Adrienne LaFrance on "The New Anarchy"

THE DHS HAS FOCUSED ON A RANGE OF ISSUES.

LAST YEAR, TRACES POLITICAL VIOLENCE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OVER THE PAST CENTURY IN HER LATEST ARTICLE, AND SHE NOW JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO DISCUSS WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THE NEW ANARCHY.

>> THANK YOU, AND ADRIENNE, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> SO YOU'VE GOT THIS COVER STORY IN THE ATLANTIC, THE NEW ANARCHY.

AND ONE REASON YOU SAY IT'S NEW IS THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT SLOW MOTION.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SLOW MOTION?

DOES THAT MAKE IT BETTER OR WORSE?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK BOTH WOULD BE BAD FRANKLY.

I THINK ONE OF THE THEMES IN MY REPORTING IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE A TENDENCY TO EXPECT POLITICAL VIOLENCE TO MANIFEST MAYBE IN THE FORM OF CIVIL WAR.

OBVIOUSLY, THE CIVIL WAR LOOMS REALLY LARGE IN OUR NATIONAL MEMORY.

WHAT I'M ARGUING AND WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT REALLY BLADDER POLITICAL VIOLENCE IS ALREADY HERE, AND IT'S JUST NOT TAKING THE FORM WE'RE USED TO.

SO YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO COMPARTMENTALIZE ONE EVENT AS RANDOM WHEN IN FACT IT'S PART OF A LARGER PART EARN.

>> WELL, A LOT OF THEM DO SEEM RANDOM.

WE HAVE WHAT HAPPENED IN PORTLAND ON BOTH SIDES, BUT ALSO AN ATTACK ON PAUL PELOSI OR JUSTICE CAVANAUGH.

IT SEEMS MISFITS AND WHERE PEOPLE ARE DOING THINGS.

WHY DO YOU SAY IT'S ALL CONNECTED?

>> I THINK THE ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT -- AND THIS IS A TERM LAW ENFORCEMENT USES -- IS SALAD BAR EXTREMISM.

SO THERE'S THIS EMERGING PATTERN OF RATHER THAN A COHESIVE IDEOLOGY WHERE YOU HAVE A GROUP CARRYING OUT ACTS OF VIOLENCE, NOW WE HAVE THESE SORT OF LOOSE, SOMETIMES OVERLAPPING IDEOLOGIES, SOMETIMES DRIVEN BY HATE, SOMETIMES SEEMINGLY RANDOM, CERTAINLY CARRIED OUT BY PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT PROFILES OR BELIEFS OR AFFILIATIONS, POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS.

BUT THE LARGER PATTERN IS INCREASED THREATS AGAINST THE PUBLIC, AGAINST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AGAINST JOURNALISTS, AND THE PACE OF VIOLENCE IS INCREASING AS WELL.

TO LOOK AT IT AS IT EXISTS IN CULTURE, YOU HAVE TO SEE IT'S PART OF THIS LARGER SORT OF TREND THAT'S GOING ON.

>> YOU START THE PIECE IN PORTLAND, OREGON IN 2020 WHEN ALL ON BOTH SIDES WERE HAPPENING.

TELL ME WHAT SPARKED THAT, AND WHAT ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING UP THAT -- THAT POLITICAL VIOLENCE THERE?

>> I WAS INTERESTED IN PORTLAND BECAUSE IT DID SEEM FROM AFAR TO HAVE GOTTEN REALLY BAD.

AND I WAS LOOKING FOR THE CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLE OF SORT OF HOW CLOSE WE'VE GOTTEN TO BREAKING THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, AND I ALSO WAS DRAWN TO PORTLAND BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MUCH, IT SEEMED, DISCONNECT AMONG PEOPLE IN TERMS OF WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE IN THIS STREET VIOLENCE, ONGOING FIGHTING.

YOU MENTIONED THE TERM BOTH SIDES, I THINK THERE WAS VIOLENCE ACROSS MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS, BUT WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT WEIGHTING IT EQUALLY.

