Print

xxii Introduction that the SPLC prioritizes the other end of the political spectrum. ‘We are focused, whether people like it or not, on the radical right. . . . We believe that it’s uniquely threatening to democracy’ ” (Schreckinger). Such selectiveness, according to J. M. Berger, creates a problem in that “the organization [SPLC] wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information” (Schreckinger). Though selective bias is no doubt a reason that many groups object to finding themselves on a list accusing them of hate, another, more powerful reason may be that many of the groups that find themselves labeled as hate groups by the SPLC, ADL, or FBI are designated by the U.S. federal government as nonprofit organiza- tions. Thus, admitting to impropriety would be expensive. Groups can be granted tax-exempt status for a variety of reasons, including purposes that are “most com- monly educational, charitable, or religious.” However, an organization can only be considered tax-exempt “if it produces materials that are factually supported and which allow people to make up their mind about a particular viewpoint. Distorting facts, providing only unsupported opinions, or using inflammatory or disparaging terms based on emotions rather than facts may influence the IRS determination” (Stiffman). The federal government has “granted tax-exempt status to more than 60 contro- versial nonprofits branded by critics as ‘hate groups,’ including anti-immigrant and anti-gay-rights organizations, white nationalists, and Holocaust deniers” (Stiff- man). Yet the IRS “must balance First Amendment rights against concerns that it is essentially granting government subsidies to groups holding views that millions of Americans may find abhorrent” (Stiffman). Critics claim that the SPLC is a tool of the left, and criticize the IRS for having “discriminated against conservative politi- cal organizations.” The federal government, therefore, must be “careful about what we’re [the IRS] requiring the public to subsidize through tax exemption and at the same time we want not to inhibit speech too much” (Stiffman). But some organizations are “increasingly pushing the boundaries of how far they can go and still meet the standard for tax exemption” (Stiffman). Take, for instance, the National Policy Institute (NPI), headed by Richard Spencer, who became infa- mous for hailing “President-elect [Donald] Trump’s victory with a Nazi-style salute” at a December 2016 meeting of the NPI (Stiffman). During Trump’s cam- paign, Spencer warned white Americans that they were increasingly under siege in their own country and “doomed to be a hated minority as people of color grow ever more numerous and politically powerful” (Marans). The NPI’s senior fellows include Wayne Lutton, an author on the extreme right Jared Taylor, editor of Amer- ican Renaissance, which promotes pseudoscientific studies and research that pur- ports to show the inferiority of blacks to whites and Kevin Lamb, a noted racist (Southern Poverty Law Center, Groups). The NPI realizes that whether it is due to economic stagnation, a culture of xenophobia and fear, a growing distrust for the government and traditional institutions, or a myriad of other causes, “people’s loy- alties are up for grabs” (Ellis). Spencer has reinforced this notion by stating: America as it is currently constituted—and I don’t just mean the government I mean America as constituted spiritually and ideologically—is the fundamental problem. I don’t support and agree with much of anything America is doing in the world. (Wines and Saul)