Polemic of Hate

Polemic of Hate Utilizing the information gained from your reading of Chapters 4 and 5 (attached), critically analyze attached scholarly article. In a critical analysis of the article, complete the following: 1. Summarize the article’s thesis and main points in one or two paragraphs, at maximum. 2. Critically evaluate the relevance of the data used to support the thesis of the article. 3. Evaluate the significance of the sources, including whether they are primary or secondary sources. 4. Provide examples of either the presence of bias or lack of bias evidenced by the authors. 5. Critique (as defined in Chapter 5) the accuracy, acceptability, strengths and weaknesses, and overall soundness of the article. In your critique, consider whether or not the authors persuaded you with their viewpoints. 6. Using source “treeing,” as described in Chapter 4.1 of your text, find two related scholarly articles and explain how the articles you found could be used to support or contradict the premise and findings of the article being critiqued. POLEMIC OF HATE: HOW MAINSTREAM POLITICAL DISCOURSE FUELED THE GROWTH IN WHITE SUPREMACY 2007–2012 by Dr. Wendy L. Hicks Department of Criminal Justice Loyola University New Orleans New Orleans, LA and Bradley W. Hicks McLean County Center for Human Services Bloomington, IL Abstract The U.S. presidential campaign of 2012 saw an upsurge in politically conservative stances and heated discourse, with pundits debating issues pertaining to immigration, women's reproductive rights, gay marriage, and unemployment. Woven into this mesh of political diatribe were concerns regarding the growth of hate and extremist groups within the United States. This paper will examine the political discourse on issues underlying the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, as concerns about traditional family structure, immigration, and a host of other hotly debated social issues could be argued to be an instigating factor in the growth of the white supremacy and extremist movements across the country. It is hypothesized that increasingly mean-spirited political rhetoric, combined with an escalation of conspiracy theories and right-wing paranoia, has resulted in an environment conducive to the growth of hate and extremist groups. Results will indicate a surge in extremist and hate group membership from 2007 to 2012. Page 18Introduction The U.S. presidential election of 2008 was one of precedent and history. For the first time Americans selected a biracial leader: A man who was to be the most powerful, most influential individual on the stage of U.S. and world politics. Never before had a biracial person been selected to represent one of the major political parties in the presidential election. This radical diversion from standard form was not without controversy. Rumor, innuendo, and speculation fueled the widespread growth of politically conservative groups such as the Tea Party, Birther movement, Patriot Movement, Council of Concerned Citizens, Family Research Council, and the American Family Association, amid a host of other right-wing political action groups and committees. Amid escalating concerns over the state of the economy, immigration, women's reproductive health issues, and increased civil rights for homosexuals, the conservative right, most notably the Tea Party, became a spearhead through which further right-wing reactionary political agenda items began to appear. Growing speculation about Barak Hussein Obama's place of birth gave rise to disquiet that the President was actually born in Kenya, and birth records obtained from the State of Hawaii had been falsified in a large-scale government conspiracy. Concerns over the President's place of birth fueled anxiety that the more socially liberal policies emanating from the White House were the result of a socialist conspiracy to force the U.S. into a conglomerate political entity comprised of a Canada-U.S.-Mexico union. This theater of impassioned political debate would soon result in a turmoil of name calling, finger pointing, and histrionics. Augmenting this volatile mixture was a fervor among the religious right that the moral perpetuity of America was in extreme danger due to frank discussion of topics that by all rights should be taboo. Soon mainstream political candidates such as Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Kris Kobach, Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin among others became enmeshed in the discord flowing from the far right. Eventually radio political commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Bill O'Reilly used the air waves to further inflame the increasingly hate-filled polemic. Mash-ups often included women's reproductive rights, rape, immigration, gay rights, economic policy, and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the start of the 2012 presidential campaign, individuals and organizations already enmeshed in the white supremacy movement had a prime opportunity to influence mainstream American politics. Campaign donations for political candidates were soon to be traced to those with connections to various white supremacist organizations, while personal connections between mainstream politicians and individuals