SO THE SORT OF FASCINATING AND DIFFERENT DYNAMIC THAT PLAYED OUT IN PORTLAND WAS TWO THINGS.

ONE WAS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE SORT OF ASSUMED THAT THIS ALL JUST CAME OUT OF THE PROTEST RELATED TO THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD.

IN FACT, THE VIOLENCE THAT PLAYED OUT IN PORTLAND WAS BREWING FOR MANY YEARS AND REALLY STARTED AFTER TRUMP'S ELECTION WHEN YOU HAD RIGHT WING PROVOK TORS COMING OUT AND TRYING TO PROVOKE A LOT OF THE LEFT WING PEOPLE IN PORTLAND, AND THEY DID SO EFFECTIVELY.

SO THEN YOU HAD LEFT WING FOLKS WHO WERE PRONE TO VIOLENCE AS WELCOMING OUT AND FIGHTING, AND THE POLICE AND THE FRAY AS WELL.

SO YOU REALLY HAD -- IN SOME WAYS WE HAD THREE CONTINGENCIES BETWEEN THE POLICE AND LEFT AND RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS.

I THINK WHEN YOU TALK TO A LOT OF PORTLANDERS, MOST DIDN'T GO OUT IN THE STREETS FIGHTING, AND MOST WOULD SAY ALL OF THOSE WHO DID MADE A BAD CHOICE TO DO SO.

>> ONE OF THE THEMES?

YOUR PIECE WHICH GOES BACK A CENTURY IS ANARCHY AND ANARCHISTS.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ANARCHISTS?

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE EARLY 20th CENTURY IN THE UNITED STATES, ANARCHISTS WERE ANTI-GOVERNMENT, ANTI-STATE MAYBE COMMUNIST MARKET.

WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE NEW ANARCHY, I DON'T MEAN AN IDEOLOGY AS MUCH AS A FORM OF RADICALISM WHILE BEING IDEA LOGICALLY MORE LIKELY TO BE RIGHT WING.

BACK TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT BOTH SIDES IS WHEN YOU TALK TO THE SCHOLARS WHO FOCUS MOST ON POLITICAL VIOLENCE TODAY, THE DATA SHOWS AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT THE BIGGEST THREAT COMES FROM THE RIGHT WING.

WE CERTAINLY HAVE INCIDENTS OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE CARRIED OUT BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE LEFT WING BELIEFS.

BUT THE ANARCHY TODAY IS NOT TRADITIONALLY WHAT IT WAS 100 YEARS AGO.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE ANTIFASCIST PROTESTORS?

CERTAINLY PEOPLE POINT TO THEM AS THE ONES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY IN THE STREETS.

>> AND SOME ANTIFASCISTS DO SELF-IDENTIFY AS ANARCHISTS IN THE SENSE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S FASCIST TO SAY THEY WERE ORIGINALLY IN THE STREET.

IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ROOT OF THIS FIGHT, IN PORTLAND, YOU SEE PEOPLE FROM THE RIGHT WING PROVOK TORS COMES AND PROTESTING AND DRAWING OUT THE LEFT WING RESPONSE.

>> WHEN I WAS A REPORTER COVERING THINGS IN LOUISIANA LIKE THE VARIOUS KLU KLUX CLAN GROUPS, HOW DO THEY USE SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE INTERNET TO SPREAD IT DIFFERENTLY?

>> THE VERY ARCHITECTURE OF THE SOCIAL WEB IS DESIGNED FOR MASSIVE GLOBAL SCALE, MEANING IF YOU PUT YOUR BELIEFS IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT AUDIENCE OR FACEBOOK GROUP OR TELEGRAM CHANNEL, IT CAN INSTANTLY REACH JUST A MASSIVE NUMBER OF PEOPLE EVERYWHERE.

SO THAT'S DIFFERENT.

YOU'RE NOT OUT ON THE STREET CORNER HANDING OUT A PHYSICAL PIECE OF PAPER.

