Extremism and the Economy: A social science question

The Department of Homeland Security released a report warning of the potential rise of right wing extremism due to the slumping economy.  There are no specific threats discussed in the report, just a general warning to local and state authorities to be on the look out for "right wing extremist" groups to take advantage of the current economic situation to recruit new members and engage in threatening actions (among the groups lumped together btw include not only neo-nazi groups, but anti-BIG government, anti-abortion, and gun ownership advocates).  Not sure but I imagine that Austro-libertarian types like me would be considered harmless and egg-headed quacks.

The question I have doesn't relate to the list or to what constitutes a "dangerous threat" but a more basic empirical point -- is there any evidence to suggest that economic slumps breed right wing extremism any more than left wing extremist groups?  Moreover, is there evidence that right right groups are more dangerous than left wing groups?

Comments

[Steve Horwitz]

The appearance of that report has caused me to display my Gadsen flag in my office for the first time since grad school. If that makes me an extremist threat, come get me coppers!

What's really silly about that report is that it argues that the rise in right-wing extremism in the mid-90s was driven by the economy. Huh? Unemployment rates were miniscule, GDP was booming. What bad economy *at the time* was feeding the right?

[klaos]

I dunno, if an anti-Fed movement becomes popular, and active, my guess is that the egg-headed quacks suddenly turn into terrorist sympathizers.

[N]

"is there any evidence to suggest that economic slumps breed right wing extremism any more than left wing extremist groups?"

It would be difficult to establish such a relationship. Even taking an obvious example of the rise of an extremist political group during an economic slump, the Nazis in Depression Era Germany, raises several questions. Were the Nazis "right-wing" or "left-wing?" I think similar questions regarding the right- or left-winginess of particular groups would plague many other cases. Further, at what point in relationship to an economy could an extremist political group be said to begin to rise? Is it possible to find reliable data on increases in Chinese right-wing extremists during the Great Leap Forward?

[Dave Prychitko]

Steve:

Speaking of Gadsen flag. I have both, the red and white plus the yellow. I fly one (I switch from time to time) off of my woodshead. Been about a year now.

[Gdansk]

What's a Gadsen flag?

[Ian Dunois]

GDANSK,

I'm sure you have seen it or heard it of it at one point in time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag

[Gdansk]

Ian,

Afraid not. We don't have them in Poland.

Gdansk.

[king mises]

Wave it high and wave it proudly!

[Greg Ransom]

No.

[K Sralla]

Das Homeland über alles!... and keeping a very close eye on other-wing types?

Thick irony here.

[Alan Forrester]

Sigh. The report is available here:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/us-dhs-right-wing-extremism-2009.pdf

The report is about white supremacist groups and violent anti-government groups. You can unbunch your panties now.

[Steve Horwitz]

The report is about, as the title suggests, "Right-wing extremism." The report offers a definition of "right wing extremism":

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." (footnote, p. 2)

I note that being "mainly antigovernment" and/or "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely" constitutes being a "rightwing extremist" and therefore being worthy of examination in such a report.

I suggest Alan that if the tables were turned, or if such vague and broad language were used about Muslims for example, your panties would be bunched pretty far up, and well they should be.

Very little of the actual text focuses on violence. Most of it describes supposed reasons for increases in "rightwing extremism" which includes the definition above.

Glad to see that now that "your guys" are in power, there's no reason to worry about reports such as this, when with the other guys in power people like you would have had three fits.

[Ed Weick]

Pete,

How concerned should we be that this is a Trojan Horse or Camel's nose under the tent?

ED

[Tom]

"...rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority..."

The US Constitution must be a right-wing extremist document. Take the text of the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Sounds like a rejection of federal authority in favor of state authority to me.

[geoffrey]

Quicquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis.

- _Aeneid_, II.49, P. Vergilus Maro

Said just before Laocoön and his sons were attacked by snakes.

[Arare Litus]

I suspect more violence is likely from "right wing" extremists, since that is typically the stance the right wing takes and promotes. It is in the culture.

The left wing also has some of this, but it seems like less so. How many lefties live in the wilderness polishing their guns and talking about the constitution and how "Amerika" is run by the Jews? Or fly flags, and imagine they are standing up "to the man"? Okay, maybe a lot (I see a lot of Marxist stuff & Commie flags), but I doubt the gun part, and they label Jews as "Israel" to make the position a bit more acceptable.

The government also issued a "left wing" memo:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-leftwing-extremists-increase-in-cyber-attacks-dated-26-january-2009.pdf

The memos takes the cultural *talk* into account, were for the lefties property damage (including bombings and arson, "planned" to prevent/reduce casualties) tends to be promoted.

