What could possibly explain this relationship? A headscratching analysis

[Tetro Kornbluth]

An interesting chart I came across in a sociology blog (which links to here, the data comes from the SPLC)



Now what I wonder could explain this trend? What could it possibly be?

[bedstuy]

Right, it's a good point that Democratic Presidents cause mass hysteria on the right.

Sometimes people today think Obama is the President to go through this or that a white Democrat wouldn't face any of the vitriol.  Bill Clinton has some of the same problems with extreme right-wing hatred, conspiracy theories and charges of being anti-American.  Obama just adds blackness and exoticness to the fire which ups the ante.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A "relationship" usually involves more than one variable. I'm not sure what you are implying about what broader significance 1996 or 1998 had in terms of dramatic declines in these groups.

[Joe Republic]

Yes, Democrat presidents are un-American, etc, but a bigger factor is economics.  That seems to provide a better correlation with that chart, especially the decline during the late 90s.  There is less right-wing backlash when their jerrbs haven't been tekk.

Also see:  Germany, 1919-1933.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow. I imagined the growth would be there, but I'd never thought it'd be that strong.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Wow, not even a jump after 9/11 and barely one for Iraq. It's pretty funny what makes these people tick. Thanks for sharing!

[afleitch]

'N-gger President'

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While the trend noted in unfortunately not surprising, I note that the number of militia groups is still below the highest numbers reported during the Clinton presidency.  Also what that report is sorely lacking is any information of numbers of members.  After all, if one counts only groups, Europe is far more religious today than it was five centuries ago.  (Just two more years till the 500th anniversary of the 95 Thesis.)

[Indy Texas]

I never entirely understood the severe angst the Far Right had in the mid-'90s. You'd think they'd have far more to be upset about today than back then.

Back then, you had a fat, white Southern Baptist man in the White House (even if he was a Democrat), no gays marrying or serving openly in the military, fewer minorities in raw numbers and share of the population. There were more job opportunities for blue collar men, and for middle class men the Dot Com boom/bubble was just getting started.

So what was their deal?

[JerryArkansas]

Reason why they were so angry under Clintion, He got to fu k around and they didn't.  He got away with screwing women.  He was seen as an immoral bastard.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'm not sure what you are implying about what broader significance 1996 or 1998 had in terms of dramatic declines in these groups.

For the same reason that if this graph continued, the number would drop sharply after the 2012 election. It was widely reported in early-2014 that the number of right-wing militias and hate groups dropped once Obama won.

For the same reason, Republican rhetoric is not nearly as bad as it was 2009-2012 (though still pretty bad): because Obama owned them. They are defeated, so they have resigned themselves to waiting out their Presidencies until the next Republican comes along.

Clinton and Obama were/are seen by conservatives as anti-American (more Obama on this point), culturally liberal, and pro-gun control, so militia groups increased during their first terms and sharply declined once they won re-election.

Am I saying that all (or even a majority) of Republicans and conservatives are foaming-at-the-mouth militia members? No, not at all. But the reactionary wing in this country is very vocal and very, very paranoid, and easily whipped up into paranoid fear by conservative media and politicians when a liberal Democrat associated with gun control and other liberal issues gets into office.

It's really that simple.

[DemPGH]

Yeah, there's a race issue at play here, but it's also true that a modest number of Americans walk around believing things about the left and anything associated with the left that most here would find really nuts. A few that were applied to Clinton all the way back when I was in high school, and now to Obama, were that "the Democratic President" is going to do all kinds of things: Put the armed forces under foreign control, unilaterally ban gun ownership, cancel elections-- pure madness. This palpable level of fear would be to me a really interesting sociological analysis. In the '80s and the early '90s it had broadly to do with paralyzing fear of the Soviet Union, but now is really uninformed madness.

[Thunderbird is the word]

The usual right-wing paranoia+a somewhat decreased standard of living+a black president=The highest number of militia groups in history

[Thunderbird is the word]

Wow, not even a jump after 9/11 and barely one for Iraq. It's pretty funny what makes these people tick. Thanks for sharing!

It was too soon. They were widely humiliated after the "Y2K" Armageddon failed to happen, and people didn't forget.

I think it's more that those events led to a period of heightened nationalism and jingoism which is conservatism of a different nature then the anti-government conservatism which comes about when a Democrat is in office and in some cases is even anti-war as I think a lot of militia types are right-leaning anti-war vets.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Oooooh. A chart from the Southern Poverty Lie Center predicting right-wing Armageddon. What's next, a John Birch Society chart about how much closer we are to Communism.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I never entirely understood the severe angst the Far Right had in the mid-'90s. What's their deal

