Department of Homeland Security

Homeland Security Meets Office Politics

The author of an infamous report on right-wing extremism tries to defend his work.

|

Right-Wing Resurgence: How a Domestic Terrorist Threat Is Being Ignored, by Daryl Johnson, Rowman & Littlefield, 400 pages, $45.

Idealist goes to the nation's capital, idealist produces notoriously shoddy document that his higher-ups refuse to defend, idealist gets snagged in bureaucratic politics, idealist leaves his job and becomes a government contractor. It isn't the usual narrative arc for a Washington book, but it might be a more typical Washington story. And while the author certainly wouldn't put it in the terms I used, it's the story underlying Daryl Johnson's Right-Wing Resurgence, the meandering memoir of the man who wrote the Department of Homeland Security's infamous report on right-wing extremism.

Johnson's paper set off a firestorm when it was exposed in 2009. The document seemed at least as interested in right-wing groups' ideologies as it was in their capacity for violence, a fact that set off civil liberties alarm bells. And a footnote gave the impression that the paper was casting its net pretty wide. "Rightwing extremism in the United States," it said, "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." This was widely construed to mean that anyone opposed to immigration, abortion, or federal authority was perceived as a potential threat.

In fact, the footnote was a sloppily phrased list of the ideas that drive different extremists, not a list of ideas that are supposed to be extremist in themselves. But you can't blame people for having trouble interpreting the paper. Its own author doesn't seem quite clear on what he wrote. "Perhaps the definition was poorly worded and too vague," he says at one point. But three pages later he is offended at a suggestion that the report was badly written, declaring that "great care had been taken in the wording." In the first chapter Johnson stresses that Homeland Security's concern was with "violent antigovernment groups and potential terrorists," adding that in hindsight his "definition of right-wing extremist should have incorporated the aspects of supporting, endorsing, and conducting criminal acts and violence." But later he relates his long struggle with the department's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which tried to add precisely that sort of language to the report before it was released. Rather than recognizing that the office had a point, the author gets defensive. "Extremism should not be limited to those groups or individuals solely involved in criminal, illegal, or violent activity," he argues. "Extremism has a much broader definition, because it is the phase that precedes terrorism. Extremism involves ideologies that facilitate individuals and groups toward violence and terrorism."

And what might those ideologies be? There's a telling passage where Johnson notes that another federal employee was involved in a Tea Party protest. After stressing that the Tea Party movement is not in itself extremist, Johnson comments that

there are extremist elements within it. Judging by his comments to the counterintelligence officer, it appears that this individual may have been part of the "fringe" element.

This individual allegedly remarked to the counterintelligence officer, "In case you see my face in any protest photos, I want you to know that I am merely exercising my First Amendment rights!"

Ponder the mentality that translates that sentence into a sign that you're dealing with an "extremist element." While you're pondering, remember that for Johnson, an "extremist" has views "that facilitate individuals and groups toward violence and terrorism."

Rowman & Littlefield

Revealing little nuggets like that are scattered throughout the book, from a disapproving reference to "fanatical Americans obsessed with preserving their constitutional rights" to a list of allegedly "far right" news sources that includes the mainstream Republican hangout RedState.com. But what's most revealing is what doesn't appear here. Johnson shows no awareness that there might be a problem with his ideas about "radicalization"—the core concept behind almost everything he has to say about domestic terrorism.

Go to the website of DT Analytics, the consulting company that Johnson runs today. Warning that "Extremist ideology can be described as 'a poison' absorbed into a person's mind," the site describes a simple "path from extremist sympathizer to extremist activist to terrorist." It recognizes that not everyone goes all the way down that road, but it never acknowledges that more than two directions might be possible. The Oath Keepers, who Johnson regards as a particularly potent threat, are a "radical" group that may well draw someone away from violent schemes and toward the organization's strategy of nonviolent resistance. Similarly, militiamen who believe only in the use of defensive violence have a history of warning the police about militia members who seem interested in terror. The social and psychological dynamics here are extremely complicated, and they aren't easily contained by Johnson's simple model.