Data may exist, but since this is basically a small data set in the tail of some heavy tail like distribution, it is more reasonable (most likely) to look at how the groups *currently talk*, as this talk and culture will tend to inspire action.

Go hang where Nazi like people hang, and you will quickly see a propagation of a violence stance and feel an edge. Hang where commies like to hang, and you will see more "Israel is bad", "Writer X is awesome", "Capitalists are evil (hey, do you like my sweet sunglasses & Che swag I just bought?)", "Smash the state! And lets spray paint "lies" on newspaper stands!!". "Lets all conform together!" Basically a bunch of chumps who love the market (by their actions) and want a socialist utopia. Sometimes there is a bit of an edge there too, but much less so in my experience.

When considering low probability, high impact events, looking at the "generators" of possible events (i.e. the culture that will spawn violence) is a reasonable thing to do.

Does anyone here *seriously* believe that "right wing" extremists do not promote violence more than "left wing", in the *current* culture?

Actually, I think this would be a good "teachable moment" - how does an Austrian look at reality and make a model and gain understanding? What is "the Austrian" take on thinking about this issue? From the comments it seems like "the government is evil" is the stance... [also, "we are radicals" - are you serious Steve? I understand slippery slopes and how bad governments can abuse power - but really - are you joking with your "if that makes me an extremist?"].

My take, which I would simply call common sense, is that here data will be sparse and empirical evidence cannot help us so much, so we have to fall back on thought experiments to help us. Simple considerations, i.e. listening to what each side tends to say, suggest that "the right" has a culture with more of a violent edge. As culture has some impact on action I would suspect right wing extremists would then tend to be more violent. A survey of data may give a bit of support for this, but I would be surprised if it was large as states tend to punish "private violence", and extremism is - well, extremist - and fairly rare, so we will have too small of a sample size to say much. But as the outcome is very bad, so it would be best to be on the watch for this despite the low probability - I wouldn't want my neighbor curbed (a verb that currently is in the nazi culture, I don't think it is in the lefties), let alone some larger attack.

[John Singleton]

Potentially, the question could be answered by looking at the sale of "right wing extremist" books over the business cycle. A comparison between the counter-cyclicality of right wing and left wing literature, holding all else constant, could feasibly be made.

If you consider Atlas Shrugged "right wing extremist" literature, the report may be on to something.

[Steve Horwitz]

My objections are to the sweeping and vague definition of "extremist" and the implied connection to potential violence. This is a report that reflects every misconception that some people have about "the right." Being anti-government does not make one an "extremist" in the sense that requires monitoring for violence. This report DEFINES extremist that way.

[K Sralla]

"I understand slippery slopes and how bad governments can abuse power"

Really? The way Mises and Hayek did?

Instead of sterotyping a "typical neo-nazi or local campus commie", why don't we try bracketing major regimes of the 20th century. I think of well-known folks like Stalin, Hitler, and Polpot. You can throw in your favorite statist regime too. Is there any lesson we should take from recent history? The question I would ask is what in the American experience makes the United States political regime immune from straying down these paths? And who keeps watch to make sure it hasn't taken a wrong turn? The chances may be very small that this kind of thing would happen here, but it would be best to be on the watch for this despite the low probability-I wouldn't want *my* government curbed though, let along some smaller attack.

[Arare Litus]

Steve;

I believe the two problems you have with the report are driven by *misreading the report*:

(1) "The report is about, as the title suggests, "Right-wing extremism." The report offers a definition of "right wing extremism": " and "My objections are to the sweeping and vague definition of "extremist" and the implied connection to potential violence. "

The report does NOT include a definition of RW extremism, it instead breaks extreamists into 3 broad groups. i.e. it looks at 3 important SUBSETS of extreamists. You have your Venn diagram inverted. You may complain that there is a lack of definition in the report (the also do not define any other word, as dictionaries are widely available - although since this has legal implications the complaint is somewhat justified), but from the general language & examples of the report extreamist is used in the general sense - of people breaking the law, or planning to, here focusing on violence in particular.

Reread the footnote with the "definition" of extreamism.

(2) "What's really silly about that report is that it argues that the rise in right-wing extremism in the mid-90s was driven by the economy."

The report makes NO SUCH CLAIM. Instead, it suggests similar political climate, i.e. "social issues and political themes".

[Arare Litus]

K Sralla,

"Really? The way Mises and Hayek did?"

If you mean the same way *any honest observer* of all governments past and current would come to - then yes. Governments do very bad things: they are made up of people. Not long ago "we" were sticking fancy screwdrivers up peoples noses and stirring their brains "for their own good". And this is in some of the better nations.

