From the Economist:
Is it possible to be a Militia member today without being a) an extremist b) Right-wing c) White Supremacist d) Effing crazy?
Is this just PR to keep guys like me (neither a, b, c nor sometimes d) from seeking out and/or joining a Militia?
Or is it true that Militias are simply a bunch of crazy gun nuts?
I do not believe that one needs to be
d) crazy (as I don’t consider any of their views to be the result of psychosis)
c) White Supremacist*
or
b) Right-wing**.
It may, indeed, help, if one is an a) extremist. I am not familiar with every Militia paramilitary organization, so I am not quite willing to say that that is a requirement.
** Certainly, the nut-cases who lived down the road (literally–same road) from my in-laws who comprised the leadership of the Michigan Militia in the early 1990s were looked upon by their (mostly Republican farmer) neighbors as rather removed from the political views of those neighbors. They use some “sound bites” that have more in common with the Right than the Left–smaller government with less involvement in the lives of citizens rather than the “socialist” aid/interference in the lives of individuals found on the Left. But like the Libertarians (with whom they also share some “sound bite” views without actually embracing the same overall philosophy) they are more likely to scorn most Right-wing politics as it is practiced in the U.S.
The problem with our two-party system and the image of the “line” on which we tend to reckon American politics (even when we use the image of a circle with the absolute extremists from each “side” meeting at the far ends) is that it relies on an unrealistic dualism. Actual political beliefs are more accurately pictured as a plane, with different views being identified as vectors along different axes, and a simple “right” or “left” is less simple than simplistic. (For that matter, even the x,y graph is probably less accurate than something imagined in three or more dimensions, but we have enough trouble getting from our line to the planar graph without trying to expand our imagery into space (or space and time).)
If you are truly interested in joining such a movement, you would probably do well to contact the individual group and sound them out regarding their politics.
… I’d have to say pretty much yes, though. Otherwise, you’re a sporting club, or a paintball club, or a gun club, or an outdoor enthusiast or a historical recreator.
I’m an overlap with about three of them, which would make me a good call for a milita member if they weren’t mostly goatsucking bugshit nuts.
Still, were the Big One to Drop and horrible things that could appear in a Heinlein novel to happen, I’m pretty sure I could put together about four or five Special Forces style squads without breathing hard, from that overlap. Lord knows, some of them are paranoid enough about Bush that they’ve done some survival training recently, and they’re lefties. But as far as a full milita as an ongoing basis? Nah. Need some kind of opponent to be against.
I ask mostly because of current literature about Ruby Ridge, the Michigan Militia (I used to live in Grand Rapids, so it was on everyones’ tongue) and the Murrah Building.
Every time they’re mentioned, it’s “extremist this” and “racist that” about Militia people. It just seems a little too pervasive – I mean, almost globally so?
Why not more centrist groups? Why never a Colorado Militia Bake Sale?
A) Depends on the militia in question, I suppose.
B) Right wing? Tell some of the militia that they will be losing their farm welfare/subsidies. You’ll see what true and dedicated conservatives they are then.
C) Again, depends on the militia in question. I doubt a militant black milita would have ‘white supremacy’ as a membership requirment, but that is sheer speculation on my part.
D) Depends on the individual.
Thank you, Brutus, but I hope you understand the breadth of my question: in your opinion, do you think most militias are roundly gun nuts (as they’re regularly portrayed) or are they just citizens who’ve had enough, and often have radical or reactionary views?
It’s a tough question. I was hoping some Dopers out there might have heard of the “Arizona Militia Telethon” or something.
So is it the Man or the Militia? Which one is “whacko?”
Militias make little sense to me. The theory of fighting of a tyranical government is one that I agree with. The practice of organizing publicly, in full view of the government (in a milder incarnation, granted), that you will one day be fighting, is hopelessly naive, IMO. Still, I know some people who were formerly in the Michigan Militia. Great people, if a bit too religious for my tastes. They were/are genuinely concerned about the direction that society and the goverment seem to be taking. I suspect the militia was more for hanging out with like-minded individuals, then it was an actual ‘resistance training center’.
I am an unabashed gun-nut myself, but not a ‘militia’ type. The main views I hold in common with the militia types I know would be a love of guns and a total distrust of the BATF. Granted, I only vote on two issues: How a candidate view ‘gun control’ and their views on taxes. Of course, this generally means straight-ticket Republican, but maybe Zel Miller will move to my town? But being a gun-nut doesn’t translate into other political views.
The best contrast I can think of are two books: ‘The Turner Diaries’, which the press seems to think is some sort of ‘militia bible’ (I am the only person I know of that read it, and that was for a class), and ‘Unintended Consiquences’, by John Ross, which many have read. UC definitely espouses a ‘libertarian’ view, with nary a racist or fundie tone to it.
