Beyond the Pale; R. J. Bidinotto

If anyone still needs to have that lesson driven home, let him consider the atrocity in Oklahoma City last April 19th. That horri fying event constitutes the dead end of cynical, mindless anti-governmentalism. When evidence mounted that the Okla homa killers were homegrown, .most of us Mr. Bidinotto is a longtime contributor to Read er's Digest and The Freeman, and a lecturer at FEE seminars. Criminal Justice? The Legal Sys tem Versus Individual Responsibility, edited by Mr. Bidinotto and published by FEE, is available at $29.95 in cloth and $19.95 in paperback. by Robert James Bidinotto were stunned. How could Americans do this to fellow Americans? we wondered. We have since learned something about the suspects, their associates, their sym pathizers-and their motives. We have learned that the prime suspects are alienated loners and losers-socially marginalized and rootless men, with thwarted personal ambitions and spoiled private lives.

Philosopher Eric Hoffer once described these sorts as perfect candidates to become fanatical, nihilistic' 'True Believers": individ uals who, unable to fulfillconstructive roles in society, are drawn to hate groups, antisocial cults, and revolutionary crusades. As Hoffer explained it, such "causes" provide them with excuses for their personal frustrations and failings.Self-hatredcan then be projected outward. Certain groups, or society and its institutions, become their scapegoats; tortu ous sociopolitical rationalizations are con cocted to fuel their fantasies of "revenge." These misfits thrill to the grandiose delu sion that social institutions, such as govern ment agencies, have specially targeted them for destruction. This not only explains their own failures; it also inflates their sense of importance, while simultaneously granting them permission to strike back in "self defense." Lost in nihilistic fantasies, such malcontents-like their left-wing precursors of the 1960s-fancy themselves as "sol diers" at war with American society. That is why they can target innocent citizens with out qualm ... why one suspect gave offi cials only his name, rank, and serial number.

442 Hoffer's explanation is not only consistent with what we know of those arrested, but also with the statements of their excuse-making sympathizers. Within days of the blast-and despite mountingevidence against the native born suspects-leaders of one private militia group speculated publicly that the real perpe trators were "the Japanese." Not to be outdone, others voiced suspicions that the killers were actually sinister U.S. govern ment agents provocateurs, who had blown up their own government building solely to provoke a public backlash against private gun ownership and militia groups. Some commentators, instead of con demning the bombing as pure murder, felt obliged to couple muted criticisms of the atrocity with excuse-making for the perpe trators. While mumbling perfunctory con dolences to the families of the slaughtered and injured, they also suggested that the perpetrators were probably just decent, pa triotic Americans, provoked to act in self defense against a "tyrannical" federal gov ernment. The mass murders in Oklahoma City, they explained, were intended to avenge alleged governmental "mass mur ders" during the 1993 Waco, Texas, trag edy, and the 1992 shootout with the Randall Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

The gist of their" explanation"? Govern ment interventions and improprieties were somehow driving otherwise upright citizens to desperate acts of violent reprisal. What, ultimately, is the difference be tween the "left-wing" argument that com mon criminals are "driven" to steal and kill due to past social or economic repression, and this "right-wing" argument-that the Oklahoma terrorists were "driven" to bomb a daycare center due to past governmental oppression? I confess that any subtle distinctions be tween these two camps continue to elude me. Call me simplistic; but as I see it, the only results inboth cases are the bloodiedbodies of innocents. Even ifinnocent children in Waco, Texas, had been deliberately murdered (which they weren't), how could that atrocity be set right by the murder of additional inno cent children in Oklahoma City, or anywhere 443 else? Need it be pointed out that one does not avenge the violation of individual rights by violating individual rights?

The cowardly Oklahoma bombing dem onstrates the utter bankruptcy of a purely negative, "anti-governmental" focus. Whether motivated and rationalized by cyn icism, hatred, paranoia, philosophical anar chism, or conspiracy theories, attacking government per se only undermines the rule of law-and is thus a carte blanche for the arbitrary, private initiation of force. Exaggeration? In the aftermath of the bombing, one talk show host felt obliged to instruct his listeners in the fine points of how to shoot federal agents during raids. Another, attributing the Oklahoma blast to "CIA con tractors," told an audience that "what they won't allowus at the ballot box can be won at the bullet box." Meanwhile, a militia group out West has been threatening to hang any judges or other public officials who fail to uphold the Constitutionas they interpret it. Does anyone really believe that individual rights would be more scrupulously observed by such self-appointed vigilantes than by the officials they denounce? (Personally, given a choice, I'll gladly take my chances with the BATF.) Our nation's Founders were not anti intellectual opponents of government as such. Through our Constitution, they in fact established one with the positive aim of preserving and protecting individual rights.

That's because they understood the vital connection between individual rights and the rule of law. Undermine the latter, and you jeopardize the former. We in America do not live under pure laissez-faire; far from it. But we also do not live under tyranny. To contend otherwise trivializes the full horror of real tyranny. Here, we can write, speak, and vote freely. Regulated we are, but not enslaved. As long as we have the freedom to address imperfections, even evils, in our political system with ballots, there is no justification for resorting to bullets. And there is never any justification for deliberately violating the rights of the innocent-nor in excusing the violators. Such is beyond the pale. D THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBERTY Special Interests and the Internment of Japanese-Americans During World War II by Steven B. Caudill and Melody Hill O n February 19, 1942, President Frank lin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, approving the en masse relocation of Japanese and Japanese-American citizens from the West Coast into the interior of the country. The order was signed amid the hysteria following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The reason given at the time for the evacuation was concern about espi onage, or so-called "fifth-column," activi ties of Japanese and Japanese-Americans on the Coast. But according to the govern ment's own intelligence service, this con cern over espionage was misplaced. That is, concern for national security was not the true reason for interning Japanese and Jap anese-Americans during World War II. In stead, this internment was motivated by nothing other than interest-group politics.