within the white supremacy movement provided the American populace a darker, edgier, blatantly meaner 2012 campaign. The paranoia and animosity that came to characterize the American political scene during and after Obama's 2008 presidential victory did not occur in a vacuum. Membership in extremist hate groups such as the neo-Nazis, Skinhead Nation, Patriot Movement, Nativist Extremist groups, neo-Confederate organizations, white nationalist groups, the Christian Identity movement, and an assortment of anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and anti-Muslim associations grew at alarming rates. In addition, a good amount of political diatribe centered squarely on broadening civil rights for homosexuals, most notably the right to marriage. Therefore, it was no surprise the see an alarming growth in bias crimes against homosexuals from 2008–2012. However, unlike years past, hate groups started to increase their perceived legitimacy as entities such as Stormfront, Christian Identity, and neo-Confederate organizations became linked to mainstream, well-respected politicians. It is the position of this paper that the hate-filled political rhetoric, so common during the presidential election campaign of 2012, coupled with changing U.S. demographics, poor economy, immigration controversies, and increasingly liberal policies of the Obama administration, are fueling the growth in white supremacy, extremism, and hate groups. In addition, the perceived increased legitimacy of previously veiled organizations has made them more audacious with respect to campaign donations and membership expansion. Supremacy, Hate, and Social Capital It is an all too unfortunate reality that hate is still very much alive in 21st century society. Worldwide, various groups and organizations proclaim superiority based on factors such as gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin. According to Franklin (2004), “The Hate Directory: Racial, Religious, Ethnic, Gender, and Sexual Orientation Based Hatred” on the Internet contains no less than 118 pages of links to websites, news groups, Listservs, and chat rooms espousing a hate-based agenda. Hate is not created in a vacuum. It is a learned thought process that all too often results in antisocial or criminal behavior. The Internet and web-based technologies have proven tremendously useful teaching and recruitment tools for individuals, groups, and organizations involved in the world of supremacy and hate. Due to the broad spectrum of groups and organizations devoted to propagating hate and hate rhetoric, there is no single definition of what constitutes a “hate group.” However, there are several working definitions in use by legal organizations and law enforcement to help properly identify groups aligned around hate, hate speech, extremism, or biased criminal behavior. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate group is defined as an organization whose “primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from Page 19that of the members of the organization” (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1999, p. 3). Woolf and Hulsizer (2004) rely upon a slightly modified version of the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) definition as they define a hate group as “any organized group whose beliefs and actions are rooted in enmity towards an entire class of people based on ethnicity, perceived race, sexual orientation, religion, or other inherent characteristics” (p. 43). A casual scan of the two definitions highlights the existence of two primary components necessary before a hate group can really begin to flourish: Organization and a target group. If any specific group is to sprout and grow to fruition it must first achieve a certain measure of organization. A simple hodgepodge of assorted individuals with loosely defined but common goals cannot sustain the effort required to create or maintain a true group. According to Blee (2002), organization is so vital a concern in the identification of a hate group that many researchers have come to rely upon the term “organized racism” to properly define groups with an overtly racist or biased agenda. A second major component included in the definitions of a hate group is enmity directed at a specific group of individuals. Whether that animosity is based upon race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or any number of possible factors, hate, malevolence, or resentment is a key factor in the creation and perpetuation of a hate group. It is the primary motivation, indeed the purpose underlying the very essence of the group, to use all available resources to advance the agenda by promoting hate and animosity toward an identified group. According to the Anti-Defamation League (2004), the most common targets for hate groups within the United States are African Americans, Jews, Hispanics, gays, and lesbians. In what could only be described as one of the most comprehensive directories of hate and extremist groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies groups according to 15 categories: Radical Traditional Catholicism, Patriot Movement, Nativist Extremist, neo-Nazi, anti-gay, neo-Confederate, anti-Muslim, racist Skinhead, anti-immigrant, White