The FBI raided Mar-A -Lago, and now the internet is alive with bad takes and every single federal prosecutor-slash-television commentator is coming out of the woodwork.
There have been a lot of bad takes about the hilarity of “Back the Blue” far-right politicians suddenly sounding like abolitionists. I understand the confusion – it seems like the far-right chooses the ideology that most fits their present moment. Why, for example, would extremists storming the Capital building on January 6 injure and kill police officers when many were members of the law enforcement they claim to love so dearly?
I don’t think that there’s much to be gained looking for too much consistency amongst the far-right or anyone else for that matter. But I do think there are two truths here:
1) Opposition to the federal government and the FBI is consistent with white supremacy; therefore, progressive abolitionists should be wary of the far-right’s call for dismantling federal law enforcement; and
2) The FBI is not on the side of progressives and never has been; therefore, those who seek equality and an end to white supremacy should not cheer on federal law enforcement.
It’s not a surprise that the far-right opposes the FBI and other federal agencies like the ATF and DEA. Far-right ideology comes from a long line of localism, which was focused on supporting local law enforcement – read, sheriffs – as the answer to what was seen as increasing federal encroachment on state decisions.
One of the precursors to the modern-day “constitutional” sheriff movement is the Posse Comitatus movement, which was started by William Potter Gale in the early 1970s. Gale was very much an admitted racist and opposed school desegregation – as did many local and state governments, which led the federal government to send the National Guard to escort elementary-age children to school as white people attacked them. (Much of this is detailed in The Terrorist Next Door by Daniel Levitas, a book I recommend for those interested.)
The Posse Comitatus ideology spread to the Pacific Northwest with the writings of Henry Lamont "Mike" Beach, who mostly plagiarized Gale. The movement gained popularity, particularly among rural whites who were feeling ignored by the federal government. The Posse spawned a variety of off-shoots, including the constitutional sheriff movement, militia movements, and sovereign citizen/ tax resistor movements. We can thank Gale for Timothy McVeigh and the Aryan Nations – neither of which the FBI (incidentally) was able to prevent. (The Aryan Nations was sued into bankruptcy.)
Constitutional sheriffs have continued to assert that the federal government has excessive power. Richard Mack, who founded the CSPOA at the requests of Oath Keeper founder Stuart Rhodes, made his first claim to fame by arguing that the Brady Bill was excessive federal power – he also was a supporter of Randy Weaver, a white supremacist who was targeted through an FBI sting for selling illegal shotguns. When Weaver did not appear in court, the FBI went to fetch him from his extremely isolated Idaho home – and in the process, the FBI killed his wife and son. (An FBI agent also died.)
And that’s the rub – the FBI is often not so great, using their massive budget and unlimited resources to target low-hanging fruit and forcing them to confess. Policing expert Alex Vitale wrote a piece for Truth Out detailing some of the ways in which the FBI targets BIPOC, poor people, and political dissidents through drug and gang investigations as well as “terrorism” cases. He points out:
[T]he history of the FBI is one of repressing movements for liberation and carrying out wars on marginalized communities in the guise of wars on drugs, crime, terrorism, gangs, and communism, among other phenomena determined by the state to be threats.
Even in terrorism investigations when you might expect the best and brightest, the FBI often use sting operations to target unsuspecting individuals who lacked the resources to become threats, as detailed by Trevor Aaronson, who has been tracking such sting operations for years and argues most people entrapped this way by the FBI were far from becoming terrorists. (I wrote about one such case.)
The FBI also makes errors of judgment. Take the prosecution over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge when a jury acquitted all seven defendants in part because the FBI sent in informants who posed as occupiers and encouraged firearms training. (It’s not totally clear whether the informants were acting on orders.) And in the recent Michigan case in which two men were acquitted over an alleged plot by a militia to kidnap Michigan’s governor Gretchen Whitmer, the FBI informant was alleged by the defendants to have done most of the encouraging.
Now, the FBI looks like a savior because they have been the agency investigating the insurrectionists of January 6 and (now, finally) Trump. But the FBI is not – and never has been – an effective tool at tamping down white supremacy and violence. They are far more likely to cause it. A better society cannot be built by men with badges.
I appreciate and applaud the way in which you addressed my own confusion around this issue. FBI history does not inspire confidence and too many times their actions cannot be excused as “accidents. “
That the agency has done something right should not be used to excuse it’s too many wrongs