I hope this gets past the censors...

Something is happening. This should come as no surprise; something is always happening, but the precise happening of which I speak is particularly interesting--and worrisome. You see, once an idea is put forth and accepted, it is harder to discredit than the testimony of the Pope. And ideas grow. The phrase "right-wing" has decidedly negative connotations already. It's going to get worse. Consider the recent DHS report regarding "extreme right-wing extremists." I find it highly intriguing that such a report would be published immediately after our government takes a firm step to the left. It used to be that the most dangerous groups in America (according to the FBI) were ELF and ALF. That's correct, extreme leftist groups, or at least groups with interests that tend to parallel those of Democrats. The Earth Liberation Front actually does blow things up. The Animal Liberation Front attacks people wearing fur coats. These groups are doing things that clearly qualify as criminal. Sure, right-wingers have done nasty stuff in the past (Timothy McVeigh, for instance) but such incidents are rarely, if ever, the work of coordinated networks of the type that qualify as terrorist groups. Yet rightists are allegedly more worrying than groups that set houses on fire for not meeting environmentally-friendly building codes.

So, why would DHS switch priorities? The "why" should be obvious. The "how" may not be.

The rest of this entry is a breakdown of how I would silence a dissenting group were I in charge of (or in a position of influence within) a government with substantial resources.

First off, I'd win as much popular support as possible. This has two desirable effects. It ensures that whatever dissent group I target (rightists, dairy farmers, circus performers, left-handed people, whatever) is in the minority. In a democracy, this prevents national-level voter opposition to any future actions. The second effect is that popular opinion itself puts adverse pressure upon the target group. Carrying a concealed gun in the United States is legal (with a permit) in most states, but only a tiny percent of the population is walking around with concealed handguns despite the fact that this would almost certainly lower crime rates. Why? Partially because of the attached social stigma should anyone find out.

Secondly, I would win the support of as much of the mainstream media as possible. This is a challenge, because the media tends to climb onto a pedestal and can only be dislodged through rather...extreme means. If my ideological goals match those of the media, though, this step is remarkably easy. I just hand out lots of interviews and face time, maybe make some comments about how great cable news is in a democracy, etc. This ensures that information flow is tilted, even slightly, in my favor and away from those nasty, gun-toting, flag-waving neo-Patrick Henrys.

Speaking of which, the third step is to assign an unpleasant and vaguely ominous label to the target group. Let's say I want to marginalize left-handed people. I'd release a report from the DHS about the dangers of the "Unconventionally-dexterous non-conforming subculture." The report would outline a conspiracy to make all computer mice left-hand-compatible only and reverse place settings in restaurants. The label might be technically accurate, but remember that people assign connotative meaning at will. And, thanks to the media and my popular support, people will be edging away from the unconventionally-dexterous non-conformist subculture elements as though they have swine flu.

The final step must be taken gradually. It consists of slowly introducing laws designed to limit the freedoms and power of the target group. For example, I'd start with a law that requires typists to use their right thumb on the spacebar. No outcry over that, right? Especially when Katie Couric explains how it helps the Poor. Next is a law requiring all computer mice be right-hand only. A bit more, but since when is little more of anything a problem? Next, all government forms must be signed using one's right hand. Give me two more paragraphs and I'll be up to amputations of people's left hands and feet if they refuse to buy the correct kind of baseball glove.

These simple steps are not difficult, nor are they implausible. We are already at step three regarding the "right-wing domestic terrorists." I'll be blunt. I am very far to the right. I plan on acquiring a shotgun when I have a house in which to keep it for the purposes of recreational shooting and home defense. I'll pay as little income tax as is legal. I will never say anything postitive about Rosie O'Donnell. I will probably vote Republican for the rest of my life. None of these actions make me a terrorist, but I still see my name on some future watchlist because of refusal to toe the current party line. Once the idea that right-wingers are dangerous is planted, the tree only requires time, a favorable clime, and a few shrewd leaders to develop into something antithetical to classical American ideals.