Did I say anything about immune? I was speaking to the specific document, and what a reading of it - and the situation it is discussing - says to me. Viligence is important, but "false" or uncalibrated viligence is counter productive. Take a look at the report, it is not perfect - but over all is it not sensible and basically just common sense? By misconstruing the report - which I believe is being done here - it will just make your legitimate observations lack impact, it will be easy for others to discount your view.

[Dave Prychitko]

I've already been followed by pseudo-secret police, and lived six months, with my wife, in a bugged apartment. This was in Croatia back in 1989.

Look, here in the grand ol' U.S. our phone calls are monitored, so are our bank accounts, and so on. The Patriot Act. And yet patriotic libertarians are now considered to be extremists.

Roger and I have said for months here (and I've said it for years now anyway) step by step we move closer to fascism.

"I weep for the future," said the Maitre d' to Ferris Bueller.

[Arare Litus]

Rereading the original post, I think Peter Boettke may have inadvertantly pre-biased reading of the report in a negative light with:

""right wing extremist" groups to take advantage of the current economic situation to recruit new members and engage in threatening actions (among the groups lumped together btw include not only neo-nazi groups, but anti-BIG government, anti-abortion, and gun ownership advocates). Not sure but I imagine that Austro-libertarian types like me would be considered harmless and egg-headed quacks."

In my reading of the report I do not get a sense of groups lumped together vaguely, but instead a discussion about people who proclaim and want to use violence. The footnote that causes (I take) most of the issues starts off with this:

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into..."

The key being the extremists are being broken into subsets, NOT that the groups listed are extremists (i.e. the intersection, NOT the union).

[Arare Litus]

Dave;

"And yet patriotic libertarians are now considered to be extremists."

By who? I assume you do not mean the report being discussed, or do you? And - now? There has *always* been efforts against people who try to limit excesses, and there always will be.

I believe that Americans have had phones bugged quite often in the past, the interesting thing is that now the information is more open and revealed quicker - insead of having a pessimistic "bias", I see things as an ever going "battle", that has always and will always exist, and the fact that we can read about things in the paper, and be discussed, and perhaps even have actions taken (!!) is a very good thing.

Closer to facisim? Perhaps, but are we not always on a knife edge? As we are experiencing some shocks we may fall on the wrong side of the razor thin line, but I see signs for hope.

[libertyfirst]

I don't know much about political extremism in the US, but I know about the EU.

As far as I know, there are no left wing extremists in the US, and the so called liberals are "the socialists of a country without socialism" (I think Sombart's). For what concerns right extremism, I think in the US there have been only the kaki shirts and the KKK.

In Italy, however, the last two political murders (D'Antona and Biagi) have been committed by a left-wing terrorist group, the so called "new red brigades", which are now deservingly rusting in the jail.

There is some juvenile violence tied to politics: normally it's reciprocal. There can be a group of rightwingers stabbing some commie, or some leftwingers stabbing a fascist.

There are violent demonstrations against other groups' right to demonstrate, and it is more common for leftists to protest against rightists.

If I went to a commune held by commies with a T-shirt like "Guevara was a murderer" I'm quite sure I would be assaulted. The same would occur if I went to a rightist commune with a "Mussolini had more hairs than neurons" t-shirt.

If I invited David Irving (the self-styled historian who denies the Holocaust) in my university for a conference I'm sure that scores of commies would use clubs to deter people from entering the room, and my protests would gain me a broken nose.

Adult political violence is negligible, now that the new red brigades have been jailed. It wasn't so in the seventies, and even more so in the twenties, both on the left and on the right wings.

In other countries, I think especially Germany and Eastern Europe, right wing juvenile extremism is alive and well, much more than in Italy, as far as I know. I know nothing about left wing extremism in the EU, except no global rioters such as the Black Bloc, who are surely violent, sometimes to the point of maiming: when the leftist extremist Giuliani was killed at the G8 in Genua, he was lauching a fire estinguisher against a wounded policeman in a damaged land rover, for instance. Extremists came from all around the world. How was in Seattle? It may be revealing.

[Peter Boettke]

Arare Litus,

I asked a social scientific question --- what is the evidence on the connection between slumping economic conditions and the rise of extremism; and what is the evidnece that right wing extremism is more likely to emerge in tough economic times than left wing extremism?

I was not making the argument that Steve and Dave made (though I agree with them) that the government monitoring "extremist groups" can in fact lead to police-tactics used against intellectual opponents.

What is the evidence -- real evidence, not casual empiricism -- on this issue of tough economic conditions and the rise of extremist groups in a society?