AND THE GEOGRAPHIC DESEGREGATION IS IMPORTANT TOO BECAUSE IT MEANS IT'S NOT CONTAINED TO JUST ONE TOWN OR ONE PLACE, AND SO THE THREAT IS EVERYWHERE POTENTIALLY.

YOU CAN KIND OF THINK OF THESE PLATFORMS OF BEING ANGER MACHINES THAT THERE WAS THIS FEEDBACK LOOP OF HATEFUL CONTENT SPREAD AT A GLOBAL SCALE INSTANTANEOUSLY.

>> LET ME READ A PIECE OF YOUR PIECE THAT STRUCK ME.

YOU SAID, PEOPLE BUILD THEIR POLITICAL IDENTITIES NOT AROUND SHARED VALUES -- YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE DAYS -- BUT AROUND A HATRED FOR THEIR FOES.

I THINK YOU PUT THE LABEL ON IT WHICH WAS NEGATIVE PAR SANSHIP.

IS THAT DIFFERENT NOW?

>> IT IS.

YOU MIGHT PREVIOUSLY -- LOOK, WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT POLITICAL VIOLENCE HAS BEEN PART OF AMERICAN POLITICS SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FIGHTS.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, EVEN IN PAST ERAS OF UPS AND DOWNS OF VIOLENCE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WOULD HOPEFULLY COME TOGETHER AROUND WHAT THEIR BELIEFS WERE.

SO ASSERTING HERE'S WHAT I BELIEVE, HERE'S WHAT I BELIEVE THE WORLD SHOULD LOOK LIKE, NOW YOU SEE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE SAYING, NOT ASSERTING THE POLICIES THEY BELIEVE IN OR THE VISION OF THE WORLD THEY WANT TO REALIZE, BUT MORE, WHATEVER IT TAKES SO THAT THE OTHER GUY DOESN'T GET WHAT HE WANTS.

AND SO WE'RE SEEING A REALLY DRAMATIC RISE IN THE WAY PEOPLE ARE ORIENTED POLITICALLY BEING SOLELY AROUND HATRED FOR THE OTHER OR MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT TAKES TO DEFEAT THE POLITICAL OPPONENT RATHER THAN REALIZE THE VISION OF THE WORLD THAT SOMEONE MIGHT OTHERWISE WANT POLITICALLY.

>> YOU SAY THAT POLITICAL VIOLENCE IS LIKE AN ICEBERG.

EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

>> THIS WAS A REALLY HELPFUL VISUAL THAT A RESEARCHER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND TERRORISM DATA BASE GAVE TO ME.

AND THE WAY SHE PUT IT WAS, YOU HAVE THIS ICEBERG, AND AT THE TIP, THE PART THAT YOU CAN SEE, ARE THESE AWFUL ACTS OF VIOLENCE THAT ARE ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT WHETHER IT'S A MASS SHOOTING OR STREET VIOLENCE OR THE ATTACK ON SPEAKER PELOSI'S HUSBAND, AND SO THERE'S A SMALLER GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ARE WILLING TO COMMIT ACTS OF VIOLENCE, BUT THE REST OF THE ICEBERG IS THE CULTURE IN WHICH THIS BECOMES MORE PERMISSIBLE.

THIS GOES BACK TO THE SOCIAL WEB, YOU HAVE THE SPREADING OF THESE IDEAS AT MASS GLOBAL SCALE, AND ONLY SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THOSE IDEAS AND RUN WITH THEM, FORTUNATELY.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT ONLY TAKES VERY FEW AFTERS TO EXERT TREMENDOUS DAMAGE AND HARM ON SOCIETY.

SO THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG IS THE VIOLENCE ITSELF.

THE REST OF THE ICEBERG IS SORT OF THE CONDITIONS THAT MAKE IT POSSIBLE.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT THE NEW ANARCHISTS, BUT YOU GO BACK 100 YEARS TO THE OLD ANARCHISTS FROM AROUND 1910 TO 1920, WHICH IS A REALLY BAD PARODY IN THE UNITED STATES.

