Understanding Extremism and Domestic Terrorism in the United States

Comparison of left-wing and right-wing extremism 

There exist some shared characteristics between left-wing and right-wing extremists. The radical political movements of the right and left show that there exist some striking parallels in their manner of political engagement. Their approaches include some degree of reliance on force, disdain for democratic ideals and practices, and violations of civil liberties. However, there exists a clear basis on which these two can be separated. Left-wing violence has its roots in a uniquely American social environment that led to the establishment of civil rights and Black Power. It entails using threats of violence by non-state entities that oppose imperialism, capitalism, and colonialism. Right-wing extremism is mainly related to ethnic or racial supremacy, opposition to a government authority, and general outrage against certain policies, like abortion. Even currently, the two factions have opposing thoughts on different policies and legislations. 

Potential for Violence 

There is a higher likelihood for violent acts since the modern American environment is characterized by the existence of policies and opinions that are considered objective and progressive. If a group dwelled on those earlier mystical beliefs, then there would be divided opinions and beliefs about different political subjects. This causes some kind of disconnect between the adherents of these theories and the advocates for modern policy reforms. As such extremist actions will be on the rise, because of the divide that exists. 

Policy and Monitoring 

These groups should be monitored very closely because of the potential threat they pose to the country. The government should channel more resources towards dealing with the rising hate and anti-government groups. Strategic planning and careful execution is the best way to confront this growing domestic problem (Hewitt, 2013). The counterterrorism unit should be mandated with analyzing what motivates such behavior and techniques used by these groups to propagate violence. 

Restrictions 

There is a need to restrict the subject matter of the content that these groups are allowed to share. Essentially, the content should be neutral and not biased towards one political ideology. Such speech restrictions will prevent more people from being incited or coerced into sympathizing with the hate groups' analogies. This way it is easier to deal with the fewer minorities. The government might also put restrictions on the time and place such groups are allowed to commune. These restrictions are essential because they will check the activities of hate and anti-government groups. These efforts will play a significant part in ensuring a reduction of extremist operations in the country. 

Restrictions against the Argument of First Amendment Violations 

These restrictions are in line with the First Amendment requirements. For instance, speech that advocates violence will be regarded as illegal based on the First Amendment violations (Johnson, 2020) . The first amendment does not offer any protection to the advocacy of force or any criminal activity. Therefore, these restrictions will seem to hold perfectly in the face of the existing regulations and guidelines. 

References 

Hewitt, C. (2013). The political context of terrorism in America: Ignoring extremists or pandering to them?  The Democratic Experience and Political Violence , 330-349.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203045558-16 

Johnson, K. A. (2020). On the evolution and definition of ‘First Amendment studies’: Do we all engage in First Amendment studies?  First Amendment Studies ,  54 (2), 149-155.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1838842