Nor does Johnson spend much time discussing the ways work like his might undercut his stated aims. The sociologist Amy Cooter, who was doing fieldwork within the Michigan militia movement when the news broke of Johnson's DHS report, writes that many "militia members were frustrated by the report, believing it equated them with neo-Nazis and terrorists. Several militia groups disallowed, albeit temporarily, media representatives and other members of the general public from attending their training functions." In other words, Johnson managed to make the militias more secretive and paranoid.

Johnson is pretty secretive and paranoid himself. He speaks biliously of people who leak official documents. When a writer at Talking Points Memo acquires and mocks an over-the-top DHS report on "ecoterrorists"—the report warns about such dastardly tactics as "organizing protests," "flyer distribution," and "sending continuous faxes in order to drain the ink supply from company fax machines"—Johnson emails his superiors to complain that the journalist "blatantly ignored the security warning and document-handling instructions clearly printed on the front page of this assessment"; he suggests that someone "look into the possibility of recourse against this individual." Johnson seems to believe he has the power to read anonymous leakers' minds: After his own report on right-wing extremism is released, he declares it "likely" that the person responsible "believed that the new administration, led by America's first African-American president, had a preconceived agenda to usurp the U.S. constitution, replacing it with a Marxist government." When legislators and the press start criticizing his paper, Johnson doesn't merely feel that he has been misinterpreted. He decides that his critics have "willfully directed and inspired others toward extremism." They accomplished this "through the creation of an imaginary enemy," he adds, never evincing awareness of the possibility that he is conjuring an imaginary enemy himself.

But Johnson's chief interest isn't leakers. It's relating every excruciating detail of the Department of Homeland Security's intra-bureaucratic politics. It is difficult to express how deeply dull these sections of the book are. Johnson seems intent on quoting each line of each email that has some bearing on his story, including such lively communiqués as "Please review and provide final clearance NLT 1800 hrs today, 25 March 2009. Thank you." Between these infodumps, the intensely repetitive narrative, and a large number of careless errors (at one point Johnson calls the Libertarian Party the "Liberty Party"), it's easy to suspect the book wasn't edited at all. But someone at the publisher's office seems to have looked at it, since there's a note from an editor to the author on page 214 that neither Johnson nor any subsequent proofreader seems to have noticed.

All the same, there's something inspiring about those mind-numbing tales of office politics. When the furor over the extremism report erupted, Homeland Security officials refused to defend the document, Johnson's team was "left floundering day-to-day without any meaningful work to do," and the department ended up adopting a new civil liberties and privacy review process. As far as Johnson is concerned, he's telling a tale of spineless bureaucrats succumbing to political pressure and snuffing out his valuable efforts. But if you remove the filter of the author's perspective, you'll see that what Johnson calls political pressure could just as easily be seen as popular protest working. Offended citizens rose up; an unelected bureaucracy backed down; a lousy approach to tracking terror threats took a blow. All we needed was a leak, some public outrage, and the ass-covering instincts of the civil service. Take heart, civil libertarians: If they cowered once, they can cower again.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

59 responses to “Homeland Security Meets Office Politics

  1. Hmmm..

    at one point Johnson calls the Libertarian Party the “Liberty Party” – works for me.

    amd

    team was “left floundering day-to-day without any meaningful work to do,” – you sure that was just his team, and not the vast majority of the DHS?

  2. Jesse, the quote is wholly absent after:

    And what might those ideologies be? There’s a telling passage where Johnson notes that another federal employee was involved in a Tea Party protest. After stressing that the Tea Party movement is not in itself extremist, Johnson comments that

    Additionally there seems to be something missing after the following passage – assuming you not trying to tantalize the readers into getting a copy of the book to satisfy their curiosity about the allusion:

    But someone at the publisher’s office seems to have looked at it, since there’s a note from an editor to the author on page 214 that neither Johnson nor any subsequent proofreader seems to have noticed.

