The race is now on around what end of the political spectrum to place Joseph Stack, the clearly very disturbed man who crashed his single-engine plan into a building in Austin, Texas that housed IRS employees, against whom — the IRS — he apparently launched himself on a kamikaze mission yesterday. Opinions vary around whether Stacks motives for the act come from a right wing or a left wing bent and no doubt the debate will rage on given the broad nature of what is being referred to as Stack’s “manifesto”.
But at the end of the day, I’m with Michael Tomasky who writes that the point really is moot,
Stack was in fact angry at everyone. Angry at the IRS. Angry at the government generally. Angry at unions. But also angry at corporate greed and at rich people and at “thugs and plunderers” of various stripe.
Not only do I think the point is moot, I don’t think it matters nearly as much as to ask why Joseph Stacks did what he did. What were the conditions that lead to such a heinous and violent act?
There are particulars at player here, of course, in the form of Stack’s protracted battle with the IRS and what Shanon Love over at Chicago Boyz has noted as “an incredibly invariant profile” of “[p]eople who carry out these types of crimes” (h/t: Mark). These assessments strike me as intelligent and grounded, as noted earlier it seems clear that Stack, to have acted the way that he did, was clearly a very disturbed man.
But disturbed or not, our actions and motivations rarely incubate in a vacuum. Social creatures that we are, there are often broad contexts and diffuse dynamics that come to influence even the most unbalanced of us. The violence and extremity of Stack’s actions can act as a sort of “get out of jail free” card in terms of examining and attempting to better understand those broad dynamics. I mean, the guy flew a freaking plane into a building, he was crazy. What’s to examine, right?
Maybe so, but there seems to be an increasing degree of anger and frustration about the state of affairs in the United States that, if left unaddressed, will only worsen over time. I’m not suggesting that there are necessarily more acts of this type to come, there probably aren’t. But what I’m suggesting is that there may well be a tie to the feelings experienced by Joe Stack and broader feelings being experienced by other Americans that prohibits us from shelving this incident into the “crazy wingnut” category and forgetting all about it.
Fresh-faced Senator Scott Brown is taking some heat in some circles over his comments with regards to Stack’s actions,
Well It’ s certainly tragic and I feel for the families obviously that are being effected by it. And I don’t know if its related but I can just sense not only in my election but since being here in Washington people are frustrated. They want transparency. They want their elected officials to be accountable and open and talk about the things effecting their daily lives. So I am not sure if there is a connection, I certainly hope not, but we need to do things better.
While I certainly don’t condone the seemingly cavalier way in which Brown delivered his remarks, nor his off-the-cuff, “no one likes playing taxes obviously” comment, I do think that Brown is onto something in terms of touching on the feelings of frustration he reads from the electorate.
At a time when average Americans are really and truly hurting, it must be enraging to watch the travesty that has been the health care reform debate, to see the kinds of bonuses that Wall Street CEOs are taking home, to watch increased corporate influence get handed down by Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United, and to impotently observe the machinations of political apparatus that seems fundamentally unaffected by the immensity of desperation that has enveloped most of the country’s kitchen tables.
I don’t live in the country and I’m frustrated.
This kind of frustration seems so destined to get swept aside as the predictable populist frothing of a particular set of circumstances by pundits like George Will,
America, its luck exhausted, at last has a president from the academic culture, that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism. But the reaction against this must somewhat please him. That reaction is populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites. Besides, full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832.
The more I see that label used — populism — the more I feel like it is a subtle smearing of real concerns, frustrations, and pains by a political establishment more concerned with maintaining the status quo than taking a hard look at its own shortcomings.
Inflammatory populist ragings on my part? Perhaps. But this sense that something has gone deeply and irrevocably wrong is not a feeling with which I alone resonate. A recent poll by CBS and the New York Times found that a majority of Americans, cutting across the party spectrum, are angry or dissatisfied with government and that , “levels of distrust and cynicism about government are at or near 15-year highs.”