The situation on the southern border is a bit different, IMO. Here you have a case where the government is clearly not doing its job, resulting in foreigners trespassing on private property, causing damage. Perhaps minor damage, perhaps more, but damage that should not be occuring in the first place. I am not familiar with the ‘Arizona Milita Telethon’ itself, but I am familiar with Ranch Rescue, which I am assuming is familiar. Apologies if not.
Just a joke. It seems a little biased we only hear about the wacky stuff the Militia does, never any good.
Are you a fan of the Diaries? I’m afraid to even pick it up at the library for fear of being seen with it, what with all the bad press. It’s like The Bell Curve, I’m automatically a racist for looking it up on Amazon? Am I not allowed to see the other side.
Keep in mind, I come from a place very close to The Tattered Cover. It is definitely a concern, as a guy in close proximity to that debacle.
But why is joining a Militia so stigmatized?
Whoa, Brutus, “southern border?” Where are you headed with this? Need to know.
A better comparison just came to me:
In the Pit, we are having a ‘enthusiatic’ discussion about the Erie, PA. bombing.
Me: (Ultra-right wing gun-nut, and proud of it!) Defending the police, the ‘government’ as it were.
You: (Not right wing, probably left wing?) Attacking the police, the branch of the government dealing with this situation.
You are supporting the ‘stereotypical’ militia viewpoint.
I am not in a militia, so I can’t speak on their behalf. Furthermore, I pretty much agree that many of them are enough of a threat to warrant monitoring (at the least) by the government. But I don’t think it is accurate to say that militias are composed of ‘Crazy Right-Wing White-Supremecist Extremists’. Some are certainly composed of level-headed people whose only goal is to be able to resist a tyranical gov’t, should the need appear. Not that I think it is a viable plan, but it’s right there in the Constitution…
Respectfully, no. Uncharacteristically, I was attacking the police for their lack of control. (Ohmygod, not really! Me?) THAT post was about states’ rights and equal rep.
Based on the scant text from the article, isn’t it clear they’re being winnowed down to a bare few?
The Turner Diaries is a terrible book. Even worse if you consider the actual content. I’ll be the first to make fun of my own gramahtikal skilz, but I am not a ‘writer’. TTD is just terribly written.
Still, if you are interested in the topic of domestic terrorism, it should be read. Though not nearly as influential as the press would have you believe, it was influential to some. (McVeigh comes to mind.) Hey, I read The Communist Manifesto and am currently reading Living History, but I not a Communist or a Communist. Know your enemy.
**
Bad press? They weren’t stigmatized until after the Oklahoma City bombings, were they? I mean, they probably elicited some snickers, but not much more. Now, people associate militias with Timmy, even though he had no known association with them.
I dig your rap. Have you read The Revolt by Menachem Begin? I think it brings insight into the current debate.
Technically, every adult male citizen of the US is a member of militia. Pretty everyone known as a militia member is right-wing because anyone not right-wing has some other name applied to them. For instance, the Black Panthers was basically a left-wing militia, but it wasn’t called a militia because it wasn’t right-wing. It’s like “cult”; every cultist is crazy, because anyone in a sane religion is not called a cultist. It’s a matter of nomenclature rather than reality.
Most of what I have heard about Ruby Ridge is, I suppose, biased against the Feds, but from what I’ve heard, the right-wing, effing crazy extremists were the Feds. If you enter private land with deadly weapons and start shooting the place up without announcing your that you’re LEO, you really shouldn’t be surprised when people start shooting back at you.
Yeah, The Ryan, come to think of it, the whole story’s a little muddy itself. You’re very right to mention the BP’s, though. Thanks for the reminder.
That is the hippest/coolest response, ever. 
**
Never heard of it, but after skimming the synopsis at Amazon, it does look interesting, like a modern look at ‘militias’ in action. Granted, I would have dubbed the lot of them terrorists (judging from what I know of the pre-Israel fight against the British), but it’s probably worth a read.
I read THE TURNER DIARIES long before the OK bombing, even through requesting it by InterLibrary Loan so I’m sure my name’s on some Gummint list L
It was painful to read- the only redeeming factor was the ease of mocking it.
The FARC in Columbia could be characterized as a militia, and are assuredly not right wing.
The Black Panther Militia (yes, they’re still around) certainly doesn’t qualify as “right-wing”.
I think the thing that separates the militias from the regular “gun club”-type folks is a feeling of persecution – that is, the feeling that they are being targeted by the government/the UN/white folks, and that they need to be armed and well-trained to survive.
In that vein, militias don’t necessarily need to be tied to the Extreme Right (or is that “Xtreme Right”? ), as Dogface pointed out above. On the other hand, since a conservative mindset often includes the belief of being a persecuted minority, perhaps it’s more plausible to say that you’re more inclined to be in a militia if you’re an extreme conservative.