Suchergebnisse

The convergence of antigovernment patriots and neo-Nazi white supremacists is the most disturbing development in American politics. These contemporary American terrorists, sworn to the overthrow of the government and a campaign of racial elimination, have become emboldened, brandishing a rhetoric of victimization and distrust that appeals to seemingly ancient hatreds and discontents.

Does hate speech – rhetoric that targets, vilifies or is intended to intimidate minorities and other groups in society – fuel domestic terrorism? This question is, unfortunately, relevant given the convergence of the use of hate speech by political figures and domestic terrorist incidents in a variety of countries, including the United States. In this study I theorize that hate speech by politicians deepens political polarization and that this, in turn, produces conditions under which domestic terrorism increases. I test this proposition using terrorism and hate speech data for 135 to 163 countries for the period 2000 to 2017. I produce two findings. First, hate speech by political figures boosts domestic terrorism. Second, the impact of political hate speech on domestic terrorism is mediated through increased political polarization.

We analyze the effect of income inequality on terrorism for a sample of 113 countries between 1984 and 2012. We provide evidence, robust to various methodological changes (e.g., the use of instrumental-variable approaches), that higher levels of income inequality are associated with more domestic terrorism. Analyzing the underlying transmission channels, we find that this effect is in parts due to the ill effects of income inequality on institutional outcomes (e.g., corruption) which in turn motivate domestic terrorism. We also investigate whether redistributional efforts can be effective in reducing terrorist activity. We find that countries that redistribute more see less domestic terrorism, in parts because redistribution improves institutional conditions. In light of this latter finding, we discuss the implications of our analysis for policymakers who want to counter domestic terrorism through redistributive policies.

The United States does not currently have a uniform framework for how it handles domestic terrorism. Although there is a terrorism section of the criminal code that criminalizes certain actions that are deemed terroristic, these laws are applied disproportionately to those with an Islamic ideology. Political motivations and protectionist interests within the United States tend to prevent similar crimes committed in the name of, for example, right-wing terrorism to be convicted under the terrorism section of the criminal code. In light of the threat posed by domestic terrorism and other trends in the political and cultural ethos, the current state of the law is inadequate to address the problem and unjustly places a stigma on one subsection of the population. In the interest of equality under the eyes of the law, our judicial system should incorporate a uniform domestic terrorism statute that is applied based on the actions of an individual, not based on their belief systems or individual backgrounds.

In American Zealots, Arie Perliger provides a wide-ranging and rigorously researched overview of right-wing domestic terrorism. He analyzes its historical roots, characteristics, tactics, rhetoric, and organization, assessing the current and future trajectory of the use of violence by the far right.

This report first summarizes the nature and scope of the domestic terrorism threat, including recent trends, the susceptibility of the United States, and the role of social media in the dramatic increase in extremism and extremist violence. In Part One, we summarize the problem: the threat of domestic terrorism is increasing in the U.S. due, in part, to the country's unique cultural susceptibility to the drivers of increased extremism and the particular role of social media and partisan politics. Part Two of the report examines the current policy landscape, options, and debates nationally, within Texas, and within the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). We analyze trends in domestic terrorism legislation, initiatives, and responses, and outline current policy initiatives at each level. Finally, in Part Three we recommend a comprehensive course of action specifically tailored for DPS to better tackle the increased threat of extremism and domestic terrorism. ; Public Affairs

Civil-military relations and terrorism are both extensively studied subjects. Their relationship has, however, yet to be examined. We maintain that public conflict between the civilian and the military leadership in a country and declining civil control over the armed forces may often precipitate a rise in domestic terror events. Civil-military conflict and reduced civilian control can lead to agency slack by the armed forces and ineffective counterterror policies. These phenomena are also associated with policies that exclude groups in society and generate grievances, leading some to turn to terror. In zero inflated negative binomial analyses of domestic terror events and two distinct indicators of civil-military tension, we find support for our contention. Terror incidents increase both when civil-military conflict rises and when civilian control decreases. Our results add to understanding of both the domestic consequences of civil-military tension and the types of influences that impact domestic terror.