“Good Militias” for Trump: Race, Religion, and Legitimacy in the Modern Militia Movement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting, well-written assessment of the Oath Keepers and the group's effort to distance or "white-wash" its connections to racism and racist behavior in the broader militia movement. Overall, I found the essay well-researched and well-sourced and I found the basic conclusion—that the Oath Keepers efforts to identify as a “good militia” is troubled by the racist inheritances of the militia movement—completely persuasive. The only trouble I have in assessing the article is that, while I agree with its conclusions, I’m left to puzzle over its audience and the impact it intends to have on its readers. That is, it seems to me that specialists familiar with the history of the militia movement in the U.S. will more or less find little surprising or bold in the article’s argument or its conclusions, while those inclined to believe the “good militia” rhetoric of the Oath Keepers will likely read this as a hit piece that ignores the organization’s efforts to police it members and expel racists and criminals from its ranks. There are, however, a small number of scholars and observers who have generally remained skeptical of scholarship that emphasizes the racist or racialist origins of the U.S. militia movement. While I’ll confess that I think such contrarians are simply wrong, the article might benefit by highlighting such scholarship more explicitly in order to make it clear that we as scholars ignore (or downplay) the racism of groups like the Oath Keepers at our risk. 

For example, the author cites Robert H. Churchill’s To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant’s Face: Libertarian Political Violence and the Origins of the Militia Movement (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009) on page 9 of the essay. Churchill is interesting in this context because he would likely disagree with significant elements of the author’s argument in this essay. Specifically, Churchill argued in his book that the media and academics have overemphasized the racism of the militia movement; in contrast to the generally accepted opinion that racism lurks at the heart of the militia movement, Churchill instead insisted that the movement has its roots in more acceptable American social and cultural norms. Specifically, he concludes, "But to sum up either the militia or earlier insurgencies as expressions of racial anxiety and identity runs the risk of effacing the complex influences of religion, rural culture, localism, and libertarianism" (16). He goes so far as to argue that coverage of militias in the 1990s amounted to a “second Brown Scare,” following the similarly contrarian work of Leo P. Ribuffo’s The Old Christian Right: The Protestant Far Right from the Great Depression to the Cold War (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983). From Churchill’s perspective, the current resurgence of interest in the militia movement might amount to a “third Brown Scare.” I’d like to hear how the author of the current piece might respond to Churchill; or, rather, how the author might make clearer how they are writing to a scholarly audience that has nuanced views on how to interpret the racism that may (or may not) be inherent in the U.S. militia movement.

Further, in terms of sharpening the argument, the essay has a theme running through it about the significance of “Christian nationalism” to the contemporary militia movement. I found this aspect of the essay it's most original component, but it is undeveloped. It’s not clear to me how “Christian nationalism” as it has developed since, say, the emergence of the Tea Party c. 2009, relates to the Christian Identity, Posse Comitatus, and other elements of the militia movement of the 1990s that had religious ideas as a core aspect of their organizational identity. The author concludes the essay by suggesting the de-legitimation of the Oath Keepers after Jan. 6 might fracture the movement and send it underground. I suspect this is partly correct. But, if as the author argues, “Christian nationalism” plays an important role in shaping militia activism, how will religion shape and be reshaped by the aftermath of Jan. 6? 

I can push this question forward by stating it differently: If “Christian nationalism” is truly central to this essay, then what role might white evangelical Protestantism play in helping to make the “good militia” discourse so persausive to some Americans? There is a sizable and growing body of literature that argues that white evangelical Protestantism plays an important role in shaping “colorblind” political discourse in the United States and this article would be greatly strengthened by thinking through some of that material. See, just as two quick, recenrt examples for this trend, Anthea D. Butler, White Evangelical Racism: The Politics of Morality in America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2021) and J. Russell Hawkins, The Bible Told Them so: How Southern Evangelicals Fought to Preserve White Supremacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). 

