Almost 12 years ago, the FBI warned us all that white supremacists were infiltrating law enforcement “in order to disrupt investigations against fellow members and recruit other white supremacists.” Despite this warning, however, to date virtually nothing has been done to address the threat that this movement presents to national security. In fact, the current president not only has specifically excluded funding for groups that seek to fight against the white supremacist ideology, he and his allies have incorporated vile white supremacist rhetoric. Even if we had a president who wanted to fight white supremacism, the question of how to engage in this fight most effectively would remain. I submit that the answer lies in the lessons learned by organizations such as Quilliam, who have been fighting against a violent extremist ideology for over a decade.
After a deadly mass shooting perpetrated by a domestic terrorist occurred in Orlando, Florida, one of the founders of Quilliam, Maajid Nawaz, offered a succinct approach to fighting the violent Islamist ideology behind the attack. As a first step, Maajid was adamant that society must acknowledge that the violent ideology simply exists. A more difficult feat than it might sound. For instance, just as many liberals still refuse to acknowledge that a violent Islamist ideology exists, while many conservatives have for years denied that white supremacism is inspiring violence. Instead, conservative pundits and politicians continually claim that video games, yes, video games, are to blame for mass shootings conducted by white supremacists. Some conservative politicians have even blamed “homosexual marriage” and “the acceptance of recreational marijuana.” All while the ideology that these mass shooters explicitly state is their motivation is ignored, which, of course, is precisely the point for these conservative pundits and politicians.
To get to the root of the matter, however, we simply all have to admit that ideology matters. The obfuscation that these mass shootings are more attributable to video games, gay marriage, cannabis, the media, or mental health needs to be challenged and corrected wherever it is stated. Instead, we must confront the fact that the vile white genocide replacement theory has inspired an already deadly movement to greater panic and violence. Acknowledging that this ideology is behind these attacks allows us to move on to the next step, which is developing ways to isolate and challenge this ideology in the local communities most susceptible to its influence.
Lastly, it is of immense importance that broad support be offered to the voices who challenge white supremacy, particularly conservative voices. To be clear, this means having a lot of imperfect allies on the issue. For example, anyone who reads my column regularly must, by now, be aware that I find David French’s views on secularism and abortion repugnant. However, French also happens to be one of the more vocal opponents on the right who regularly criticizes white supremacy and tried to warn us all of the recent surge. The simple fact is without broad support across the political, social, and regional spectrum we will never be able to isolate hateful white supremacist ideology. To those who think this strategy does not go far enough, consider the fact that social forces, rather than government prohibitions have always been most effective at lessening violence and violent ideologies.
Equally crucial to our struggle is recognizing the methods that won’t work, particularly — and please stay with me here — the ineffectiveness of broad policies of gun control. I have made the case before that most gun-control laws have been destructive, ineffective, and unnecessary (I do offer in the piece those gun control measures I agree can be effective). However, a recent conversation between Elie Mystal and Ken White (you may know the latter as Popehat on Twitter) I think better illustrates the point I was trying to make. Of course, Elie and Ken were discussing prohibitions on speech, not guns. Nevertheless, when asked by Elie to provide a moral argument for the protection of hate speech, Ken gave an answer that I think directly relates to the issue of gun control. Here is Ken’s answer:
“My moral argument is not about the value of the speech. It’s about our brokenness as people and the inevitability that speech restrictions get used to attack the powerless. The moral argument is the same one I use about blasphemy or flag burning or speech that offends people on “the other side.”
We are weak and censorious and we like to punish people for ideas that make us mad. This trend particularly burdens the powerless, because that’s the way the system works. Exceptions to free speech always have been, and always will be, applied disproportionately to people of color and the poor and unpopular political minorities. Morally, I want to fight that.”
It is Ken’s point about our weaknesses and the inevitability that restrictions “always have been, and always will be, applied disproportionately to people of color” that I want to focus on in the context of gun control.
For example, read this piece from Radley Balko detailing how gun laws have traditionally been enforced disproportionately on people of color. As Balko points out, the reason is broad gun control laws, like broad drug laws, are susceptible to basic factors like personal prejudices, resource allocation, and the discretion of law enforcement in deciding “what communities to target and what methods they’ll use to target them.” To be blunt, if you think law enforcement, the same law enforcement the FBI stated was being infiltrated by white supremacists, is going to target affluent or middle-class whites who are largely responsible for mass shootings, and not focus almost entirely on communities of color, then I have some swampland to sell you. As the artist and activist Killer Mike put it, gun laws are going to affect black communities “first, and worst,” and we best remember that when discussing effective solutions to this serious, deadly problem.
Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.