This isn’t just the wax and wane of hard times, this seems more like a government — in some senses, the government — with a real and burgeoning legitimacy problem.
It is worth remembering that both the tickets in the 2008 Presidential election were change tickets. Granted Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin had very different ideas about what needed to change and how, but both pairs doled out their fair share of, “Washington needs to change” rhetoric. And so, as with the tickets, those who voted undoubtedly had very different ideas about what kind of change they wanted to see. But it is all the same conceivable that a majority of voters were voting for change in some fashion or another.
One particular side of that change equation won out, but it seems like, by and large, not a whole lot has actually changed as a result. So there may well be ample reason for a majority of Americans to feel cynical and angry about the state of their government, country, and lives, whether or not “their guy” won. That is a real frustration and the calcified malignancy to which it is a response is a real problem. And when one looks out over the political landscape, one doesn’t find very many people willing to face those facts and offer even modest solutions.
So, yes, Joseph Stack was undoubtedly a disturbed and unbalanced man, his actions were abhorrent and the results heart wrenching. But assuming that the appropriate response is to go back to business as usual strikes me as perfectly blithe and perhaps more than a little reckless.
Jonathan McLeod 
Kimmi 
Russell Saunders 
Nora doula 
Burt Likko 
darlene
{ 37 comments }
My guess would be he was psychotic, and this conversation shouldn’t be about taxes or the IRS — though both merit discussion.
This ought be a discussion about mental illness.
This is how I felt as we invaded Iraq, tortured people, and got a tax cut while the debt grew with war and my mom’s prescription drug benefit went unpaid. I watched my wealth crash because of a lack of regulation.
At some point, we have to get beyond who’s in and who’s out of power and demand the folks in power do their jobs instead of scrabbling for ever more power.
So let’s say that we ought to explore the root causes of this particular act of terrorism… and let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that the most important root cause is *NOT* that the dude was nutso.
The root causes of terror in this case seem to include that the country isn’t anarcho-socialist enough.
Aside: Anarcho-socialism is one of those wacky fringy viewpoints that is very difficult to pigeonhole if you aren’t a crazy person who constantly argues the nuances of anarcho-socialism vs anarcho-capitalism vs. anarcho-syndicalism vs. anarcho-christianity and so on and so forth… and, interestingly enough, from reading his letter, it seems like he wasn’t too familiar with anarcho-socialism himself but came to it on his own… hrm… if only he knew that there were thousands… well, hundreds… of like-minded individuals on the web who could be a support group for him… anyway, I begin to ramble.
A guy flying a plane into a building traditionally starts a handful of questions regarding root causes and our responsibility toward mitigating them vs. our responsibility to not mitigate them lest more show up and start flying more things into more buildings. Seems a good enough time to noodle around with them again.
How many anarcho-socialists are out there that are willing to die for their beliefs? Let’s expand it to anarcho-whatevers and re-ask the question. Is it a significant number? And let’s define “signifcant” as “within spitting distance of Muslims/Christians willing to kill Infidels/Abortion providers”.
Is this number, if significant enough, sufficient for us to change public policy at all, one way or the other? Should we consider giving into a demand or two, I mean, reassessing our policies *OR* should we start training government employees to infiltrate cells of these folks?
I think it’s interesting to note that anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism insofar as they existed as movements died out towards the end of the New Deal Era as it appeared like government was finally acceding to the needs of people (by creating social safety nets, labor regulations etc.) and this was in turn followed by a sort of rise of anarcho-capitalism in intellectual circles where anarcho-socialism had previously held sway. For example the trendy bougeoise twenty-somethings were prone to have sympathies with anarcho-socialists in the late 19th/early 20th century while nowadays they tend more towards anarcho-capitalism.
Certainly shades of anarchy are an interesting thing to examine in a historical context because it often gives the prevailing mood of a country with regard to its institutions. That said….