EXPLAIN THE OLD ANARCHISM.

>> THIS GOBLE MOVEMENT THAT WAS ANTIBLICHMENT, ANTI-GOVERNMENT, THE DYNAMITING TEAR IT DOWN MENTALITY, THE TRUE ANARCHY IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD, IT WAS MOTIVATED BY SOME REAL ISSUES IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING TERRIBLE WORKING CONDITIONS FOR WORKERS, AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S -- WE SEE SOME OF THIS -- IF YOU LOOK THROUGHOUT HISTORY, YOU DO SEE SORT OF ECHOS IN THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS THAT PROMPT PEOPLE TO DECIDE THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM TO SOLVE SOME REAL SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS BUT RATHER WANT TO BURN THE SYSTEM DOWN.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SAW AMONG ANARCHISTS IN THE EARLY DAYS.

>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE ANARCHISTS OF THE EARLY 20th CENTURY.

THEY WERE PUT DOWN AROUND 1920.

ATTORNEY GENERAL MITCHELL PALMER DID IN A WAY INFAMOUS.

I THINK 10,000 PEOPLE AT A TIME WERE ARRESTED.

LET ME READ A SENTENCE FROM YOUR ARTICLE.

ENFORCEMENT HELPED PUT AN END TO A GENERATION OF ANARCHIST ATTACKS.

THEN YOU SAY HOLDING PERPETRATORS ACCOUNTABLE IS CRUCIAL.

DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO BE DOING MORE OF THAT NOW?

>> IT GETS REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE FRANKLY BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, THEY WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

WE SHOULD DEFINITELY NOT REPEAT THAT.

IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF AN OVERREACTION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AT THE SAME TIME, SOCIETY HAD REACHED A POINT WHERE YOU CAN'T LIVE WITH DOMESTIC TERRORISTS TRYING TO ASSASSINATE POLITICAL LEADERS ALL THE TIME AND ACTUALLY ASSASSINATING THEM.

SO A LOT OF THE LESSONS OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE LEAD TO VERY UNCOMFORTABLE PLACES.

WE VERY FREQUENTLY SEE THAT WITH NECESSARY LAW ENFORCEMENT, YOU HAVE OVERREACH AND ENCROACHMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES.

THE LESSON FOR US TOED IS WE ABSOLUTELY NEED STRONG, SWIFT LAW ENFORCEMENT.

I THINK THE REACTION AND INDICTMENTS AFTER JANUARY 6th ARE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S NEEDED.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE AS CITIZENS HAVE TO BE REALLY COG ANY SANT FOR THE CHANCE OF POLITICAL OVERREACH.

>> IN ORDER TO HAVE IT STOPPED, YOU WOULD THOUGHT WE NEED SOME BIG EVENT THAT WAS SO HORRIBLE WE WOULD ALL SAY, OKAY, ENOUGH OF THIS.

WELL, WE HAD THAT.

WE HAD JANUARY 6th.

WHAT HAPPENED?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS THINKING ABOUT AS I WAS REPORTING THIS WAS THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT OF THE 1990s.

YOU HAD THIS MILITIA MOVEMENT AND THIS SURGE OF MILITIA MOVEMENT, EXTREME ONE AS WELL.

THINKING BACK TO THAT TIME, I WAS REFLECTING ON HOW THAT SORT OF WENT AWAY AND MAYBE THERE WAS A LESSON FOR US THERE.

WHAT DID WE DO RIGHT IN THAT ERA THAT WE COULD REPLICATE TODAY.

WHAT SOMEONE REMINDED ME OF WAS THAT IT WAS THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING HAPPENED, AND THAT EVENT AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT FOLLOWED PUSHED EXTREMISM UNDERGROUND.

