Countering Extremism

For John, BLUF:  I think these are ideas (at the article) that Congress should look at.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Congress should learn from Canada on preventing extremist violence

From The Brookings Institution, by Mr Eric Rosand, 4 January 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

Democrats taking control of the U.S. House today with the start of the 116th Congress have a long and growing list of policy (as well as investigative) priorities. Included on it should be the development of an appropriate national framework for preventing extremist violence of any type in the United States, whether committed by a white supremacist, a neo-Nazi, or someone inspired by ISIS or al-Qaida propaganda. The Trump administration ignored the request from the 115th Congress to submit such a framework by June 2018 and has cut funding for locally-led prevention efforts. The new Congress should act.

Plenty has been written about the shortcomings in the United States in this area. The focus is typically on the unhelpfully labelled “CVE” (countering violent extremism) efforts in this country, which lag behind those of most U.S. allies. Some place the blame on the executive branch; some argue for more leadership and solutions from civil society and other non-governmental organizations; some simply say CVE doesn’t work.

Yet few point to the absence of any bipartisan congressional leadership on this topic. That dereliction of duty has been striking, particularly given the steady rise in anti-Semitic incidents, hate crimes, and far-right extremist attacks. The 115th Congress passed legislation and appropriated funds ($10 million) to the U.S. Institute of Peace to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent violent extremism in Africa and the Middle East. But what about violent extremism at home?

His five ides make some sense, but I am not sure they will work here as well as they work in Canada.  Remember, Canada doesn't have a First Ameendment.

Regards  —  Cliff