I think the main problem right now is that you’re mixing two types of anarchists into populism that clash fundamentally but speak similar languages enough that they direct anger well, but cannot come to a coherent policy messaging. You see it too in the attempts of both parties, who are at heart establishment entities trying to find language that’ll appease them. The party more likely to find a message in such a circumstance is the one that speaks to dismantling the existing power structure in some fashion (even if it’s the wrong way) than the one seeking to build a new one.
There’s always coherent policy prescriptions that COULD be made to assuage and fix anger of this sort, but it’s very rarely the type that works in a messaging sort of way. Healthcare reform (bless its messaging problems) would actually be one such measure, as would a jobs bill.
In the end it’s important to remember that Wall Street survived the 1900s (if we recall the first real terrorist bombings in the US happened on Wall Street) that the government survived being associated with actions much more horrible and corporatist than we see today, and ultimately it was state power that had a hand in defusing the social tensions that existed.
Will it be the same this time around? Unlikely, but it’s always something to keep in mind that those agitating to take down institutions very rarely have a good answer for what they’ll do once they’ve done so.
Dude. Awesome comment.
“and this was in turn followed by a sort of rise of anarcho-capitalism in intellectual circles where anarcho-socialism had previously held sway.”
Except of course that this is entirely false. Anarcho-leftism held sway among the upper lower class lower middle class college educated well into the sixties. Anarcho-syndicalism in america has declined since Big Bill Haywood but internationally it still exists and is more vibrant than it ever was in america (which I admit is still not all that vibrant) what with the seizing of factories and the marching in the streets.
“Anarcho”-capitalism never ran in the same circles as anarcho-leftism. They may have dated girls from the same sorority but that’s it. “Anarch0″-capitalism is the domain of upper-middle class programmers and people who have no greater ambition than to be an economist. Anarcho-leftism’s artists, poets, and social workers don’t fraternize with those types.
Not to mention that “anarcho”-capitalism is far more fringe than anarcho-syndicalism both in terms of current numbers and total influence on history and thought.
Now I have to go rest my hand from constantly reaching over to type “-”.
Dude, I hang with a couple anarcho-communists.
Out of necessity more than out of choice, I suspect. If I want to argue with someone who will get my Sacco and Vanzetti jokes or who has also read Edward Bellamy… they’re the only game in town.
I suspect that they hang out with me for similar reasons. “Yeah, he’s completely wrong and totally immoral but he said that he was convict number 9652 and that meant that he was EVEN BETTER and I laughed despite myself and none of these other kids even knew what we were talking about.”
If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.
Besides, even amongst the heterodox you’re unorthodox. A fringe unto yourself.
Only so many people show up to open mike poetry night.
You talk about the analogy between that one heartbreaker from 8 years ago and neocapital to the people you have not the people you wish you had.
You win, I can’t understand a word of that.
I’d argue that from a larger societal trend, the late 19th century anarchist thinkers were very much in a similar comparative social position that today’s wannabe anarcho-capitalists inhabit, though the source of their grievance was much more acute.
Yes, programmers and artists don’t show up in the same places (at least except for Jaybird, but he’s a strange bird). I admit that was probably a bit sloppy construction on my part, but I stand by as what I think how aspirational parts of changing socio-economic circles have affected anarchy movements.
This is something I’ve been trying to write for a long time, Nob.
You said it better than I ever could.
You mean like the Bush administration did around the ’06 elections?
I ever tell you ’bout the gigs my sweetie played with major police stake-outs because some of the other musicians on the stage were vocal anarcho-socialists? Five-plus state cop cars plus two locals for a hole-in-the-wall pizza joint that could seat about 30 people, mostly local folk after work?
There’s two dimensions of crazy here — one personal for someone so off they’ll not only kill themselves, but kill others.
The others public. This is nuts. Over-reacting is nuts.
Hey, I said this: and let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that the most important root cause is *NOT* that the dude was nutso.
