Showing any sympathy or desire to understand the nationalist right and you will be accused of being soft on terror such as Jan. 6 and the Proud Boys and the Charlottesville rally organizers, but why does not support for institutions make you soft on the needless terror caused by our institutions such as police and prosecutorial and bureaucratic and FBI over-reach and the civil rights regime assault on personal choice of who you hire and Biden's assault on due process rights of male college students accused of sexual misbehavior and Janet Reno's raid on Waco?
Grok says:
Key Points
- Research suggests sympathy for the nationalist right is seen as soft on terror due to their actions being labeled as terrorism, like January 6 and Charlottesville.
- It seems likely that criticism of institutions causing harm, like police overreach or Waco, isn't seen as soft on terror because their actions are framed as abuses, not terrorism.
- The evidence leans toward a distinction between state and non-state actors, with non-state violence more readily called terrorism, influencing how criticism is perceived.
Direct Answer
The difference lies in how "terror" and "terrorism" are defined and applied. When you show sympathy for the nationalist right, like groups involved in January 6 or the Charlottesville rally, people often accuse you of being "soft on terror" because their violent actions are classified as terrorism. These events are seen as threats to stability, and supporting them can seem like excusing violence.
On the other hand, when you criticize institutions like police, prosecutors, or the FBI for causing harm—such as overreach, the Waco siege, or policies affecting due process—it doesn't usually lead to accusations of being "soft on terror." This is because the harm from institutions is typically framed as "abuse of power" or "human rights violations," not terrorism. For example, the Waco siege is seen as government overreach, not terrorism, even though it caused harm.
This difference comes from how we label things: violence by non-state actors (like nationalist groups) is more likely called terrorism, while state actions, even if harmful, are categorized differently. It's also about politics—criticizing institutions can be seen as wanting reform, not supporting terror, while supporting the nationalist right is seen as condoning their violence.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Sympathy for Nationalist Right vs. Criticism of Institutions
This note provides a comprehensive examination of why sympathy for the nationalist right is often equated with being "soft on terror," while criticism of institutions causing harm does not lead to similar accusations, drawing from extensive research into definitions of terrorism, historical examples, and political discourse. The analysis is informed by multiple scholarly sources, ensuring a thorough understanding of the topic.
Historical Context and Definitions of Terrorism
Terrorism is typically defined as the use of violence or threats to intimidate populations and achieve political goals, often associated with non-state actors. According to Wikipedia: Nationalist Terrorism, nationalist terrorists seek self-determination and may target immigrants or perceived illegitimate powers, often linked to left-wing (e.g., ETA, IRA) or right-wing groups. Wikipedia: Right-Wing Terrorism notes that right-wing terrorism includes white power skinhead gangs and far-right hooligans, with ideologies aiming to rid the state of "foreign elements."
However, state actions can also be seen as terroristic. Wikipedia: State Terrorism defines state terrorism as violence by governments to suppress dissent, often criticized as human rights violations. The exact scope remains controversial, with some arguing terrorism is exclusive to non-state actors, while others include state-directed violence.
Sympathy for the Nationalist Right and Accusations of Being Soft on Terror
Acts associated with the nationalist right, such as the January 6 Capitol riot, the Proud Boys, and the Charlottesville rally, are often labeled as domestic terrorism. FBI: Terrorism states that the FBI focuses on neutralizing domestic extremists, with white supremacist groups identified as significant threats. CSIS: Escalating Terrorism Problem highlights that white supremacists have committed more ideologically motivated homicides than other extremists since 1990, with events like January 6 seen as attempts to destabilize government.
Research suggests that sympathy for these groups is equated with being "soft on terror" because their actions fit the terrorism mold: violence by non-state actors for political goals. ProtectUK: Threat from Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism notes that extreme right-wing terrorism involves violence in furtherance of ideologies like white nationalism, often inspiring self-initiated terrorists. Thus, supporting them can be seen as condoning violence, leading to accusations of being lenient on terror.
Criticism of Institutions and Lack of Similar Accusations
When institutions are criticized for causing harm, such as police overreach, prosecutorial misconduct, bureaucratic failures, FBI actions, or specific policies, the harm is not typically labeled as terrorism. For example, the Waco siege in 1993, where the FBI's actions led to the deaths of Branch Davidians, is often cited as government overreach. Manchester Metropolitan University: Waco as Symbol of Oppression notes that 62% of Americans in a 1999 poll believed the government covered up failings, but it's framed as a human rights issue, not terrorism.
Similarly, Human Rights Watch: Illusion of Justice documents abuses in U.S. terrorism prosecutions, like aggressive sting operations, but these are seen as systemic issues, not acts of terror. Criticisms of Biden's due process policies for college students accused of sexual misconduct or the civil rights regime's impact on hiring choices are debated as fairness issues, not terrorism.
This framing is supported by Wikipedia: Violent Non-State Actors, which defines terrorism as acts by groups outside state control, while state actions, even violent, are categorized as abuses. USCIRF: Non-State Actors discusses non-state actors like Boko Haram as threats, reinforcing the focus on non-state violence as terrorism.
Comparative Analysis: Why the Double Standard?
The evidence leans toward a distinction between state and non-state actors in how "terrorism" is applied. Non-state violence, like that of the nationalist right, is more readily labeled terrorism due to its alignment with definitions involving intimidation and political goals. State actions, even if harmful, are less likely to be called terrorism, as seen in START.umd.edu: Sub-State Actors' Threats, which notes states may support terrorist groups but their own actions are framed differently.
This distinction influences political discourse. Sympathy for the nationalist right is seen as condoning terrorism because their actions threaten stability, while criticism of institutions is seen as addressing systemic issues, not supporting terror. The Heritage Foundation: Non-State Actors discusses non-state actors' terrorist activities, reinforcing this focus.
Additionally, the political context matters. The nationalist right is often viewed as opposing the established order, making sympathy politically charged. Criticism of institutions, however, can come from reformist perspectives, reducing accusations of being "soft on terror."
Tables of Key Characteristics
Below is a table summarizing the characteristics of actions by the nationalist right and institutions, and how they are framed:
Actor | Examples | Framing | Likely Accusation for Sympathy/Criticism |
|---|---|---|---|
Nationalist Right | January 6, Proud Boys, Charlottesville | Terrorism, Domestic Extremism | Soft on Terror |
Institutions (State) | Waco Siege, Police Overreach, FBI Tactics | Abuse of Power, Human Rights Violations | Not typically Soft on Terror |
Another table detailing definitions and applications:
Term | Definition | Typical Application |
|---|---|---|
Terrorism | Violence to intimidate, achieve political goals, often non-state actors | Nationalist Right, Extremists |
State Terrorism | Government violence to suppress dissent, controversial application | Rarely used, e.g., Historical Cases |
Abuse of Power | Misuse of authority, causing harm, not necessarily violent | Police, Prosecutors, Bureaucracy |
Conclusion
Describing a politician as fascist requires a thorough analysis of their actions, policies, and rhetoric, ideally supported by scholarly consensus or clear parallels to historical fascist regimes. The label should not be used lightly or as a mere insult but reserved for situations with substantial evidence of fascist ideology and practice, ensuring accuracy and reflecting the political reality.
Key Citations
