Just found out an essay I wrote, “McCarthyism 2.o,” won 3rd place in the Lantern Books 2006 essay contest.
Here’s the full text…
McCarthyism 2.0
by Will Potter
Minutes after receiving an invitation to testify before Congress about legislation labeling activists as “terrorists,” I barged into a colleague’s office with a hotshot grin on my face, looking for some kind of congratulations-all-those-years-of-reporting -finally-got-some-attention pat on the back. I also hoped he could help ease my nerves, and, however canned, tell me “you have nothing to worry about, you’ll do great.” I got none of that. A somber look dripped down his face. He turned his head to each side, on the lookout for nosey ears. Then he began to say, slowly and softly, “Do you think that’s a good…”
He had reason for concern. Corporations and the politicians that represent them have been on a coordinated campaign to silence dissent by branding anyone who stands in their way a “terrorist.” They’ve taken a few pages from the Red Scare playbook and a few from the “with us or against us” playbook of the War on Terror. The New McCarthyists are building a Green Scare upon a foundation of fear.
They’ve used their deep pocketbooks and PR savvy to place a terrorist in every shadow. They’ve taken out full-page anonymous ads in both The New York Times and The Washington Post labeling animal rights activists as “terrorists” for being a little too successful, and knocking a controversial animal testing laboratory from the New York Stock Exchange. The National Association for Biomedical Research bought a full-page ad in Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, featuring a vandalized office and, in red spray paint, “Your home is next” (so lawmakers had better act now and endorse the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act). NABR also sells a poster version of one of their “domestic terrorist” ads (only $5!) featuring three men in black ski masks with axes.
Not even children’s movies are safe from the relentless green baiting and guilt by association. Industry groups labeled Hoot “soft-core eco-terrorism” because the teenage protagonists try to save an endangered owl from developers. The pint-sized activists’ campaign of terror included putting alligators in portable toilets.
Green Scare pioneer Ron Arnold, who admitted he had not yet seen the film when interviewed by one reporter, said, “Hoot’s so-called harmless ‘mischief’ is training a generation to look cute while burning homes and cars and stores.”
The scare-mongering would be laughable if it hadn’t worked its way into the top levels of government. “The No. 1 domestic terrorism threat is the eco-terrorism, animal-rights movement,” according to John Lewis, the top dog at the FBI in charge of domestic terrorism.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security does not list right-wing terrorists on a list of national security threats, even though those groups have been responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, violence against doctors, and admittedly creating weapons of mass destruction. The animal rights and environmental movements have done nothing like that.
But those movements have committed an even deadlier sin: targeting corporate profits. “Although incidents related to terrorism are most likely to make the front-page news, animal rights extremism is what’s most likely to affect your day-to-day business operations.” That’s from a presentation given to corporations by the Overseas Security Advisory Council, a division of the State Department.
The Department of Homeland Security has said much of the same. The very first line of a DHS bulletin to law enforcement agencies said: “Attacks against corporations by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are costly to the targeted company and, over time, can undermine confidence in the economy.”
It goes on to warn about “eco-terrorism” like “flyer distribution,” “organizing protests,” and “tying up company phone lines.” In addition to extremist tactics like “organizing protests” and “inundating computers with e-mails,” DHS notes in passing illegal actions like verbal harassment and vandalism. But nowhere in the bulletin is the word “violence” used.
Even though my colleague didn’t know the details of the “eco-terrorism” legislation, he didn’t know the list of corporations and industry groups behind it and he didn’t know the full scale of this scare-mongering, he knew enough: in the “with us or against us” War on Terror, he wouldn’t want to risk being placed in the “against us” camp.
What if my boss doesn’t approve? What if I lose my job? What if this gets me placed on “terrorist” blacklists? What if what if what if?
I answered “yes” before he could even finish the question. The visceral reply startled me: I’m no rebel reporter with nerves of steel, ready to throw all my chips on the table and let it ride. I’m overly cautious with many decisions, analyzing and re-analyzing them until I nearly incapacitate myself. But no, this time he was the one who was overreacting, I told myself. I may get slammed during the hearing but lawmakers aren’t going to ship me off to Gitmo. Or would they?
I told a few other friends—still selfishly looking for some ego-stroking, still desperately hoping for some positive reinforcement—but got much of the same. They had supported my writing and attempts to raise awareness about the Green Scare. But in this political climate, why draw a giant red, er, green target on your back?
It made me realize that that’s the point of all of this. The purpose of the balaclava-clad ad campaigns, the State Department briefings, the DHS memos, the outlandish prison sentences, the FBI harassment and the blacklists is not to protect national security or even to catch illegal, underground activists. The point is to instill fear in the mainstream animal rights and environmental movements—and every other social movement paying attention—and make people think twice about using their First Amendment rights.
When prominent activists are hauled before grand juries and threatened with jail time unless they discuss their political beliefs and political associations, you start to wonder if you’ll get hit with the same for sticking your neck out too far.
When a nonviolent activist like Adam Durand gets 180 days in jail, $1,500 in fines, probation, plus 100 hours of community service, all for producing an undercover documentary about a factory farm, you start to wonder if it could happen to you.
And when the SHAC7 are convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges for running a website, you start to wonder if you’ll be next.
The Red Scare operated on exactly the same terms. Take the case of Lamont v. Postmaster General. There was a federal law that said anyone receiving “communist political propaganda” through the post office had to specifically authorize the delivery of each piece of mail.
The law didn’t say it was illegal to send or receive communist propaganda. It just said you had to authorize it. But that has the same effect, doesn’t it? You’d have to be a real nut job to voluntarily put your name on a list of folks receiving commie propaganda during the Red Scare: clueless, fearless, or a little of both. So people didn’t do it.
McCarthyism 2.0 runs the same way. Corporations and the politicians that represent them aren’t trying to blatantly outlaw the animal rights and environmental movements. But they’re creating a climate of fear that they hope will have the same effect.
Today’s repression may mimic many of the tactics of the Red Scare, but today’s response cannot. Witch-hunts will test the backbone of social movements, just as they did decades ago. But it’s not enough to cowardly distance ourselves from the “eco-terrorists,” as many did during the Red Scare. Condemning underground activists, or anyone charged with illegal actions, won’t get you off the hook. Naming names and making loyalty oaths didn’t protect activists then, and it won’t protect activists now.
The only way we’re going to get through this is by coming out and confronting it head-on. That means working with anti-abortion activists, anti-war activists and others, and telling them that the greens are just the canaries in the mine. That means reaching out to mainstream Americans and telling them that labeling activists as terrorists wastes valuable anti-terrorism resources and is an insult to everyone who died in the twin towers.
And that means reaching out to colleagues, friends and family and talking openly and honestly about the fear, rather than dismissing it. I missed a valuable opportunity that day, to talk about the chilling effect of terrorism rhetoric and how we can confront it together, because I was so focused on the task at hand. It’s important that we not let the scare-mongering deter us from our work, whether it’s testifying against dangerous legislation or exposing factory farms. But it’s equally important that we have supportive relationships ready for when the War on Terror comes home. That means taking every available opportunity to build strong communities of people who know their rights, know how they’re threatened, and know what’s at stake if we acquiesce.