[Arare Litus]

Peter,

(1) "I asked a social scientific question"

Yes, and I gave my "spin" on this [data will be poor, so there will be little "real" evidence - but if we can take historical correlation between claims/hopes and action (yes, weak) of groups then it would seem, in the current cultures, the right is more extreame]. As for the RISE - in terms of the report it makes no strong claims at all here, and is just a sensible (to me) warning to keep possibility in mind. In general, I bet you can find some evidence - but again, the nature of extreamism [small samples] will make this a hard problem. "Idle hands are the plaything of the devil", I believe in general it has been shown that there is some correlation between job loss and crime, surely exteame crime should be a subset that also mirrors this? My basic claim is that this is inherently "in the tail of a heavy tail like distribution", and so one cannot get much from simply presenting numbers - you have too few examples.

(2) You also made a statement that suggests the report lumps everyone together. In this specific case, I do not believe it does.

(3) "I was not making the argument that Steve and Dave made (though I agree with them) that the government monitoring "extremist groups" can in fact lead to police-tactics used against intellectual opponents"

I don't believe I suggested you made this argument. I also do not argue against this generic argument.

[Arare Litus]

By the way, I am quite serious about:

"Actually, I think this would be a good "teachable moment" - how does an Austrian look at reality and make a model and gain understanding? What is "the Austrian" take on thinking about this issue?"

How do you guys answer Peter's question? What is the current Austrian view on probabilities and judging rare but extreme events? How do you go about contructing a model to think about an issue, say this one in particular...

[Daniel J. D'Amico]

Some empirical hypotheses:

1. I would guess that radical animal rights groups and environmental groups have "orchestrated" on net more instances and on net more damages (in value terms) than right wing extremest groups in recent years.

Here the term orchestrated is key, I'd guess that racially charged hate crimes (beatings and muggings) are often assumed to be coordinated activities by right wing hate groups when in fact they're more like drunken bar fights performed by individuals. Thus the quantified estimates of hate groups are over-stated.

2. If it weren't for the unintended consequences of racial bias inherent in our criminal justice and punishment systems there would be significantly lower amounts of white supremacist groups in America today (even if they are currently over-stated).

I disagree with Loury's recent take (at CATO unbound) that the CJ system is overtly racist, but I do think that the racial biases may be an inevitable consequence of the structural application of law enforcement - a Cantillion effect from law enforcement.

In other words, regardless of what causes it, blacks are disproportionately in jail compared to their representation in traditional society. White minority inmate populations have used hierarchical gang alliances as a rational strategy to retaliate against these larger threatening populations. Black and Hispanic inmates have similarly organized their prison gangs on racial lines.

The last vestiges of white supremacy organizations in America obtain their lasting degree of power by controlling the trade of meth and by controlling power within correctional institutions. Both of which can be ameliorated by repealing ineffective policies in the criminal justice system - centralized law enforcement and prohibition.

[K Sralla]

We might take two approaches. Firstly, the numerical approach: We begin by defining the boundary conditions. This may be the unemployment rate, aggregate demand, and throw in a few more econometric functions and some good environmental functions, then mix and stir. Next we initialize our model with a paramaterization function that captures the mean relative mental state of the average resident within the grid mesh. There will be no dynamical core to the model, but by necessity another paramaterization which drives the model toward either all out civil war, a local bombing plotted by a few individuals, or relative peace and serenity. Then we write some code and run the simulation thousands of times perturbing slightly the initial conditions, and then spit out a probablility density function for the ensemble mean. Then we perturb the boundary values and see what effect this has. Presto, we have a wonderful "scientific" model. We would submit the results for peer review, but the implications are so serious that there is not time. We must hurry and get this information to the local law enforcement ASAP.

Or we can take approach #2: (The Austrian approach). We first ask ourselves what is the limit of our knowledge and predictive skills gained from the complex model (or any other mathematical treatment) and its statistical properties? We realize that our predictive skill of any particular realization through phase space approaches 0, and we have no chance at accuratly defining either the boundary or initial conditions, much less test the core paramaterizations for any validity. We conclude that the best approach might be for the government to stay the heck out of the business spying into the private lives of its citizens, for fear that it might perturb them in an undesireable (defensive or violent) direction. We don't put out memos to police forces which might hack off private citizens and lead them to be paranoid that the governments's profiling excersize hits too close to home. Instead we hold sacred each individuals right to think and reason and live as the supreme being is pleased to give him breath, so long as the individual does not act to harm others.

[Roger Koppl]

Here is a story about an animal rights group torching a professor's car -- in his driveway! -- because they object to his use of animals in research.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-research13-2009apr13,0,5129041.story

The story bolsters my impression that "leftwing" groups have been more likely to be violent since the Murrah bombing than "rightwing" groups, but that the latter are more likely to direct their violence at law enforcement.

[yai]

Extremism is alive if that country politicaly supports it or requires it take a look at the current situation in Thailand and start asking the right questions and you will soon get the answer.