nationalist, Christian Identity, Holocaust Denial, Ku Klux Klan, Black Separatist, and general hate (www.splcenter.org). According to the SPLC, groups included within the category of general hate “espouse a variety of rather unique hateful doctrines and beliefs that are not easily categorized” (www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/general-hate). These groups often circulate within the larger white supremacy movement as vendors selling a litany of materials espousing a more generalized and encompassing hate rhetoric. Hate, Extremism, and Social Capital When attempting to analyze the variety of rationales to explain the attraction of groups organized around a rhetoric of hate, it becomes quite evident that many varied factors must be examined. No discussion of human interaction can be complete without examining social capital. A term first employed by Alexis de Tocqueville in the latter half of the 19th century, social capital refers to “the norms and values of the civic community,” which are “embodied in, and reinforced by, distinctive social structures and practices” (Putnam, 1993, p. 89). Social capital results from the communal activity and community sharing of individuals within a cohesive group such as a town or city. The effects of social capital have been identified as highly significant in affecting human behavior and interaction, including the growth of hate and extremist groups (Putnam, 1995). As hypothesized by Putnam (1995, 2000), declining social capital results in a reduced level of civic engagement. Areas with higher levels of social capital enjoy a more varied economic environment with more personalized, intimate individual interactions. Locales suffering from a lack of social capital are typified by a depersonalized environment, with more individual anonymity. An individual with higher levels of social capital is thought to be happier and may benefit economically with more success in the job market and in other varied economic transactions (Robinson & Ritchie, 2010). Social capital has been positively associated with economic growth and lowered rates of poverty (Rupasingha & Goetz, 2007; Rupasingha, Goetz, & Freshwater, 2002). In addition, higher per capita income taxes, unemployment rates, and divorce rates have been associated with an increased presence of hate groups (Jefferson & Pryor, 1999; Goetz, Rupasingha, & Loveridge, 2012). The subtle nuances involved in the effects of social capital on individuals and society make it a vital part of the overall discourse on hate and extremism. While social capital affects the economic structure of an area, there remain many unexplored avenues and questions regarding underlying narratives of scapegoating, conspiracy theories, and paranoia as motives for increased membership in extremist and supremacist organizations. As stated by Berlet (2004), “Organized hate groups defend unfair power and privilege by promoting collective action frames and constructing narratives that use dualism and apocalypticism to demonize scapegoats and allege sinister conspiracies” (p. 145). Berlet goes further by maintaining that the dynamics of scapegoating and conspiracy development are built and modeled upon larger, preexisting prejudices and bigotry that exist in subdued forms in the larger society in which we all live and work. Incorporated within a phenomenon referred to as apocalyptic dualism exist the dynamics of demonization, conspiracy development, and scapegoating, which prevail as stylistic tools used by leaders within the extremist movement to recruit and control members. Hence, we have now come full circle to an emphasis on leadership within hate and extremist groups as was identified by Woolf and Hulsizer (2004) as essential to the creation and perpetuation of a hate group. There are those within the scholarly community who assert that patterns of prejudice “are normative, the result Page 20of social and historic processes” and that “most violence is instrumental, that use a habitual pattern of behavior adopted to achieve a set of personal needs or ends” (Ehrlich, 1992, p. 107–108). It is for this reason that it is essential for a proper and thorough understanding of the dynamics involved in the growth of hate group membership to discuss such membership in the context of the larger societal systems affecting interpersonal interaction. Politics of Hate It is an unfortunate truism that religious groups and organizations devoted to a nationalistic perspective often rely upon hate and paranoia in attempts to motivate and mobilize the citizenry. Xenophobic language is often employed in efforts to instill fear or paranoia as attempts are made to justify defensive reactions from citizens and those in positions of authority (Davison, 2006). As stated by Davison (2006), “leaders convey messages with tremendous affective appeal” (p. 37). Even within an established democracy such as that of the United States, nationalistic, ethnic, and religious dissension can have widespread influence on political policy. Ignatieff (1993) contends that political and economic oppression tend to be fundamental sources of conflict. Efforts to recruit group members based on a nationalistic fervor is often effective due to the fact that prospective