Finally, I have one general question for the author that does not necessarily need to be addressed in any revision: Does the author really see the Ruby Ridge>Waco>OK City bombing as the real beginning of the modern militia movement? Personally, I’m surprised that the scholarship on militias mostly ignores the various gun clubs that developed in the US during the Depression and WWII (many were prompted by the demagogic rhetoric of Father Coughlin, Pelley, and other racist firebrands), DePugh’s Minutemen of the 1960s, and the armed suburban citizens groups that emerged in the 1960s in the wake of urban racial tensions. These groups fed into the emergence of the Order and Aryan Nations of the 1980s and seem to me to be direct predecessors of the militias of the 1990s. They were also explicitly racist. Kathleen Belew's work gestures in this direction, but doesn't dig deeply enough into the 20th century. A wider historical angel would on the relationship between racism and militias would be a major benefit for the scholarship. 

Author Response

I am incredibly grateful for the incredible feedback in these comments. These are going to be very helpful as I revise the article. To address them point by point, I will

1. Make clear the audience, who are not necessarily specialists in milia groups. This article is to be included in a special issue on religion & nationalism. My point in the article is to move what may be more familiar to specialists into the broader discussion of religious nationalism, emphasizing the contemporary moment in the US. Regarding the perception that this might be a "hit piece," I can do more to clarify that I am talking about perceptions, not objective judgments that such groups are simply racist and religiously bigotted and that further marginalization and alienation of those inclined to affiliated with militia groups can lead, as the scholarship on this topic demonstrates, to further radicalization.
2. Related to this, I can address the scholarship of the "contrarians" a bit more. You are correct that, for example, Churchill and I do not agree. I will emphasize this more in the revisions.
3. Adding to that, your suggestion to emphasize Christian nationalism as a theme makes complete sense. I will address that directly, and I am familiar with the cited works. 
4. I do not believe that the movement as it was presented in 1992-95 is unprecedented. Still, I argue militias take on a new, broader public space in the media and political discussions, especially after the Oklahoma City bombing. I can and will do more to clarify that in the revisions as part of the necessary historical background of the movement. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This essay handles pressing disputes in a pertinent way. However, I have a few suggestions that with any luck could improve the paper.

1. I think that (if available) the paper should rely on more precise quantitative data, such as statistics on certain issues. For instance, in lines 44-45, it is stated that “Trump won remarkable support from white evangelical Christians in the 2016 election and maintained that support in the 2020 election”. Ok. But what is the precise number of white evangelical Christians who voted for Trump in these elections? More importantly, how many Trump supporters are actually members of modern militias and how many are not so? How many members do these militias have? How many members do the Oath Keepers has? How many militia members participated on January 6? Do most Trump supporters agree with January 6’s deeds? etc. More precise responses to questions like these may help clarifying the probability of these militia actually doing something that could really threat the USA’s current political system.

2. I think that the paper should explicitly give conditions for attributing to someone derogatory predicates, such as “is racist”, “is xenophobic”, “is antisemite” or “is Islamophobic”, instead of using such predicates loosely. After all, not all attributions of such predicates seem justified. Additionally, as indicated by the paper, some members of militias have rejected the attribution of the stated derogatory predicates to themselves (“Oath Keepers rejects any accusations of racism or ties to white supremacy”, says line 302). Hence, militia groups are likely to reject the paper’s stance under the basis that it uses the stated predicates too loosely or even arbitrarily. To provide conditions for the attribution of these predicates seems (at least to me) a better way of responding to this objection.

3. I think that the paper should not “echo” political discourses by politicians from the Democratic Party while ignoring that there are all sorts of legitimate reasons for being angry with the current political system of the USA and insinuating that militia members are simply “irrational”, “crazy”, etc. To avoid this issue, it could be acknowledged that there are indeed varied problems regarding the current political system of the USA. For instance, the fact that it is practically impossible to run for office if one is not or does not have the support of a millionaire or even a billionaire; the tremendous inequality caused by this system; the funding of the military-industrial complex in detriment of that of other areas (e.g., healthcare); the fact that this system uses “the CIA as muscle to maintain subjugation over emerging nations”, etc. Indeed, I think that this quote by Gritz (lines 116-117) deserves a more careful take; not only members from USA’s militias, but also those from the left, think along these lines, even if they disagree with Gritz on other issues.

