We need to recognize terrorism when it happens on US soil

Hatred and violence descended upon Charlottesville, Virginia last month as participants of the “Unite the Right” rally clashed with counter-protestors. The event continues to be discussed from nearly every vantage point, with politicians and pundits seizing it as a platform to talk about race, hate speech, the “alt-right,” neo-Nazis and — ultimately — who and what is to blame for the violence that culminated in James Fields ramming his car into counter-protestors, killing one and injuring 19.

Despite the saturation of commentary on the August 12 event, surprisingly little has been said about what it means for the future of domestic terrorism in the United States. While National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have strongly affirmed the incident meets the “definition of domestic terrorism,” President Trump sidestepped this classification and, instead, implicated “both sides” for the deadly violence.

{mosads}The federal investigation into the case — which is being conducted as both a domestic terrorism and civil rights investigation — further confounds the nature of the incident and, consequently, the questions we should be asking.

How will history remember Charlottesville? Will it be memorialized as yet another bitter chapter in the United States’ struggle with racial equality and moral equivalence? Or will it be defined as something even more sinister — as the dawn of a new era in which an increasingly pronounced segment of society turned to alt-right ideology to justify terrorizing other Americans? Will the far-right as a movement seek to work within the system to push policy outcomes? Or, will its members aim to act outside the system, using their bigoted ideology – which many of them view as biological facts — to justify terrorizing those who they deem to threaten their very way of life?

As in any large movement, members of the alt-right span this spectrum. While any articulation of white nationalism or neo-Nazism should be condemned in the strongest terms, efforts should be concentrated around combating those whose radical opinions show visible signs of manifesting in radical action. When such actions result in endangering human life with the intention to intimidate Americans, there should be no shying away from calling it what it is: domestic terrorism. 

Charlottesville is one of the more visible displays of a growing trend of alt-right extremism in the United States. An intelligence bulletin produced by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security in May documented that between 2000 and 2016, white supremacists conducted 26 attacks in the United States. Not only is this statistic greater than the number of attacks perpetrated by any other domestic extremist group, but with the exception of 9/11, it also eclipses the 10 U.S. attacks executed by radical Islamists in the same time period. 

Even before the Charlottesville rally had taken place, the FBI/DHS bulletin forecasted that the white supremacist movement “likely will continue to pose a threat of lethal violence over the next year.” Given this expectation of “lethal violence,” how can authorities distinguish between alt-right members whose ideology seeks a policy outcome versus those whose radical beliefs are likely to manifest in violence or terror? 

Similar to how Islamic fundamentalism is a monolithic term that is often used to define both the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS — despite the groups’ different positions on the ideological spectrum and approach towards working within versus against the government — the alt-right is an overly broad classification.

As noted by The New York Times, the far-right is an “amalgam of factions and causes, some with pro-Confederate or neo-Nazi leanings, some opposed to political correctness or feminism.”

The term “alt-right” has been popularized by Richard Spencer to define the movement he leads. His organization — the National Policy Institute — describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”

As the president of this movement, Spencer has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing,” and views immigration as “a kind of proxy war against White Americans.” Spencer has “rallied against Jews” and quoted Nazi propaganda. Spencer received a standing ovation along with the Nazi salute for these remarks.

History shows that ethnic cleansing can never be “peaceful.” The coupling of anti-Semitic rhetoric with the Nazi salute evokes one of the darkest chapters of human history and should be regarded as nothing less than an incitation of violence. These views, along with the rejection of immigration for xenophobic reasons, fundamentally oppose the foundational values on which the United States was built. This is the type of hateful rhetoric that is more likely to seek violence over a policy change, and should be responded to accordingly. 

If past events are any indication of future plots, alt-right extremists will become more pronounced in the months ahead. Charlottesville demonstrated how quickly alt-right members seeking more benign, policy changes can become entangled in group think and inspired to aid and abet hate crimes and terrorism.

At the same time, the voices of the radical right do not justify the actions of the radical left. Recent events have shown how violence exerted on one end of the ideological spectrum can spawn radical narratives on the other.

In June, James Hodgkinson shot House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, a lobbyist and a member of the Capitol police force at a Republicans’ baseball practice. Hodgkinson defined himself by his strong support for progressive politics and by his hatred of conservatives, posting to Facebook that, “Republicans are the Taliban of the USA.”

Just as James Hodgkinson does not represent the views of all democrats or progressives, James Fields and Richard Spencer are not illustrative of all republicans or conservatives. However, radicalism must be recognized for what it is, regardless of its source, and terrorism should be called by its real name. 

The United States must supplement its international counterterrorism efforts with a stronger domestic program, and prioritize combating the radicalization of people drawn to the hateful fringes of the ideological spectrum here at home.

Jacqueline R. Sutherland is the Terrorism & Asymmetric Warfare fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy (YPFP). She is also a senior security analyst at a D.C.-based global advisory firm and a non-resident Counterterrorism Fellow at the London-based Asia-Pacific Foundation. She has been published in The Hill, The Huffington Post, The National Interest, Real Clear Worl, and Real Clear Defense. She holds a Master’s in International History with highest honors from the London School of Economics.