members are provided a ready identity and sense of belonging (Davison, 2006). Leaders of groups with a nationalistic leaning create the idea of an “us-them” mentality in their group members, attracting potential new members through creation of an ideology rooted in nationalistic pride. Television, the Internet, and cell phones are often utilized as means of communication by leaders of hate groups due to the ease and speed with which members can be mobilized, information conveyed, and potential new recruits contacted (Appleby, 2000; Juergensmeyer, 2003). It is because of this potential to incite nationalistic fervor that leaders of extremist groups and politicians with a more right-wing perspective are often successful in recruiting followers. Nationalistic arguments have often been the tools of politicians and extremist leaders in appeals to people or groups who feel oppressed by political or economic forces over which they have little, if any control (Michnik, 1996). Nationalistic arguments offered by politicians and leaders of extremist groups offer a sense of identity to those who feel lost or held back by perceived politically unjust policies. Politics of Paranoia In 2008 Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois, was elected president. He defeated Senator John McCain from Arizona, a well-known political figure with twenty-five years of service in government. This win, along with Obama's more liberal stance, created a firestorm of backlash that continues to this day. During the election of 2008 the matter of Obama's birth came under strong scrutiny by some in the conservative movement. Believing that Obama had in fact been born in Kenya, the home of his father, and not in the state of Hawaii as had been reported, these “Birthers” as they became known, proposed that the election had in fact been a fraud and Obama was not a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States. While Obama had stated on numerous occasions that he had in fact been born in the state of Hawaii and supported this claim with both a birth certificate and newspaper announcements from the time of the birth, this was not satisfactory for the Birther movement. On June 13, 2008, Obama released the short form of his birth certificate to unequivocally answer the question, yet critics demanded the long form birth certificate be released for further scrutiny. The fact that any attention was brought to Obama's eligibility for office based upon his birth was interesting since similar questions did not arise in regards to Senator McCain, a man born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone on August 29, 1936. Even after the long form of Obama's birth certificate was released on April 27, 2011, some continued to question its legitimacy. It would be easy to dismiss these Birthers as a paranoid subsection of the Republican Party, but a 2011 poll conducted by CBS and the New York Times found that 47 percent of Republican voters questioned the U.S. birth of President Obama. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated at a Michigan rally in 2012, “No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate; they know this is the place that we were born and raised” (Somnez, 2012). This paranoid view goes beyond a small subset of the GOP, detailing a much larger perspective shared by many in the Republican Party. The Birther movement was not the only conservative group that viewed Obama as an undesirable president. A populist group known as the Tea Party emerged during the 2008 election. While the Birthers focused on the legitimacy of Obama's candidacy, those in the Tea Party questioned his policies and asserted the kind of America Obama envisioned was not the same vision as that of the Founding Fathers. With patriotic rhetoric amid images of a golden age of the American Dream, the Tea Party rallied people across the country to vote against Obama, and after the election to oppose his policies, such as his healthcare reform and the automobile industry bailout of 2009. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fully separate those in the Birther movement from those in the Tea Party. Both are populist movements and both have members who identify with the other's ideology. They are, however, both paranoid groups who share similar goals and utilize similar methods. Their shared goal is the defeat of Obama's policies and the election of a president who represents their views more accurately than the current administration. One must question: Where do these views originate? What has caused movements like the Tea Party to arise on the 21st century American political landscape? Racial Rhetoric & Right-Wing Politics The fundamental theme of the Tea Party is that the America under Obama does not represent what the Founding Fathers Page 21envisioned. This new America does not act with the best interests of the average citizen at heart. By painting the government as a separate entity not reflective of the values of most Americans, the Tea Party creates a sense of “Us” versus “Them.” The government, and Obama in particular, ceases to be a body elected by the citizenry to better the American way of life and becomes instead a dark, sinister force that must be stopped. Ron Paul & Stormfront