5. Actually, I think that the paper should acknowledge the existence of those who think that the USA is an imperialist country. To do that is to debate with those who think (to paraphrase lines 212-213) as follows: “The USA’s government had to sanitize American history and its own image to present itself as a righteous force combatting tyranny on behalf of the people of the countries it more or less ‘subtly’ destroys”. That is, I do not think that it is particularly pertinent to discuss the USA’s modern militias as if no one, besides militia members, took the USA’s government itself to be force of “political violence” (line 500).

5. I think that the Manson Family as well as the Charlottesville’s “Unite the Right” Rally should be mentioned somewhere in the essay. Indeed, I thought it was a bit surprising that they were not, given that they can be used as further evidence for the essay’s points.

6. I think that the reference style of the paper should be consistent. That has not happened, that is, sometimes the authors give an author’ last name and page number; other times, they do something else or even do not give any reference at all (e.g., lines 482-491).

7. I think that this sentence is a bit too ambiguous and should be rearticulated: “Notwithstanding the disproportionate protections that African Americans have experienced when it comes to the right to carry arms for self-defense individually, the broader context of the Constitution itself is one in which slave-owning interests were granted concessions to ensure the survival of the American experiment after the revolution” (lines 199-203). Don’t the authors mean the “disproportionate lack of protection that African Americans have experienced”?

Author Response

1. Pointing to demographic data is easy to address with references to research readily available. I will add those in the revision. Moreover, regarding the last comment in this section, the threat may not be so much to the American political system but the move of those affiliated with militia movements to more acts of violence. As is commonly discussed in counter-extremism/counter-terrorism studies, even a small number of motivated individuals can do great harm to population centers.
2. I think I was misunderstood in that the reader thought I was calling militia groups or members racist, xenophobic, and so forth. I am dealing with public perceptions of such groups and not my own judgment. That this was assumed shows that I should address this more clearly in the revisions.
3. Related to the point above, I am not merely repeating the claims of a political party but demonstrating the discourse of the opponents of militia groups and parties who may be more sympathetic to them. Again, I can be more clear about this.
4. I agree, I can do more to mention the point you make here to emphasize the attractiveness of the militia groups' discourse to those who do see the US in that way.
5. The Unite The Right Rally absolutely fits as Oath Keepers were there. To some degree, I am dealing with a word count that demands decisions regarding what examples will work. Nevertheless, a mention is important. I think references to The Manson Family may open some doors that are hard to shut, especially if we are here referring to either the racial elements of "Helter Skelter" or the murders being thought of as the end of the '60s or both. However, I will think about it more as I revise the paper.
6 & 7 are really easy to address. I will attend to both points in the revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is relevant and important.  I appreciated the author's willingness to provide historical contexts for understanding modern militias.  I did think that the paper could benefit from more references related to race and whiteness as religious. Where does American Civil Religion fit here?  I think the paper would be stronger if the author is more explicit about why this particular subject is deserving of scholarly attention.  What are the theoretical, methodological, and policy implications? 

Author Response

I am grateful for the feedback, and I will certainly consider your comments carefully in revising the article. I agree, especially after talking with the guest editor for the special issue, that I can clarify the connections of religion, American civil religion, race, and whiteness. The topic of the special issue is religious nationalisms, so I regard the point of this article to show the ways that the modern militia movement navigates perceptions of racism and religious bigotry while they present themselves as inclusive American nationalists to the American public. Public perceptions of groups like Oath Keepers present significant challenges for militia groups who seek legitimacy in the eyes of the broader public and may, as recent scholarship on increased anti-government activity indicates, they may abandon broader legitimacy efforts and seek to legitimate violence by appealing to racialized and religious grievances.  This is why I think the topic is more deserving of attention, especially as political division in the US increases in the approach of the 2024 election and issues like Critical Race Throery in public schools and colleges, the elimination of DEI initiatives in certain states, and the increased anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric among leading Republicans plays to white Christian nationalist narratives. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the authors replied to my objections in a pertinent fashion. Besides, the paper, I believe, has also improved and it is more interesting now than before. I could make further objections, but that would only be a way of “subtly” forcing the authors to think exactly like me. So, I have nothing else to add.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current version represents an improvement from the original manuscript.