Please understand, when I see an anarcho-anything, My first thought is not “go back to Somalia” but “ah, a kindred spirit… s/he’s probably read many of the same things that I have”.
Indeed, I think that the people who were saying “it’s a guy on the left!” and the folks saying “it’s a guy on the right!” could easily join hands and point at the fringier libertarians and say that we’re the ones who need to be encamped.
As one of the fringier libertarians, I kinda take umbrage at that.
But it’d be kinda dishonest to not explore it.
As a wacky fringe anarcho-socialist (more Bookchin/Arendt localist minarchist libertarain socialist really but as you say) I think dying for your beliefs is not a sound strategy unless you have a semi-organized group you can galvanize with your death and a steady supply of replacements. Anarcho-leftism doesn’t have the numbers or the infrastructure of “Al Qaeda”. Personally I would rather just vainly try to influence local politics and mainstream parties to inch slowly toward my way of thinking but I must admit there are times when I feel willing to blow shit up for beliefs. Kill? Probably not. Die? Not if I can help it.
I hope that confuses you utterly ;)
Nah, that’s where I am.
When I went to caucus for Mike Gravel and I suggested we end the war on drugs, everybody in the room looked at me like I took a shit in the middle of the floor.
Kids these days.
A celebration of intellectual ordinariness?
Am I the only one struck dumb by that? I mean… what the hell man?
Dude. Weak.
What part of struck dumb didn’t you understand?
Skimming the manifesto, it seems like his issue is almost entirely a persecution complex related to his inability to pay taxes. An inability that was catalyzed by him buying the nonsense theories of some radical anti-state, anti-tax group. He lashes out at everyone and everything, but there’s clearly a primary target here. In the absence of tax conspiracy theorists, he still might be crazy, still might have ran into financial problems, and still might’ve taken others down with him. But his rhetoric would’ve been different. He’s a particularly crazy specimen of a particular type of populist; not someone at the extremes of populism in general.
As far as general dissatisfaction with government goes, realize that one party has defined itself by ensuring that little gets done in Washington and saying that whatever does get done is entirely worthless. For better or worse, this rhetoric is working on a substantial chunk of the population. I don’t know that there’s a very analogous situation in the past. The most recent, somewhat similar situation I can think of is the post-GOP revolution government shutdown. Not coincidentally, this was 15 years ago.
Giving into populist whimsy in response to crazed anti-tax attacks is sort of letting the terrorists win, yeah?
Whats this crap about the Catholic church and “playing the same games as the Big Boys”? It looks to me like he believed someone who sold him a scheme for avoiding taxes -maybe by declaring himself a church or something – and then got nailed by the IRS when it (of course) didn’t work.
Notice how he didn’t express one word of anger at the people who were advising him to do the things that got him in trouble. He couldn;’t even admit that he got conned because that would be to admit that he was fallible and that it was at least partially his fault. Instead he whines about how he listened to “experts” but got nailed anyway.
Also, we shouldn’t read too much into the simplistic political bullshit in his “manifesto”. It’s clear that his only political philosophy was “gimme gimme gimme”.
I think focusing on ideology makes the mistake of assuming that people (at least semi-) rationally choose an ideology and then pick their actions in light of that ideology. This assumption is bullshit. People often/usually are attracted to ideologies that tell them what they already believe or want to believe about themselves and their place in the world.
I think I would have sold the plane and paid the taxes, but only after looking at every way possible to get around the taxes. Honestly, I think this tells us much as the lady who killed the professors — nothing.
The guy got pissed and went over the edge, then wrote some jumbled political crap because he was also, probably narcissistic, — no one will think about him in a month or two. I hate he had to kill others, and everyone decides which sides to blame, I think I’ll just feel bad for the families.
as everyone decides which side’s
My 2 cents:
When people are overwhelmed by emotions like rage or fear or despair, “rational” motives are not the cause but the excuse for their actions — actions which tend to enact a tragically predictable (and stupid) “Fight or Flight” response.