In the 2012 presidential primary, former congressman Ron Paul emerged as an early frontrunner and possible nominee for the Republican candidate for the general election. In the first primary held in Iowa on January 3, 2012, he came in second tied with Mitt Romney. In the New Hampshire primary, Ron Paul finished second behind Mitt Romney, who would go on to become the Republican nominee (Gabriel, 2012). Paul's momentum would shift in February and March with the Texan placing third and fourth as many states held their caucuses. As Paul gained momentum in many states such as Washington, Minnesota, and Maine, the press began reporting on Paul's connection to various white supremacist groups and publications that were attributed to him written in the 1980's and 1990's. During this time his newsletter, entitled the “Ron Paul Political Report,” published several articles that many deemed hate speech. When asked about these newsletters Paul responded by saying that he had neither written them personally nor had he read them. In June 1992, in a special issue on “racial terrorism” the newsletter says when discussing the Los Angeles riots of that year, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.” Order was, in fact, restored on May 4 after Governor Pete Wilson sent 4,000 National Guard troops to patrol the streets of Los Angeles (Baldassare, 1994). In January 1994, the Ron Paul Political Report had a section on AIDS and the homosexual community in San Francisco. In the article the newsletter listed several reasons it believed another AIDS epidemic was coming. Among these reasons was, “…they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick” (Ron Paul Survival Report, 1994, p. 5). In fact, according the Centers for Disease Control Surveillance Report, “AIDS cases reported in 1994 (80,691) declined from the number reported in 1993 (106,618)” (CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1994, Vol. 6, No. 2). Ron Paul was also featured as a guest speaker at the Ludwig von Mises Institute as part of a panel on the topic of secession. According the the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Mises Institute is a neo-Confederate organization that aims to “undermine statism in all its forms” and states the Institute believes desegregation during the civil rights era resulted in the “involuntary servitude” of business owners (www.splcenter.org). Paul Ryan During the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney selected Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan has consistently voted against many bills that support equal rights for homosexuals and the transgendered. Among these was Ryan's vote against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act on April 29, 2009, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act (paulryan.house.gov/voterecord/; www.house.gov; votesmart.org). This bill amended the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to include “gender” and “gender identity,” in addition to allowing the Department of Justice to investigate crimes where the perpetrator has selected the victim due to sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability as well as race and other factors such as religion and national origin (H.R. 1913, 2009; www.govtrack.us; house.gov). He also voted against the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in 2010. In September of 2012 Paul Ryan spoke in front of the Family Research Council (FRC) where he said of his running mate Mitt Romney, “Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best.” The Family Research Council is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group based on their anti-gay ideology (www.splcenter.org). This view is based on a number of publications published by the FRC in addition to homophobic comments from its leaders, most notably Robert Knight, the director of cultural studies for the FRC after it was stated in 1999, “Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement” (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2012). While Mitt Romney did not attended the Values Voter Summit with Ryan, he did deliver a video statement stating he would “defend marriage, not try to redefine it.” Ryan cosponsored a bill in 2011 that would have granted a fetus personhood at the moment of conception (H.R. 212, 2011). This bill provides no situation under which an abortion would be acceptable such as an ectopic pregnancy, nor any considerations where the mother's life could be in danger. In 2000, when a similar bill was introduced, Ryan said on the floor of the House of Representatives, “the health exception would render this ban virtually meaningless.” Ryan cosponsored a bill that would redefine the ability for a woman to get an abortion in cases of rape. The bill would only allow abortions if “forcible rape” was the cause of the pregnancy (H.R. 3. P.C.S., 2011). This language was eventually removed from H.R. 3. In a 2012 interview with Tennessee TV station WJHL, when he was asked to clarify his position on rape and pregnancy Ryan stated, “I'm very proud of my pro-life record, and I've always adopted the idea that, in the position that the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life.” (WJHL, 2012) Rick Perry In