    1. Holy shit, I once went to a Tea Party rally. Do you think I should have confessed to it on my polygraph?

      1. DON”T MOVE Citizen! You are under our surveillance…….admit to your political crimes and it will be easier for your loved ones……

    2. Please this is too much of a cliffhanger. What’s the note?

      1. Nothing exciting – just a proofreading query.

        1. something like, “needz moar baselessness”

  3. All the same, there’s something inspiring about those mind-numbing tales of office politics. When the furor over the extremism report erupted, Homeland Security officials refused to defend the document, Johnson’s team was “left floundering day-to-day without any meaningful work to do,” and the department ended up adopting a new civil liberties and privacy review process.

    This is the interesting part. I wonder if that was because of the ideology of some higher ups (maybe ex-military guys or something?) or just typical government bureaucrat intransigence?

  4. “… fanatical Americans obsessed with preserving their constitutional rights.”

    Behold the Nancy Pelosi school of constitutional thought.

    1. preserving their constitutional rights

      God. Forbid.

    2. So wait… Anyone from a shrill ACLU lawyer to a hunter who doesn’t want his rifle taxed, registered or confiscated, is a terrorist if it’s convenient to classify him/her as such.

      What could possibly go wrong?

  5. If this book is about domestic terrorists, why does it have a picture of a policeman on the cover?

    1. LOL…^This^

    2. They’re trying to tell us something, aren’t they?

    3. STOP RESISTING!

    4. Freudian slip?

      After searching for a publisher, he got it printed by Modern Dog Magazine between issues?

      Both?

  6. “Rightwing extremism in the United States,” it said, “can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are … those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.

    Daryl Johnson – The declaration of independence and constitution are dangerous right wing manifestos.

    1. You couldn’t write this shit, could you?

      1. Reality is beyond parody.

    2. Telling that he views the pro-state/local mindset as being inherently anti-, rather than pro-government.

      1. Nothing less than total central control will bring upon humanity its salvation.

      2. If you support your local School Board, you are a TERRORIST!

  7. Mahatma Gandhi was a Right-Wing extremist because he wanted to protect the rights of his people.

  8. This liberal fearmonger has obviously never actually read what the Oath Keepers are truly all about. Their declaration of ‘Orders We Will Not Obey’ should actually make the ACLU proud. They even refuse to obey orders to detain or otherwise persecute Americans based on sexual orientation.

    1. I like to think that once, the sacred oath was taken with absolute seriousness by all servicemen.

      1. I shall not ask.
        I shall not tell.

        That oath?

  9. Mark Potok of the SPLC is involved, that means this is just a hit piece trying to drum up some more donations to help keep Morris Dees living in the lap of luxury. The SPLC is a terrorist group.

    1. Well it’s true. They do instigate more mindless terror than the vast majority of groups they keep tags on.

    2. The SPLC is a hate group. Calling them terrorists is going a bit far.

      1. They terrorize poor empty heads into sending them donations….what could be worse?

        hater!

      2. Not at all.

        “Terrorist” is actually a lower bar, for the government to label someone. There are members of “hate groups” who are allowed to fly commercial, for example.

    3. forward by Mark Potok?

      i’ve never ever written this before but… ROFLMAO

  10. Wow man that dude knows exactly whats going on over there.

    http://www.iz-anon.tk

  11. After his own report on right-wing extremism is released, he declares it “likely” that the person responsible “believed that the new administration, led by America’s first African-American president, had a preconceived agenda to usurp the U.S. constitution, replacing it with a Marxist government.”

    Where would anyone get that idea? /sarc

    1. The question is, “Karl or Groucho?”

      1. That depends on what day it is.

  12. I’m curious as to whether any of the right-wing patriot milita groups can be legitimately said to be practicing “terrorism”. Do they embrace the targeting of civilians? Is their modus operandi to use extreme mass-casualty acts to terrorize civilian populations?

    Or are they just paramilitary groups who talk about using standard paramilitary tactics to target federal and state police and military authorities?

    Seems to me that branding any old survivalist group that enjoys crawling around in the woods and shooting guns “terrorists” is purposely stretching the definition to prejudice the reader. Unless they’re actively planning to kill some innocent people in a deliberate terror campaign, they’re not terrorists, they are “potential insurgents”.

