We had a great discussion of the Hammonds a year ago on Facebook, prompted by this article.
Many factional opponents of The Militant enjoy thinking they are interpreting a kind of Aesopian writing when they accuse the paper of supporting the "Buchanan proletariat."
The Militant is very careful to say exactly what it means, and to ACT upon it.
David shared this article on his timeline and wrote this, which puts all the leftist social media migraine over the party's response to the occupation in perspective:
".... the Militant article does not extend solidarity with the social, political or religious views of those involved in the occupation - a mix of militia-type-rightism, middle-class utopianism and libertarian-ism - other than to note that many who live in the county welcomed the attention brought to the question of land use."
In the same discussion on David's FB feed, Marc wrote:
The Socialist Workers Party is opposed to all repressive legislation, and the so-called anti-terrorism laws and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is one of the worst. Please note that the Militant was not supporting the occupation, and neither were the Hammonds, who outrageously were charged with terrorism for lighting backfires to control fires started by lightening on government land!
The Militant was against a government assault on the occupation, as it was with Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE, etc. It's not an endorsement of people's political views to oppose the government murdering them. Those who only protest against assaults on those they support, will find no one to support them when they're assaulted.
Although as supporters of the Cuban Revolution the Militant supported the demand for Elián González to go home to his father, it did not support the armed assault on his relatives' home, which was simply used to boost the standing of the hated "La Migra."