December 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry disseminated an advertisement in preparation for the Iowa caucuses to be held on January 3, 2012. In the ad Governor Perry affirms his Christianity and goes on to accuse President Obama of a war on the nation's religious heritage. In the ad he says, “As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion and I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage” (Perry “Strong” ad, 2011). He also denounced the fact that the military policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell had come to an end. In the ad it is stated, “But Page 22you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school” (Perry “Strong” ad, 2011). Perry also criticized the president that same month when the Obama administration announced they would use diplomacy as well as enticement of foreign aid to promote gay rights on the global stage. In the announcement president Obama said, “I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting L.G.B.T. persons around the world” (Myers & Cooper, 2011). Governor Perry said, “President Obama has again mistaken America's tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake” (Myers & Cooper, 2011). In August 2011, Perry held a prayer meeting in Houston called “The Response.” Among the various Christian leaders invited to this prayer meeting was San Antonio preacher John Hagee. Reverend Hagee has come under scrutiny for statements he has issued in the past including a sermon in 2008 where he states the holocaust was God's work and Hitler was sent by God to attack the Jews: “Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter.” (Wilson, 2008). He went on to quote a Bible passage from the writing of Jeremiah to support his claim. He concluded, “And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended…It was the truth and it is the truth” (Wilson, 2008). In 2008 then presidential candidate John McCain disavowed the pastor who had endorsed him for president in February 2008 after this sermon, saying, “I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable” (Wilson, 2008). Conservative Commentators Various conservative commenters spoke during the 2012 presidential election espousing viewpoints many deemed extreme, mean-spirited, and hateful. Among these are the statements of Ann Coulter, a conservative commenter not unfamiliar with controversies resulting from her statements. Among them were a repetition of previous quotes, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” (Coulter, 2001) and “I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote” (Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/1999). Historically such devices have been used to prevent minorities from voting in the South via a series of regulations known as Jim Crow laws (Perman, 2001). She continued to state, “it would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is a simple fact” (The Guardian, 2003). Statements of this sort could be discounted as the opinion of a single individual, but a New York Times best-selling author, Coulter has the clout and the media attention to disseminate a highly tinged, opinionated rhetoric often containing little actual fact. It is clear that her message resonates with a number of readers throughout the nation. Political commenter Rush Limbaugh is another conservative pundit who has had his share of controversy over the years. Comments such as “Obama is a clown,” and “The nags… national association of gals, that's our pet name for the NOW gang…the nags are a bunch of whores to liberalism” (Corn, 2009; Limbaugh, 2010). In 2012 a Georgetown law student named Sandra Fluke spoke before Congress on the Conscience Clause exemptions in health care that would have allowed certain groups exemption from birth control provisions based on religious or moral objections. On his radio show Limbaugh said, “what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex” (Limbaugh, 2012a). Limbaugh later apologized for his comments saying, “my choice of words was not the best…” (Limbaugh, 2012b). Once again comments such as these could be discounted as the opinions of a single individual, but Limbaugh is a media personality carried by over 600 domestic radio stations (Farhi, 2009). His books, radio show, and television appearances generated $64 million in income for 2011, making him #37 on Forbes’ 100 list of top earning celebrities. (Forbes, 2013). Premiere Radio Network signed a $400 million dollar contract with Mr Limbaugh, and he has claimed to have received a $100 million dollar signing bonus (Forbes, 2013). Results Growth of Supremacy Groups 2007–2012 Taking into account the increased reliance on speech laden with hate and extremist rhetoric within the political campaigns of 2012, the many and varied conspiracy theories pertaining to the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Obama's birthplace, economic woes, increased globalization, and immigration, it requires little to postulate a linkage between these phenomena and increases in membership and number of hate and extremist groups. Add to that volatile mix a relative increase in the legitimacy of many groups formerly labelled as hate groups due to their association with mainstream political figureheads