I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT BECAUSE THESE MOVEMENTS LAST FOR GENERATIONS, SOMETIMES GENERATIONS OR LONGER, AND SO WITH REGARD TO JANUARY 6th, AND EVEN WITH TRUMP HAVING LOST THE ELECTION, I THINK THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION AMONG SOME PEOPLE THAT SORT OF PERHAPS THE FEVER WOULD BREAK, THE -- JUST THE TENNER OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE, AND OBVIOUSLY A HOPE THAT AFTER JANUARY 6th THAT THE NATION' LEADERS WOULD COME TOGETHER AND SAY, THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE ABOUT.

AND YOU HAD THAT FOR MAYBE 24-48 HOURS.

BUT WE'VE SEEN THAT REPUBLICANS VERY QUICKLY WENT BACK TO DEFENDING TRUMP AND TRUMPISM.

AND SO IT'S REALLY -- I MEAN, THIS IS ONE OF THE BIG CONCLUSIONS OF MY STORY IS THAT WE NEED UNIFIED LEADERSHIP IN THIS COUNTRY AGAINST POLITICAL VIOLENCE FOR LEADERS OF ANY BACKGROUND AND PARTY TO SAY THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN AMERICA.

>> YOU JUST MENTIONED TRUMP AND TRUMPISM AS BEING A CAUSE HERE.

TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT A MOTIVATING FORCE BEHIND THIS POLITICAL VIOLENCE?

>> IT IS ABSOLUTELY A FACTOR, BUT THE POLITICAL VIOLENCE WE'RE EXPERIENCING NOW PREDATES.

I THINK IN SOME WAYS, HIS PRESIDENCY HELPED GIVE PERMISSION TO THE MAIN STREAMS OF A LOT OF THESE EXTREMIST VIEWS.

SOME WILL REMEMBER HIM ADDRESSING THE PROUD BOYS AND SAYING STAND BACK AND STAND BY.

SOME EXAMPLES OF POLITICAL MAIN STREAM VIOLENCE.

OF COURSE THE STOP THE STEAL RHETORIC LEADING UP TO JANUARY 6th IS AN EXAMPLE.

I WOULD CATEGORIZE TRUMP AS AN AXEL RANT BUT NOT THE ROOT CAUSE.

>> LOOKING AT WHAT'S THE SAME AND WHAT'S NEW ABOUT THE POLITICAL VIOLENCE NOW.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE AS A NATION SHOULD BE DOING?

>> THE TWO MOST DISTRESSING THINGS THAT I COME AWAY WITH ARE WHAT'S NEW AND WHAT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO NEWLY ACCOUNT FOR IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS.

SO I THINK THE SOCIAL WEB WE TALKED ABOUT.

THE OTHER PIECE, WHICH WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IS WE HAVEN'T BEFORE IN AMERICA HAD SUCH A MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE DENYING THE ACCURATE OUTCOME OF ELECTIONS, AND THAT'S NEW FOR US IN AMERICA AND VERY DANGEROUS.

SO I THINK AS WE THINK ABOUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO STOP POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN OUR COUNTRY, WE NEED TO FOCUS OUR ENERGIES LARGELY ON THOSE TWO NEW DYNAMIC SORT OF REALLY DANGEROUS PHENOMENON.

BUT THERE'S ALSO SORT OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT I MIGHT CALL THE BORING WORK OF DEMOCRACY, MAKING SURE WE'RE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS TO RUN FOR OFFICE, MAKE SURE WE'RE PROTECTING FREE AND FAIR ACCESS TO ELECTIONS.

AND DEMANDING THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS COUNTRY, NOT JUST ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL BUT ON EVERY LEVEL OF ELECTED OFFICE, THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REJECT POLITICAL VIOLENCE AS ACCEPTABLE.

IF VOTERS IN AMERICA TREATED STOPPING POLITICAL VIOLENCE AS THEIR SINGLE ISSUE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN DO IN A WORLD OF MANY, MANY OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES, WE WOULD ULTIMATELY END UP DEMANDING I THINK STRONGER LEADERSHIP THAT COULD GET US THROUGH THIS.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.