(1989) Bush sporting purpose requirement on imported rifles [Ban on many guns]
(1990) Tax increases [No new taxes!]
(1991) Lawmaster raid [Feds shoot dog b/c guns, find none, refuse to apologize]
(1992) Rodney King Riots
(1992) Lipman raid [Feds seize gun collection, do not charge owner with crime until sues for property]
(1992) Ruby Ridge [Feds snipe unarmed women in head b/c guns]
(1993) Waco [Feds burn down cultist church b/c guns]
(1993) Brady Act [Feds nationalize gun sales]
(1994) Big grazing fee increase proposal
(1994) NAFTA
(1994) Lamplugh raid [Feds stomp kitten to death b/c guns, find none, refuse to apologize]
(1994) Fleming raid [Feds convict pro-gun expert witness for writing "N" instead of "No" on paperwork]
(1994) Assault Weapon Ban [Feds ban guns b/c they look scary]
(1994) Midnight Basketball Grants [Taxpayer money to try and distract criminals from crime]

The established gun community felt threatened at the frequent targeting by the Feds; Economic and crime issues pushed more moderates into the former group. At the same time you had a bunch of Millennialists predicting Y2K or the rapture in the year 2000 imitating the gun people. Basically 2 sets of ideologies which slightly overlap doing similar stuff at the same time. The internet helped it grow.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Oooooh. A chart from the Southern Poverty Lie Center predicting right-wing Armageddon. What's next, a John Birch Society chart about how much closer we are to Communism.

It's only data. It makes no predictions.

[hopper]

I never entirely understood the severe angst the Far Right had in the mid-'90s. You'd think they'd have far more to be upset about today than back then.

Back then, you had a fat, white Southern Baptist man in the White House (even if he was a Democrat), no gays marrying or serving openly in the military, fewer minorities in raw numbers and share of the population. There were more job opportunities for blue collar men, and for middle class men the Dot Com boom/bubble was just getting started.

So what was their deal?

Bill Clinton wasn't overweight.

Fewer Hispanics/Latino's. Its not like the Asian and Black Populations are booming like the Hispanic/Latino Population is.

[Redalgo]

So what was their deal?

In addition to Blackraisin's post, there was a conspiracy theory gaining traction at the time that the U.S. was planning to merge with Canada and Mexico to forge a North American Union - which in turn was felt to be part of a greater plot by a secretive handful of elites to establish a totalitarian, unitarian government to rule the world. A lot of the gun legislation fed into fears that conservatives were being disarmed, free trade agreements were felt to be a betrayal of American workers, and Democrats at the time had the reputation for being less patriotic or "American" than their Republican counterparts. So Reagan got to be a hero who defeated the Soviets but Clinton was to be a traitor masquerading as one of "us," which was a recurring theme for those now terrified by President Obama as an issue aside from race (e.g. recall conspiracies that he was born in Kenya, is a practicing Muslim, is covertly aligned with advocates of Sharia, and so forth with an intention of destroying the United States to make way for something else). Reactionaries fear what awaits in the future. It's what gives them such urgency in trying to agitate for a return to how they believed things were like long ago.

[patrick1]

I never entirely understood the severe angst the Far Right had in the mid-'90s. You'd think they'd have far more to be upset about today than back then.

Back then, you had a fat, white Southern Baptist man in the White House (even if he was a Democrat), no gays marrying or serving openly in the military, fewer minorities in raw numbers and share of the population. There were more job opportunities for blue collar men, and for middle class men the Dot Com boom/bubble was just getting started.

So what was their deal?

Bill Clinton wasn't overweight.

Fewer Hispanics/Latino's. Its not like the Asian and Black Populations are booming like the Hispanic/Latino Population is.

Back then Clinton was teased about being chubby.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

SPLC/TIME: "See How the Number of Hate Groups in the U.S. Has Changed Over Time"

http://time.com/3739966/hate-groups-splc/

Bar graphs galore!

someone should tell them that 17 years isn't a "quarter century."

Since the SPLC considers the Nation of Islam a hate group, I can't help but wonder if they themselves would qualify as an "Anti-Muslim" hate group under their definition.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Glad the Time bar graph doesn't show the breakdown of militias. Not a "hate group."

[publicunofficial]

Glad the Time bar graph doesn't show the breakdown of militias. Not a "hate group."

For some one that "isn't a racist", you sure dislike people who go after racists.

[Badger]

SPLC/TIME: "See How the Number of Hate Groups in the U.S. Has Changed Over Time"

http://time.com/3739966/hate-groups-splc/

Bar graphs galore!

someone should tell them that 17 years isn't a "quarter century."

Since the SPLC considers the Nation of Islam a hate group, I can't help but wonder if they themselves would qualify as an "Anti-Muslim" hate group under their definition.

So a group that is often mischaracterized as a leftist propaganda mill is lampooned (poorly) for demonstrating they actually call out hate groups of all creeds, ideologies, and colors.

Just

[Badger]

Glad the Time bar graph doesn't show the breakdown of militias. Not a "hate group."

Yes, this is proven by the vast abundance of inter-racial, inter-denominational extremist militias that have no substantial ties to klan/nazi type groups.

For example, there's the.....um, well.....