>> well, first of all, those two senate seats were runoffs. and i learned long ago the key to a runoff is getting your voters out there. and you have to give credit where credit's due, the democrats did a better job than the republicans did. that was a big difference. there were other things. but i do go back to the significance of substantial changes that the secretary of state made with the democrats party when he signed a settlement agreement back in march 2020 with the democratic party that resulted as i say in significant and substantial changes to the voting process in the state of georgia. we need to tighten that up. when you send out absentee ballots and send out absentee applications to everyone in the state, that leaves a lot of room for error there and abuse. and we need to make sure that that has been cleaned up. that is the responsibility of the state legislature. the state legislature in georgia

is in session now. they started the second monday in january. my hope is they're going to address that and they're going to make sure every legal vote is counted and make sure no illegal votes are counted. >> republican of georgia, do always appreciate your time here on the washington journal. appreciate it. >> joining us now is the professor at the university of massachusetts lowell. he's the director of their security studies that the school of criminology. here with us to talk with us about right-wing extremism in the united states on in the wake of the attack on the capitol. also the author of the book "american zealots inside right wing domestic terrorism." thanks for joining us today. >> good morning. thanks for having me. >> start-up with the headline we see this morning at the hill, not surprisingly it says house panels open review of capitol riot. let's say you were called to testify there and asked about

the roots of the riot, the attack on the capitol. where would you say those roots begin? >> so i think we have in the united states a robust infrastructure of far right groups and organizations that for the last few years are really escalating their activities, their operations, their recruitment efforts. and anyone who was listening to the voices, to their statement, to their propaganda would have acknowledged the fact we should expect an escalation and probably also an increase in the number of violent attacks. and the people who storm the capitol, many of them are members of groups that really see the federal government as an intrusive, aggressive entity that tries to undermine their constitutional rights, their freedoms. i think what they see as a

stealing of the election for them is another manifestation of the corrupt nature of the federal government many believe is being hijacked by actors really trying to undermine the american way of life. so in many ways i think what we've seen the culmination of spread of conspiracy theories all of them really aiming to undermine the legitimacy of our government and democratic system. >> as you mentioned at the top the director of the security studies program in the criminology department there, you talked about seeing activity and tracking activity. so how far for you does this go back? does this activity, some of this troubling activity you're talking about predate the trump administration? >> oh, definitely. so i think that the major point of departure for this is 2008.

the election of the first african-american president. the economic recession as well as some other factors. all of them led to a dramatic spike in the level of violence and the number of hate crimes. and basically that was the big jump really. and since 2008 we see a gradual increase in the level of violence, in the number of groups, in the level of activity in general. so this is definitely not a new phenomenon. and if you really track it over time you see this is something we are dealing with for more than a decade now. i'm talking about this new reemergence of a new group such as the newdz,7fñ militias that' really emerged aroundng)zo 2008. so this new wave of far right extremism and violence is something we've seen now more than a decade. so it's definitely not something unique for the last four years. >> tell us what you've seen in

terms of the efficacy of these groups, their ability to over the last you said 2008, so the last 12 or 13 years their ability to both recruit other members and spread their message via the social media, via the internet? >> so i think there are several factors that really facilitated a more effective recruitment for these groups. first of all i think the rhetoric we hear from many political leaders the last few years which really provide legitimacy to some fringe conspiracy theories, the fact that there's more and more mainstream political leaders i think this is something that help these groups to mobilize support more effectively. also i think it's important to note that many of these groups were very effective in recruitment of former law enforcement and military veterans as well as active duty veterans. if you're looking at the more prominent militia groups you see

they were able to really penetrate law enforcement and the military in terms of recruitment and mobilizing support from these constituencies. and this is something really concerning for at least two reasons. first of all, because it allows them to present a more legitimate image. after all, they can argue many of their members are people that actually risked their lives for a foreign nation and secondly it provided them a lot of access to operational knowledge, to know-how knowledge of how to deal with various security situations. so these are some of the trends that i think are very concerning if we're looking at the landscape of the american far right. >> we're talking about right wing extremism in the united states. 202-748-8000 the line to call for democrats. and the independents -- what's your take on qanon? are they more than just a fringe

conspiracy theory or have they become more of a militant group? have they become militarized for lack of a better term? >> so i think first of all i think it's important to remember while we have this tendency of draw very clear lines between these groups in reality there's a lot of overlap, right? so many members of qanon also adopted anti-governmental conspiracy theories. many of them also occasionally embraced a more anti-semitic xenophobic sentiment. so there's a lot of overlap and interactions between the various groups on the far right. i think that definitely some of them really were able to connect with the more mainstream or the more popular conspiracy theories that they're talking about, the hijacking of the federal government, talking about, you know, the tendance of the

