SPLC STFU

I came across this tidbit early this morning and thought it was worth commenting on:

This excerpt is from the right leaning Washington Examiner's Byron York:

"Just this month, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that it had tracked an explosion in extremist anti-government patriot groups fueled, in large part, by anger over the economy and Barack Obama's presidency," NBC's David Gregory said on "Meet the Press" in early April. "In this highly charged political atmosphere, where you've got so much passion, so much disagreement, this takes it, of course, to a different level."

How did this story line grow? Many of the claims that extremism is on the rise in America originate in research done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based group that for nearly 40 years has tracked what it says is the growing threat of intolerance in the United States. These days the SPLC is issuing new warnings of new threats. But today's warnings sound an awful lot like those of the past.

In 1989, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of skinheads, saying, "Not since the height of Klan activity during the civil rights era has there been a white supremacist group so obsessed with violence. ..."

In 1992, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of other white supremacist groups, which it claimed had grown by 27 percent from the year before.

In 1995, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of right-wing militias.

In 1998, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of Internet-based hate groups, which according to one press account had "created the biggest surge in hate in America in years."

In 1999, the SPLC warned that the growing threat of Web-based hate groups was growing even more, with a 60 percent increase from the year before.

In 2002, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of post-Sept. 11 hate groups, which it said had grown 12 percent between 2000 and 2001.

In 2004, the SPLC warned (again) of the growing threat of skinhead groups, whose numbers it said had doubled in the previous year.

In 2008, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of hate groups overall, whose number it said increased 48 percent since 2000.

And in 2010, just a few weeks ago, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of "patriot" groups, which it said increased by 244 percent in 2009.

In the world of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the threat is always growing. Ronald Reagan's policies led to a growing threat. The first Gulf War led to a growing threat. The election of Bill Clinton led to a growing threat. The Internet led to a growing threat. Sept. 11 led to a growing threat. The war in Iraq led to a growing threat. Is it any wonder that Obama's presidency has, in the SPLC's estimation, led to a growing threat?

I bet if someone really looked into the SPLC proclamations they'd find out that the SPLC is completely full of it. What inference do I draw from that? Well, if I can confirm that this is story is accurate - and my hunch is that it is - then I will never again trust a single word on any topic that comes from the SPLC.

So, SPLC...STFU.

This is a disturbing trend - or maybe just a tendency - in American politics: we take what advocacy groups have to say as being, well, true. But very often, indeed, perhaps even the vast majority of the time, they JUST MAKE IT UP.

And we usually swallow it whole.

I am sure this happens on both the left and the right - it's in some sense just human nature at work - but I'd wager the left has at least a 4 to 1 edge because they have 4 times as many advocacy groups.

One other thought.

I got a right wingish email the other day. I don't usually care for these, even if they generally accurate, because they tend to foster left wing caricatures of the right. (Yes, Vig, I am referring to you.) Anyway, the email presented a couple of very simple thoughts that struck a chord in me.

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

And so on and so forth, mostly covering social or ideological issues. But you know I'd really be curious if anyone on the left has a rebuttal to those three claims because to my mind they are demonstrably true.

There is a term for that sort of thinking, too: totalitarianism. While no one on the left who advocated the ideas cited above would agree that they are totalitarians, 100 million dead last century proves that (1) they are in denial and (2) totalitarianism is a helluva bad idea.