of 1994 in the small town of Noxon, Montana. It was soon followed by the Michigan Militia, founded by Ray Southwell and the Reverend Norman Olson. Others rapidly popped up in almost every state in the union; some have more than one.
The militia movement was able to grow so rapidly in part because it dropped the main ideological element that had held back previous right-wing paramilitary units--racism. The Trochmanns kept their racism to themselves and instead emphasized issues more mainstream conservatives could relate to. The most immediately important of these was gun control. The Brady Bill, which imposes a five day waiting period to purchase a gun while a background check is done, and the Crime Bill, which bans certain assault rifles, had recently been passed. Mainstream gun-owners, angered by these laws, were drawn to militia meetings, where they were told they would be shown how to fight them.
From this initial step, the meeting-goers were presented with an entirely new worldview, one filled with conspiracy theories and radically new understandings of the Constitution and Bible. Some were repelled and stopped attending meetings. Others were drawn in and accepted the new worldview.
There are two main aspects of militia worldview. The first is their famed conspiracy theories. They believe that the Brady and Crime Bills are the first step in a plan to totally confiscate all guns from American citizens. This is necessary so that when UN troops--backed by the US government--invade, there can be little effective resistance to them. Those patriots who do engage in armed resistance will be taken away and put in concentration camps even now being set up throughout the US. The traitors who make up the federal government will then be free to impose socialism (equated with Marxist-Leninism or just plain tyranny) on America. These conspiracy theories are not new, but have a long history on the far right. The militias have simply modified them for the post-Cold War world. Many members of the far right have long believed that high ranking US government officials, both elected and appointed, are actually Communist agents seeking to subvert the US Constitution and the work of the Founding Fathers. Naturally, this outrages these patriots. In defense of these conspiracy theorists, it’s not as if there isn’t a small elite group that is trying (rather successfully) to control world events for their own benefit. Or did you think the Trilateral Commision was a charity organization?
These conspiracy theories are generally the only part of the militias’ worldview that have been reported by the mainstream media. The underlying ideology of the movement, in many ways more important than their conspiratorial worldview, has been almost completely ignored. Militia ideology is rooted in the older right-wing one of Christian Constitutionalism. Christian Constitutionalism in the past, however, has been more a group of similar tendencies based on similar ideas but included a number of distinct political projects. The militia movement has reshaped this ideology and given it a coherence that did not exist in the past.
Christian Constitutionalism is founded on some rather unconventional interpretations of the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Biblical law. The first basic premise is one of Christian fundamentalism and Biblical literalism. Additionally, the Founding Fathers are believed to have been inspired by God when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is therefore to be treated with almost as much reverence as the Bible. Later amendments to it are considered corruptions of the Founding Fathers’ and God’s will. A particularly disliked amendment is the Sixteenth, legalizing income tax, which right-wingers see as violating the principals of limited government and private property. Another obviously important understanding they have of the Constitution is that it both forbids gun control and sanctions popular militias raised to fight tyrannical government. The militias very much see their actions as mandated by the Second Amendment and they self-consciously model themselves on the militias of the Revolutionary War.
Another important political point for militias is that of county supremacy. This notion essentially takes the idea of states’ rights one step further and applies it to the county. This is rooted in the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not specifically given to the federal government to the states or (more importantly for the militias) the people. It specifically derives, however, from the Posse Comitatus Act, passed after the Civil War to keep President Grant from policing Southern civilians with military troops. Christian Constitutionalists have developed a rather broad interpretation of this law. In their eyes, the highest legitimate law enforcement officer is the county sheriff, who may raise a citizens’ posse--the Posse Comitatus--to aide him when necessary. Many believe that citizens may form their own Posse Comitatus without the sanction of the sheriff if they see the need. Further, federal and state laws are not considered binding if the local community disagrees with them. Federal and state officials must seek local permission before attempting to enforce any laws or arrest anyone.
The militias and other like-minded right-wingers have created other institutions to return power to the people as well. In some places, they have set up common law courts, which are intended as replacements for the corrupt establishment courts and are seen as embodying the true intentions of the Founding Fathers. These courts dismiss laws they disagree with and spend much of their time putting out arrest warrants and even death sentences for public officials whose actions they believe violate Constitutional and Biblical law. In some parts of the country these groups have enough power and popular backing that public officials are afraid to take any action that might arouse the ire of the militias and common law courts. In other places, militia members have begun to challenge the power of established town councils. They contend that any citizen can call a meeting on any new law they want to pass any time they want and vote it into effect. In short, much of what the militias advocate is a direct, participatory democracy, although it often takes forms alien to any left-wing vision of the same.