federal government to undermine constitutional freedoms and so on. so we see really a merger and overlap between the different conspiracy theories and also between these different groups. if you look at the crowd that really stormed the capitol we are talking about, you know, regular trump supporters but we're also talking about members of some of the more active militia groups as well as members of some white supremacy and neo-nazi gripes. so we really see that under this umbrella of stealing the election narrative, we see really the coalescence of multiple groups. and this is another thing that i think should be a source of concern. >> the homeland security department back in september raised concern over some of these groups. and part of their statement said this. they said that loan offenders in small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social, ideological and personal factors will pose the primary

terrorist threat to the united states. among these groups we assess that white supremacist extremists who increasingly are networking with like minded persons abroad will pose the persistent and legal threat. >> so i think i'm less concerned about the more robust quote-unquote corporate groups mainly because it's easier to monitor their activities, their communications. i'm more concerned about smaller cells or even individuals if you think about the el paso shooter, the pittsburgh shooter. all these were members of the online community. many of them felt strong connection with some of these groups, many embraced their ideologies, but eventually they operated independently. and the same way they operate

independently we can think about smaller groups or smaller cells of militias in far-right groups in various parts of the country that can feel frustrated, feel angry especially as we see the purge right now in the social media platforms. so the risk is they'll feel really under siege, that the level of frustration and anger will really cross a threshold that will push them eventually to perpetrate violence. and i think that's the main concern of dhs and the fbi as this is really challenging to try these specific individuals and small groups. >> the proud boys made their presence known in mid-december. and photos have shown members of the proud boys in an attack on the capitol in ranger formation to head to one of the entrances to the door. how threatening is a group like the proud boys? >> i think the proud boys,

again, similarly to the oath keepers and other groups includes a substantial number of members who have military experience, who have security experience, who are former law enforcement. and we've seen that many of those people who are indicted or were basically are facing lawsuits are people that have -- and live now to president joe biden. >> and i think they represent a significant threat. i will also say that, again, i'm less concerned about what will happen next week in d.c. i'm more concerned really about these isolated cells and individuals all over the country that feel the urge really do something as a result of their perception that, you know, the system is really corrupt, that they are under siege, that they are really they are facing

really a steal of election. they truly believe in that. that's the one thing people understand. these individuals really feel their nation is under threat. they really feel that their rights are being violated, and they feel that their ability to counter that is diminishing, and as a result they can really slide to some extreme response. >> how concerned are you about protest in state capitols say like in michigan and lancing, in states that allow open carry, where you would have potentially armed protesters facing armed security forces. >> i think we should all be concerned. i think things can escalate very quickly. i'm hoping that we learn the lessons from what happened on january 6, but again when you have a large crowd, many of the members of that crowd are weaponized, that definitely presents significant challenges. and i think that, again, that can also -- that also demands a

lot of resources from law enforcement, something that undermines somewhat their ability to maintain track about many other groups and individuals and cells that may also do something in other parts of the country. >> a professor at the university of massachusetts lowell. he's professor and security studies director there, also author of the book "american zealots" inside right wing domestic terrorism. >> caller: first i'd like to say the republican party has morphed into a socially acceptable fascist movement. also the individual is wrong when he says that the writers were anti-government. they're not anti-federal government. they actually love the federal government especially when they eradicated the black panther party also with the nation of islam and -- the majority of

white people came here after the civil war. they have nothing invested in the institution of democracy. they only participated in it as an oppressive measure against blacks. yet he claims that he has some sort of cultural connection to the confederacy. what we see here is the cumination of what we saw in oklahoma city. right wing terrorism has always been here in this country. talk to many black people that tell you. they'll tell you the truth about their white citizens counsel, ku klux klan as well as violence and lynchings. what you see now is an inability of white people to function in this capacity because we have a president that not only has a racial dog whistle but is a bull horn that has given them carte blanche to racist whites and given them comfort. a black woman who had a

4-year-old daughter in the back seat and yet capitol police were allowing these people to enter the building unimpeded, no resistance, no violence given those people. >> we'll get a response from our guest. thank you. >> so first of all i agree with malik that, you know, white supremacy groups and movements always exist in this country at least since the mid-19th century. i think what the difference now is that first of all some of these groups feel they're being legitimized by mainstream political leaders. some of these groups were able to mobilize a substantial crowd. this is something that we haven't seen before in that capacity. the fact that we see that many of these groups were able to gain presence within our political institutions, i just want to mention that several qanon followers are now congressman. so i think the difference is that the far right never was able to gain so much visibility

