Professor Olivia Martinez stood at the front of the lecture hall with a presentation clicker as she scanned the rows of seats. For a second, Blayne thought the professor’s gaze lingered on him too long, but she said nothing. “Good afternoon, everyone,” she began a little louder than necessary. Her voice resonated off the walls, causing the students to stop talking or playing on their smartphones. “As promised, today, we delve into a relevant and alarming topic—the rise of right-wing authoritarianism. Let’s start with a simple question.”
Dr. Martinez clicked her remote, and the slide switched to one with the words “What is right-wing?”
“Republicans!” a guy in the front row called out.
“Not exactly,” Martinez started. “Your assumption is one I’m commonly met with when I ask this question. But it’s important to note that the philosophical underpinnings of ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ are much older than the United States. The labels ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ originated from the French Revolution and were initially tied to one’s seating position in the French parliament. The left-wing was the party of movement, and the right-wing was the party of order. These terms have been broadened today to encompass more complex philosophical ideas.”
Dr. Martinez clicked to the next slide that provided generic definitions of the terms. Instead of reading the slide, she explained, “The term ‘right-wing’ broadly encompasses ideologies prioritizing tradition, limited government, free-market capitalism and individualism. The Republican Party encompasses an array of ideological stances that align with conservative principles. However, the party contains a multitude of different factions, including libertarians,, economic conservatives and social conservatives, among others, who would not align with right-wing ideology. Some members of today's Republican political party consider themselves centrist or even left-leaning on specific issues.”
She gazed around the room before continuing. This time when she clicked, the words ‘Right-Wing Authoritarianism’ shone on the screen. “The problem we face is less about political philosophy here and more aboutauthoritarianism. To understand this, we need to turn to one of my mentors, Bob Altemeyer, a psychologist at the University of Manitoba. He sketches the right-wing authoritarian personality in a rather specific light. Right-wing authoritarians are”—she clicked the button and the first bullet point appeared—“individuals who inherently agree to the will of authority figures they view as legitimate.” She clicked again, “Two, these individuals are prone to exhibit aggression—not aimlessly, but in the name of those authority figures they hold in high regard. These could be political figures or religious figures. And finally, these individuals adhere to conventional thought and behavior, a sort of comforting conformity, akin to a river flowing along its well-worn path. Unfortunately, right-wing authoritarianism often coincides with ethnocentrism, nationalism, xenophobia, religious fundamentalism and protecting ‘traditional’ values norms.”
A hand shot up in the second row, and Martinez nodded in the student’s direction. “Are you trying to say people shouldn’t believe these things?”
“It’s not the political philosophy that is problematic here. It’s the authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a structure. There’s limited political pluralism, where individual freedoms are restrained and dissent is typically not tolerated. Adherence to the party line is maintained by force, and compliance is rewarded while resistance, I’m afraid, faces harsh retribution.”
“Well, what about the left-wing?” someone called out. Blayne looked in the direction he heard the voice but couldn’t figure out who had spoken.
“Are there left-wing authoritarians? Definitely. Now, I will say that Bob Altemeyer strongly disagrees with this point, and in fact, argued that left-wing authoritarians were mythical creatures like Nessie and Bigfoot created by the right to play a game of ‘but what about them?’ which political conservatives love to play when taking attention off themselves. Unfortunately, we’ve seen over the last several years that there can be people who are just as authoritarian on the left. However, we still do not see the intensity or the numbers of people who are authoritarians on the left as we do on the right. Now, I want to make this clear. As a political scientist, I stand against authoritarianism…period. I don’t care what side that authoritarianism comes from. I stand against it.”
A hand shot up in the third row. “Professor Martinez,” a student began, “how does this connect with the ideology of the group who attacked the concert the other night?”
“Great question,” Martinez responded, pointing at the PowerPoint slide projecting behind her. “First, I’ve talked to my friends in the FBI, and they cannot definitively say that the events that happened the other night specifically targeted the concert. In fact, it looks like the CLA was meeting with a different right-wing authoritarian group from Germany, which is a whole other can of worms. For now, let’s say that the CLA believes that the United States government has overstepped its bounds, infringing on the rights of citizens and straying from the original intent of the Constitution. They see themselves as defenders of American values and the Constitution, viewing their cause as a moral, even sacred duty.”
She switched to the next slide. “The CLA has identified the ‘liberal ideology’ as the culprit behind the nation’s decline, arguing that radical action, even violent resistance, may be necessary to restore the country. The group rejects the federal government’s authority, advocating for a region or nation governed strictly by the Constitution’s original intent. They’ve even supported secessionist movements.”
Another hand rose, and Martinez gestured to the student. “But, Professor, isn’t their claim legitimate? I mean, the government has grown significantly over the years.”