It should be noted that there are advocates of county supremacy and common law courts who are not members of the militias and who want nothing to do with them. The majority, however, are at least sympathetic to the militias if not members.
Importantly, nowhere in this description of militia ideology does racism play a part. While some people who believe these things are white supremacists, often all militia members are unfairly depicted as such. While some of the militias’ founders, such as the Trochmanns, may have come from the racist right, the majority of militia members reject any explicit racism. People of color and Jews are welcome to join, and a small number have. Some militias have gone so far as to throw out racist members and the head of the militia in Oklahoma is a black man.
This is not to say that racism does not play a role in the militia movement. One of the major factors fueling the militias is backlash, a desire to return to the mythical time when the role of white men was clearly defined and their supremacy was assured. The majority of militia members are certainly white men. And they are all, in a sense, racist--but for the most part no more racist than other Americans, that is, unconsciously biased. On the level of conscious ideology, like most Americans, militia members reject racism and white supremacy. The sexist-patriarchal and religious fundamentalist aspects of the militia are a bit more explicit. As noted above, Christian Constitutionalism is rooted in an assumption of Biblical literalism. Such an ideology does not make for religious tolerance. There is also a clear desire to reaffirm the autonomy of the traditional Christian household--a male-headed one, which the government, in the form of divorce and child welfare laws, stays the hell out of.
In addition to backlash, more legitimate concerns fuel the militia movement. Most militia members, in addition to being white men, are members of the working class from areas in economic decline. The militias are a form of popular resistance to the current economic restructuring, albeit a misguided one. As the American economy shifts from a manufacturing base to a service one, many blue collar workers are loosing their jobs and, at best, getting ones even worse than they had to begin with. Job stability is a thing of the past as well. Both because of this downward mobility and because of the erosion of white male privilege, white working class men feel like the world is collapsing around their heads. The militias’ worldview of a global conspiracy undermining the basis of the American way of life serves to explain this. In addition to attacking the government, militia literature also attacks large corporations as part of the New World Order that seeks to impose socialism on the US. Common law courts frequently deal with cases in which they declare foreclosures on family farms and small businesses to be illegal. The militia movement is one of right-wing populism.
It is all too easy to dismiss the militias as a bunch of right wing kooks. Instead, the left should take a good hard look at the militia and see what it has to offer. Most importantly, it is a movement of resistance, always an encouraging sign. Some people have woken up and realized that the system is an unreformable farce and that revolutionary change is needed. The militias, at their root, can be seen as an attempt by working class people to take back control of their lives. Many of its propositions are radically democratic--something that cannot be said for a good number of left-wing revolutionary movements.
The militias of course have many, many failings as well. The most obvious is their militarism and willingness to use violence and wreak vengeance upon their perceived foes. Although they have called on elected officials to restore the original Consititution (as they interpret it), any idea of non-violent, non-electoral radical social change is absent. In all fairness, most militias have no intention of initiating violence and are waiting for the government to strike first. The Oklahoma bombing was almost universally denounced by militia leaders, and most believe that it was actually a government plot to frame them.
The movement is also, as already discussed, suffused with backlash sentiment. Even its radically democratic spirit of handing everything over to popular control is problematic. First, this is accompanied by neither social liberalism nor ecological awareness, leaving the possibility of disastrous and intolerant decisions wide open. Second, their vision of democracy is majoritarian and confrontational, not consensual. Social harmony is given short shift, not balanced against individual rights and needs.
The theoretical basis of the militia movement is weak as well, to say the least. It is not based on a critical analysis of the workings of the current system, but on particular interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution, with a large dose of conspiratorialism added for good measure. Perhaps the most serious flaw of the militias is their failure to critique capitalism on any theoretical grounds whatsoever. Although they attack big corporations as well as the state, they do not attack those conditions that make it possible for such corporations to gain so much power. They see private property as a sacred right with which the community can not interfere, even in the form of zoning laws. There is no discussion of doing away with market relations and competition. As many American populists both left and right have in the past, they are seeking a capitalism without capitalists, an economy where the myth of making it on your own merits and industry becomes a reality--but nobody makes it too big. Such an idea has no possibility of becoming a reality. Private property will inevitably accumulate in the hands of a few who will exploit the many. The capitalist market must be done away with altogether.
The militias are ultimately more of a negative force than a positive one, although a force that should be given proper respect and attention. They are not just a bunch of nuts running around in the woods playing soldier, but dedicated revolutionaries, working class men, in most cases basically decent, who are rightfully alienated from the system. They should not be condemned for being revolutionaries, but for being reactionaries as well as revolutionaries. The radical left must find a way to communicate with them and bring them over so that they are fighting not merely the state but capitalism as well. Perhaps then we can begin to build a society that will truly give all of us control over our own lives.