    Fuck, we were’nt even allowed to call people who blew up car bombs terrorists in Iraq, and yet these piddling little groups of guys who like their camo are supposed to be included in the same ranks as Mohammed Atta.

    1. Remember, Hazel, the Fort Hood Massacre was simply, “workplace violence.”

    2. It’s a plot by bicycle companies, who got worried when kids started playing paintball and buying fewer bikes!

  13. Anyone who wouldn’t rather the 2nd amendment say “The right of the government to regulate a militia out of existence, shall not be infringed” could be considered to be a right wing extremist. To progressives, interpreting historical founding documents literally and being OK with the meaning is extreme. I mean, they’re white male slave owners…what do they know? We’re obviously better than them by virtue of 1. living in the right time period 2. being the right demographic, or 3. feeling guilty for being in the wrong demographic.

  14. Of course Reason is going to defend racists…it is what your Uber-lord Koch brother masters order you to do. You aren’t Libertarian’s you are just racists trying to usurp Libertarian ideology.

    1. Needs moar capitalization

      1. You must be one of those kkkapitalists!

    2. Troll much?

    3. Need’s Moar Apostrophe’s too’s.

  15. You know, since the left so instinctively responds to the “blowback” theory of international terrorism, you’d think they might possibly ponder for a moment the fact that the only terrorist incident involving a “right wing extremist” by their subjective classification was conceived as a response to the federal government blowing the head off of a woman standing in a backwoods cabin holding her baby and using some religious weirdo’s compound as a monster truck demolition rally and burning the children inside to death.

    That having been said, I’d venture to guess that street gangs have killed an order of magnitude more people than every “right wing extremist” group the SPLC can conjure up. Particularly the ones with vast international networks tied to smuggling, including sex trafficking. Yet I don’t see many indications of moral panic at the DHS over “radicalized” gang bangers subverting government authority. Probably because gangs never use guns or kill cops or anything….

    1. Far more people die in one day from fluoridated water and distracted driving, then from every “militia group” in the last 150 years, but hey… let’s not muddy the water with facts.

  16. Take heart, civil libertarians: If they cowered once, they can cower again.

    I hope you weren’t planning to fly anywhere anytime soon cuz you just made the terrorist watch list.

  17. Here’s Daryl:
    http://cloudfront.mediamatters…..on-dhs.JPG

    1. yep, that’s about what i thought.

  18. I read an interesting article in IBD today with an unexpected twist at the end. Titled “How to kill eleven million people” I was expecting to read the chronicles of mechanized warfare, instead I read of the insidious horrors of propaganda and how easily people fall prey to it, literally walking to their graves for lies they believed to be true.

    How does one kill eleven million people? You lie to them.

  19. One hour we do not speak. I thought a lot. Finally, still feel like saying it’s the fox is not possible, we Cheap Football Cleats can not find evidence that the gray-haired woman does not show fox, but no evidence, just to prove that the fox can transform himself into a cheap ugg boots for women white-haired woman. And to compare with each other, or scientific concepts prevail.

  20. As a potential congressman, Massie supports the elimination of the Federal Reserve and wants to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial regulation package. He http://www.drdrebeatsbydreau.com/ favors both lower taxes and balanced budgets, helping him earn the backing of the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Republican Liberty Caucus.

  21. Elections actually turn out to be difficult to buy, as the many candidates who outspent their opponents but lost anyway?Meg Whitman is a good recent example?can attest. But if anyone wants to try, better they do http://www.cheapfootballcleatspro.com/ it with their own money than with money taken in taxes using the force of law.

  22. And while the author certainly wouldn’t put it in the terms I used.SohbetChat

  23. The social and psychological dynamics here are extremely complicated.SohbetSohbet Odalar?

  24. it’s the story underlying Daryl Johnson’s Right-Wing ResurgenceSohbet SiteleriChat Siteleri

  25. literally walking to their graves for lies they believed to be true.G?zel S?zler?ark? S?zleri

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.