We often use a kind of “game theory” to explain human behavior, where every move is carefully considered and made in the player’s self-interest. Life isn’t like that and we know it.
As for legitimacy of government? It’s like the legitimacy of any institution: a work in progress, requiring daily maintenance. It’s not a monolith which dropped out of the sky, and then crumbled because somebody flew a plane into a building.
Or let’s put it this way: Can you imagine news headlines like, “HOUSE BURNS DOWN! LEGITIMACY OF FIRE BRIGADES IN QUESTION”.
This morning I was watching Morning Joe on MSNBC (my favorite political TV) and they touched on this briefly. All the commentators, liberal and conservative alike, agreed that anyone who tried to make this into a larger point about anything other than the guy being bat-shit crazy should get their names on some sort of public enemies list.
Will Scott Payne’s name be on there?
Remember Timothy McVeigh? This sort of thing seems to happen with regular intervals. Another recurring thing is that some American tries to shoot the President (Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan etc.)
If it all means something, it might be simply this: A direct logical outcome of American culture and its cultural myths.
The “lone hero” myth
+ the cult of Individualism
+ hatred of Government
= every now and then some angry white guy will attempt to destroy a public building or kill the President.
On one hand, it seems like a democracy is working best when every election brings change of some sort. One the other hand, the legitimacy problem seems real. When I talk to either of my parents on the phone, I’m struck both by how angry they are about current events and how little they actually know about them, which seems to feed into the anger. There’s a sense that government is outside of their capacity to influence it or even monitor it. Actually, when I talk to Americans, I get a sense that they believe every game in town is fixed. Every cultural institutions is seen as a conspiracy. And it’s strange for me because my dream is basically to finish the dissertation, get a job in the states, and buy into the system- “sell out” basically- and I see no validation in the larger culture for doing so without a good amount of irony.
But, I should also note that today my parents believe that Obama is ruining the country, a year and a half ago, they thought Bush was ruining the country, a decade ago, they thought Bill Clinton was ruining the country, and so forth for as long as I remember.
“The American people have this to learn: that where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither person nor property is safe.” –Frederick Douglass
If only we had passed a Constitutional Amendment allowing gay marriage, maybe he’d still be alive.
“…to much of nothin’ can make a man feel ill at ease.”
A revolution predicated on dialectic materialism never, in the long term, succeeds.
A revolution set to restore God’s order may or may not succeed but if it does human existence can flourish for a time.
What is this “God” you speak of?
The One whose order we must restore.
Don’t you mean “return balance to the force”?
It’s so hard to keep mystical fantasy settings separate.
Like in Iran and Afghanistan?
How stupid is this company flying over the crash site and advertising http://twitpic.com/146xhh
Shouldn’t part of the discussion about whether this or other acts count as terrorism at least touch on some outside considerations, such as the extent that there is a wider “movement” behind the actions?
In the case of McVeigh, I seem to recall that he had some connections to some organized (albeit crackpot) militia people. And in the case of Islamic militants, there’s a wide variety of international organizations and, it would seem, a few actual states funding and organizing the actions.
This would seem to matter a lot. If there’s some guy in my neighborhood who steals a car so he can gather some money for drugs, that’s one thing. But if there is an organized, systemic group of guys who are running a large-scale car-theft operation–large enough to generate violence over turf and other issues–that’s quite another thing entirely. These issues would sem to call for different responses. In the case of a single theft, you would want an investigation. But in the case of 100 thefts, you would want more than 100 separate investigations strung together.
When that takes something from the realm of a crime to an “act of war,” I am not sure.
For those of you tossing about McVeigh’s name allow me to recommend Jana Davis’s seminal study, The Third Terrorist. Jana’s a nice lady, T.V. person, and the book cost her dearly. Sometimes the truth comes at a heavy price.
Comments on this entry are closed.