and presence the way we see today and also gain so much legitimacy. i think in this context i think the rhetoric of our political leaders was very instrumental for that. when political leaders are ready to embrace some of these groups ideas that provide them legitimacy. >> how do any of these groups compare to a radical left wing organization like antifa? >> so when i'm being asked about antifa and about the left, the far left i prefer really to go to the data and numbers. and the numbers so the level of far right is much more substantial than what we see on the left side. we had a lot of left wing, the militant groups in the '60s and t7y left wing terrorism really declined in the '80s and

i think we've seen some environmental groups that are using some violent tactics, and definitely we've seen the rise of antifa but again we don't see on the left the same level of organizational coordination. we don't see any systemic campaign of violence and attempt really to undermine law enforcement authorities or undermine the government. and in terms of the numbers, again, the level of violence is much lower than what we see on the other side of the political spectrum. it's not a partisan issue. it's really about the data. and the data shows far right violence dramatically exceeds far left violence. and it's not we're not aware there are some far left more militant groups and occasionally some of their events really slide to violence. but when you're talking about systematic campaigns of violence that are organized by groups that are -- that have fairly

substantial infrastructure, this is something we see mainly on the right side of the political spectrum. >> we go to ed calling from cedar rapids, iowa, republican line. >> caller: yes. i was wondering since it was already brought up by your guest talking about what occurred at the capitol building, which, you know, we all deplore. there should never be violence especially the storming of a capitol building. i have yet to hear your desk talk about what it is the fbi knew to make sure something of this nature never occurred. we know the fbi director there in norfolk had full information of what was intended to occur. and in his own words he -- why

couldn't we prevent this? >> appreciate that. >> well, first of all i want to be very blubt about that. what we've seen on january 6 was a colossal security failure. the intelligence was there. anyone who listened to the leaders of some of these groups knew that they have, you know, very militant intentions, that many of them declared clearly they intend to disrupt the certification of the election results, that they are willing to use force if that is necessary. i think we knew more or less how many people would show up. so the intelligence was there. it was very clear that we should expect an escalation. and the fact there were not enough resources on the ground in order to prevent the capitol from being stormed that's a failure. and this is why it's currently under investigation. hopefully we learn the lesson of what happened in d.c. last week. as for now i think that definitely law enforcement, federal agencies are putting a

lot of efforts on trying to collect intelligence about potential plots, potential organizations. we see that there's also an enhancement of security around the capitols in most states, definitely in d.c. so hopefully, you know, we learned a lesson from what happened last week. but if you ask me specifically i don't think any serious person will agree that there was not a security failure. if a mob was able to enter into the capitol building, that's a failure, period. and the fact that all the intelligence was there already further intensified the fact that, you know, we were not prepared. >> question for you on twitter. how do we counter these groups? how do we take their ideology down? is it by a national education system in lieu of local education and living conditions? >> so i think we need to think both in terms of long-term

approaches and short-term one. in the long-term approach definitely education. the educational system is one of those avenues where we can try and counter these kind of ideas, conspiracy theories, these kind of xenophobic and racist narratives. we should also i think demand from our political leaders to tone down their rhetoric. i think the fact that political leaders allow themselves to use very toxic and extremist rhetoric and in that way legitimize this kind of extremist discourse also doesn't help. so that in the long-term i think it needs more efforts to try and promote more b partisan policies, something that will ensure more trust. i think it's also important to convey to the public elections are not a zero-sum game. that's what many of the people who storm the capitol building believe. they believe it will be

catastrophic and people need to understand that electoral processes are not a zero-sum game. you win some, you lose some. and even if you lose, you're not losing completely. you still have political power. and if you understand that, hopefully the level of animosity between the different political groups will go down. and finally, in terms of a short-term approach i think we need to develop a legal mechanism that will allow us to designate domestic groups a terrorist organization especially when we're talking about the more corporate organizations and we need to develop ways to identify and counter more effectively the spread of conspiracy theories the same way that we have a rapid action response units that responds to physical threats. we should also develop ways to counter the spread of conspiracy theories online. we've tried to do that in the

case of -- it wasn't so successful. hopefully we can build a better mechanism this time. >> let's hear from dennis. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'd like to comment that i'd like people to watch a show that's on public television. it's called the rise of fascism in europe. if you can't see the parallel between these groups and trump of how they came to power, you'd have to be blind. if you take hitler's name out and put trump in, the way he talked, the way they took over things -- remember in 2016 he didn't win the election. he got in on the electoral college and he lost by 2.8 million votes, and he said they were all illegal votes the same as he did this time where he lost by over 7 million votes. and my local representative fred cellar was one of the ones that

signed this letter about contesting the election. and these people tried to install a dictator. >> on his point, give us some historical context on what we're seeing now. >> again, as i mentioned before far-right groups and even political parties were always part of the political landscape in the united states. many people may not remember, for example. that was a party that was established in the 1850s, and it was very strict anti-immigration, anti-catholic, fairly racist political party which was actually successful in some of the elections that