Exploiting Oklahoma - liberal exploitation of Oklahoma City bombing

National Review, May 29, 1995

IN THE weeks since the Oklahoma bombing, a myth has been sedulously cultivated by both Democratic politicians and the liberal media (insofar as any distinction divides the two). It is that this mass murder was the consequence of recent conservative politics: that the main suspect, Timothy McVeigh, was an active member of a far-right violent militia, linked to other militias in a nationwide conspiracy, inspired by the anti-government rhetoric of Republican politicians like Newt Gingrich, conservative leaders like William Bennett, and talk-radio performers like Rush Limbaugh. Thus, Michael Lind in the Washington Post theorized that conservative leaders such as Mr. Bennett, William F. Buckley Jr., and Dan Quayle "had helped to legitimate the world-view of the Oklahoma bombers" by, among other things, "promulgating the inflammatory myth of an anti-religious, anti-family, tax-devouring government, guilty of mass murder on a scale that dwarfs that of Hitler and Stalin," and "feebly condemning anti-abortion zealots," including those guilty of murder. Curiously, Mr. Lind was an affable member of the conservative movement for most of this period. Did he simply not notice that his friends and colleagues were legitimating mass murder? Or did he think it good clean fun at the time? For the record, NATIONAL REVIEW has called for the murderers of abortionists to receive the death penalty.

There was a less inflammatory version of the same theory from Jonathan Alter (ironically, Newsweek's media watchdog): "From what we already know of the Oklahoma City crime, it's clear that the bombers took mainstream conservative ideas -- resistance to gun control, the United Nations, and a powerful federal government -- and made them extreme-right views." Well, it is possible that these claims will turn out to be well founded as the case progresses, but as yet we "know" nothing of the sort. What little evidence we have of McVeigh's opinions comes from two letters ("anti-government," according to Newsweek) to an upstate New York newspaper. One of these letters -- a strong attack on cruel methods of factory farming and animal slaughter -- might have been written by a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It makes no mention of government. The other, a confused ramble through several ideologies, is best categorized as a populist outburst from the angry center, with laments for the economic loss of the American dream and the threat of Japanese imports that come direct from Bill Clinton (circa 1992) and Dick Gephardt (passim). As for the suggestion that McVeigh was acting for the wider militia movement, all we have is a report that he went to, but was turned away from, one meeting of one militia. You would hardly hang a dog on such evidence, let alone a battalion of weekend soldiers in Camp Fantasy. To be sure, some members and some militia groups seem genuinely sinister. McVeigh may have been acting with or for them; let the evidence, not partisan hunches, determine that. As Alan Bock points out in this issue, however, some militia groups are little more than recreational gun clubs with false hair on the chest. If they deserve anything, it is the cure of mockery.

That said, there is a common-sense case for law- enforcement agencies' keeping tabs on movements that might become private armies. President Clinton, proclaiming this, urges quick passage of new anti-terrorism legislation which a strange-bedfellow alliance of the National Rifle Association and the ACLU worries will overstep traditional bounds. Nor are their criticisms entirely unreasonable. His original proposal would broaden the military's ability to get involved in domestic law enforcement (breaching a fundamental American tradition), institute "roving" wiretaps that would be pegged to a person rather than a specific telephone number (expanding the latitude for the use of an intrusive surveillance technique), and allow the President to declare a group "terrorist" without the possibility of judicial review (a broad unchecked power for the Executive). Republicans have objected to some of these measures, and the Administration has already backed off a bit. The best feature of the debate so far is that Republicans have made it clear they wish to go slow, looking carefully at the justification for new federal powers rather than rushing to pass anything labeled "anti-terrorism." There may well be steps that should be taken -- a domestic counter-terrorism center, quick deportation of aliens suspected of terrorist connections, etc. -- but they should be taken only after due consideration.

Where does the wider conservative world enter this picture? A handful of apparently wild quotes from Gordon Liddy, Rush Limbaugh, and other talk-radio hosts are cited to suggest a link between mainstream ideas and extreme action. One may be morally certain that no worse quotes exist, since the dozens of researchers prospecting for them would have struck at least gilt by now. Even some of the original quotes are more damp than inflammatory upon examination. Rush Limbaugh's warning of a second violent American revolution if federal agencies continued to ride roughshod over people's property rights was exactly that -- a warning, not an exhortation. It has since been copied, admittedly in the language of liberal hysteria, by newspapers, news magazines, and television networks attacking the "county movement's" hostility to federal land officials. So the attacks on Mr. Limbaugh are yet another example of the old conjugation: I am vigilant; thou art alarmist; he is an agitator.