and political candidates. It is not without logic to assume that as campaign financial donations from extremist and hate groups increases so, in turn, does the influence such groups might come to have on official national policy. For the purposes of this research, hate and extremist groups were both included in the total number of active groups within the United States. The inclusion of hate groups alongside extremist organizations is based on the fact that often the two categories of groups have similar, at times nearly indistinguishable, agendas. Membership numbers continue to rise in those groups traditionally espousing a rhetoric of hate as they do for groups aligned along a more extremist/nationalistic agenda. The system of categorization used by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was incorporated into the current study. The categorization system and number of groups devoted to any specific political agenda can be seen in Table 1. In 2012 there were a total of 2,444 hate or extremist groups operating within the United States. However, in 2000 there were only 602 groups active nationally. This number grew at Page 23a rather alarming rate with 888 groups operating in 2007, 926 active in 2008, 932 in 2009, continuing to grow with 1,018 active hate/extremist groups existing in 2011 and 2,444 in operation in 2012. The overall growth can be traced to individual ideological groups. The largest hate or extremist groups operating are the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and Patriot Movement. In 2006, 165 active chapters of the Klan were operating nationwide. This number actually decreased in 2007 to 155 chapters. However, after the 2008 presidential campaign numbers within the Klan ranks grew to 186 chapters. By 2011 Klan numbers decreased again, due in part to members flocking to more extreme hate groups as the Klan began to attempt to appear as a legitimate political entity, distancing itself from much of its former extreme hate rhetoric. Membership in neo-Nazi groups followed the increases observed in other hate and extremist groups. In 2007 there were 207 active neo-Nazi groups operating nationwide. In 2008 membership numbers in these groups dwindled to 194. By 2011 active neo-Nazi groups totaled 172. As with the Klan, the decrease in membership was due primarily to members moving between groups. While growth in one hate or extremist group was observed, a corresponding decrease in another group could be seen. Despite a fair amount of parallel movement between groups, the total number of people joining such organizations continued to increase after the 2008 presidential election. The Skinhead Nation has been on the forefront of the white supremacist movement for many years. The Skinhead Nation is known as an extremely violent group directing much of its recruitment efforts at young people. While the overall number of Skinhead groups is relatively small when compared to groups such as the Patriot Movement or Klan, their effects on crime and violence within the larger supremacist movement cannot be denied. In 2006 there were 78 active Skinhead groups in existence. In 2007, Skinhead numbers grew to 90 active organizations. By 2008 Skinhead numbers had grown to 98 active chapters. By 2011 there were 133 active Skinhead groups operating throughout the country. The largest growth occurred in the Patriot Movement and Nativist Extremist organizations; groups previously considered little more than fringe elements in the extremist or hate sector. In 2008 the Patriot Movement had 149 active groups operating nationwide. Membership grew rapidly in 2009 after the election of Barack Obama, the first biracial leader of the country. In 2009 the number of Patriot Movement groups grew to 512. In 2010 there were 824 Patriot Movement groups operating within the United States. In 2011 the growth continued with 1,274 groups devoted to the political ideology of the Patriot Movement active nationwide. The growth in Patriot Movement groups can be compared to the parallel increase in Nativist Extremist groups existing within the United States. In 2007 there were 144 Nativist Extremist groups active nationwide. This movement began to grow with an increase in 2008 with 173 active groups. In 2009, 209 Nativist Extremist groups existed, followed by an increase to 319 groups in 2010. However, in 2011 an interesting event occurred within the ranks of Nativist Extremist groups; their numbers began to decrease for the first time since the Page 242008 presidential election. In 2011 there were only 185 active Nativist Extremist groups in operation. While on the surface this drop might be considered a positive, the decrease was due principally to members within the Nativist Extremist groups drifting over into the Patriot Movement. The ideologies of the two groups became so similar, the larger Patriot Movement began to absorb the membership of the smaller Nativist Extremist organizations as anti-immigrant sentiment grew nationwide. It can be observed in Table 2 that membership in active hate and extremist groups began to increase since 2008 and has seen steady growth during the presidency of Obama. Table 2 outlines the growth in the respective hate and extremist organizations since 2006.