“Indeed,” Martinez nodded, “and that’s a concern many share. But the debate is whether the perceived problems warrant the CLA’s radical and violent solutions. We should remember that authoritarian solutions undermine democratic values and individual freedoms. The government’s growth is not inherently bad. It’s about whether the growth is controlled, responsible and for the benefit of the people. To believe that the legal system and Constitution originally designed to govern thirteen colonies should be the same to govern fifty states and five major US territories isn’t realistic. Our nation has grown, and so has the necessity of changing governmental structures with it.”
The following slide featured photos of John Black, Rebecca Watson and David Collins. “Let’s look at the CLA’s original leaders. John Black, the founder, is a former Marine and constitutional scholar. Rebecca Watson, a charismatic figure, brought the group into the mainstream. David Collins, a hardliner, advocates for forceful means to achieve the CLA’s objectives. Again, these three people created the CLA. But none of them are currently associated with the group, according to my research and that of the US government.”
A student in the back row interjected. “If they were just about discussions and nonviolent protests, wouldn’t that be acceptable?”
“Certainly,” replied Martinez. “Freedom of speech and assembly are fundamental rights. The problem arises when speech incites violence, or peaceful protests become violent. The CLA’s recent shift toward violence is alarming and seriously threatens public safety and social order. Someone new is the voice of this group, and we aren’t completely sure who that is or what their ideology is. Many of our assumptions about this group are based on the founders’ writings. If those people are truly out, we aren’t sure what ideology drives them now.”
The professor paused again, making sure she had everyone’s attention. “Understanding the CLA and its ideologies is crucial to combating homegrown extremism. By studying their beliefs, rhetoric and actions, we can develop strategies to address the root causes of such extremism and maintain our societal harmony while preserving the democratic values we hold dear.”
“Professor Martinez,” a male voice from the back of the room asked, “why do some people feel drawn to groups like the CLA? Is it solely political?”
Martinez nodded, leaning against the edge of the computer station that filled the front part of the auditorium. “That’s a very insightful question. The reasons are multifaceted. First, people who feel alienated or disenfranchised often look for a solution, and these groups offer one. Not only that, but they also often offer a specific scapegoat. I’m always amazed at how many people complain about their economic health then vote for political parties that put policies in place to prevent economic equality. These groups offer a place for individuals who feel their voices are being ignored or perceive themselves as victims of societal changes. Progress has happened, and it scares people, or all the good jobs are going to immigrants, even though most of the jobs taken by immigrants are not the ones they are clamoring to get. The CLA and similar organizations play on these sentiments, offering a sense of purpose, camaraderie and a clear enemy—in this case, the ‘liberal elites’ and the federal government.”
Another student raised a hand. “These groups can become dangerous quickly, right? Especially when they have members with military backgrounds, like David Collins?”
“Yes, you’re correct,” Martinez responded. “When such groups contain individuals with military training, the potential for violence escalates dramatically. That’s one reason why the recent actions of the CLA are particularly concerning. It appears they’re shifting from ideological advocacy to operational militancy.”
The room fell silent for a moment before another student chimed in. “So, what can be done about groups like the CLA? How can we combat this kind of extremism?”
Martinez sighed lightly, a somber look on her face. “It’s a complex problem with no simple solutions, but it begins with education and understanding. We must understand the causes behind such movements, address feelings of disenfranchisement and promote inclusive dialogue. There’s a reason I’ve dedicated my life to understanding and speaking out about these groups. Everyone here today sees the real threat these people pose. The security guards,” Dr. Martinez gestures to the man sitting in the front and lecture hall’s doors, “are here to protect you as much as they are to protect me.”
“Remember.” She paused, clearly trying to parcel out what she would say. “The goal isn’t to suppress voices or ideologies. I firmly believe in free speech, even when that speech is mean and hateful. I may not like what’s coming out of someone’s mouth, but I will fight for their right to say it. Instead, our society must strive to de-escalate conflict, promote understanding, and work toward solutions that uphold our democratic values. Governments and communities must work together to address economic disparity, social inequality and other root causes that fuel these extremist movements.”
She took a sip of water, then smiled at the room. “This brings us to the end of our lecture.” The sound of closing notebooks and the zippers of bags opening filled the room. Dr. Martinez raised her voice to be heard over her students. “Continue pondering these issues. We’ll pick it up from here next time. Oh, and one more thing… Don’t forget about the rally against extremism tomorrow. I hope to see you all there.”
“She’s good, isn’t she, Mr. Dickenson?” Todd asked next to him.
“She is. She most definitely is. I can understand why the CLA might target her. She has a pulpit. These groups like to work in the shadows. I’m sure her calling them out and making them national news isn’t winning her many friends.”
“Well, they did attack Houston,” Todd said.
