The FBI's Response in Oregon
We here at MOA always say we don't want a revolution, but rather an evolution. Revolutions, usually violent, take us by nature back to where we started, while evolution moves us forward. Revolutionaries become dictators and despots, so sure are they that their way is the only right one, while evolutionaries show us more of our full or a different potential (albeit both positive and negative), with no more or less desire to push their own agenda than the average non-evolutionary type.
This action in Oregon is a good example of why we say that, and it's the revolutionary nature of the thing that's likely driving the FBI's (apparent but not actual lack of) response. This occupation isn't a spur-of-the-moment protest-turned-riot, a sudden uprising requiring a swift, indubitable, resolute response to bring the violence to a close and get on with productive dialog (if such is to be the case). Instead, this is the fourth premeditated, organized action of its kind by this group since the 2014 Cliven Bundy, Sr. ranch debacle, and its perpetrators aren't merely angry or swept up in a social maelstrom. They're acting in a calculated manner - without, apparently, the ability to see or understand the harm they're causing to those around them - to incite an uprising against the government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
/snark/ An aside, Ammon has gone from saying that native claims to the refuge's area were 'interesting', to plundering their sacred ground, to saying that, in fact, his group is concerned about the way Paiute artifacts are being stored.
We might be tempted to remind him that the original inhabitants of the land were really the animals whose homes he's now destroying and that cattle are not a native specie, just to see what the next version of his story would be. /end snark/
~~~~~~~~~~~~
But in seriousness and more to the point, it's very likely that Mr. Bundy assumes he'll hold a position of authority in whatever brave new world it is he seeks to usher in, unless he truly believes in communism, as does apparently his security officer, Mr. Payne. Or perhaps he intends to bring about anarchy, which is a beautiful concept in principle but only works with populations of people who are willing to be to the greatest degree possible at any given time both self-responsible and self-respecting. If we are both of those things, we'll also take responsibility for others where that's appropriate (which is rarely when a majority of people are taking care of their own business), and we'll respect others - not to be confused with necessarily agreeing with them.
It's this last that's missing in the Oregon occupation. What Mr. Bundy and his crew are demonstrating is arrogance, which bears only the thinnest veneer of resemblance to either healthy pride in oneself or real self-respect. A person who's proud of oneself and who respects oneself has no need to bully or intimidate others, to try to force anyone to bow to their will. A self-respecting person in Mr. Bundy's current situation would surrender himself to proper authorities (not those of his choosing, but those duly tasked by the community at large to deal with his particular crimes), listen to counsel, take his lumps, learn a thing or two, and go home and get himself together so he could be a better man.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
We believe that Mr. Bundy believes he's respecting himself, his God, his family, and his country in his actions. However, while he does have support from some, many others, ourselves included, feel that he's behaving very disrespectfully. His choice is to hear just enough of what his naysayers have to offer to figure out how best to next twist his story, but not to hear their resounding call to vacate the county and stop interfering in other peoples' business. (Anyone making that call, by the way, can count on not being invited to the big land giveaway after the coup, or probably any parties at the ranch. And we'll probably be kicked out of America.)
More tellingly, he's picky about whose support he accepts of the little he's getting. This is not a guy who's interested in differing opinions, nor likely to take good advice if he gets it, which makes him less than desirable as a leader should he succeed in starting and winning a revolution.
Beyond that, he's a zealot, which brings us back to the FBI's choice to wait these people out. It's not a matter of taking them or the threat they present less-than-seriously at all, but quite the opposite. Storming in guns blazing would indicate that the FBI doesn't believe these guys would shoot back, as would cutting the utilities or refusing the occupiers peaceful entry and exit. Those responses would indicate an ignorance of the difference between angry people and would-be martyrs, and of what some humans are capable of when torn between an earnest belief and what they see as an imperfect reality. The Fed has every reason to believe, most likely correctly, that any perceived aggression on its part will immediately escalate out of control.
On the other hand, given time, even if Mr. Bundy can't justify stepping down off the soapbox of his principles for a moment, many of his supporters will start to consider some of what's being said and the consequences of the actions they're taking and will go home and/or give themselves up. The more people come out intact and alive the better (whether here or in Ferguson or Baltimore or Iraq or wherever else people are holding up as examples of why every incident needs to end in bloodshed if any incident does). Given time, even Mr. Bundy may come to realize that he's doing more harm to his cause than good.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The system isn't perfect, but we have yet to hear Mr. Bundy offer concrete plans for a better one. And just how much of the government does he intend to overthrow? Will it be only the DoI (under the auspices of which the BLM and Fish & Wildlife operate) and USDA (which runs the Forest Service; we wonder if he's aware of that), or is he going to save us from the DOT, the IRS, the SBA, and the SSA as well, just for starters? If he liberates us from all these organizations, does he have plans in place for maintaining food quality and the interstate system, for supporting and overseeing small businesses, and for funding and administering social security programs? Or will he just eliminate all of that, conveniently dumping a million-and-a-half dollars worth of debts held by his family and plunging the American and potentially the world economy into some degree of chaos? Most importantly, will he listen to cogent, reasonable advisers and make studied decisions, or just impose his will on 'the People', as he's currently doing?
It's doubtful that we'll ever know how Mr. Bundy would handle the responsibility of running the nation. (It's as accurate to say that we hope we'll never know.) Of more immediate concern is that this event end with the least possible negative impact all around, and maybe some positive effects. There are changes that need to be made, on all sides - in Mr. Bundy's case as in so many, the power in a cult leader's speech is the truth they sprinkle throughout their rhetoric - but this is not an effective or productive way to make those changes or see them made, and in fact these means bring one to question whether productive change is even in fact Mr. Bundy's real intended end.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
This piece has been edited to reflect that the DoI rather than the USDA operates USFW..
This action in Oregon is a good example of why we say that, and it's the revolutionary nature of the thing that's likely driving the FBI's (apparent but not actual lack of) response. This occupation isn't a spur-of-the-moment protest-turned-riot, a sudden uprising requiring a swift, indubitable, resolute response to bring the violence to a close and get on with productive dialog (if such is to be the case). Instead, this is the fourth premeditated, organized action of its kind by this group since the 2014 Cliven Bundy, Sr. ranch debacle, and its perpetrators aren't merely angry or swept up in a social maelstrom. They're acting in a calculated manner - without, apparently, the ability to see or understand the harm they're causing to those around them - to incite an uprising against the government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
/snark/ An aside, Ammon has gone from saying that native claims to the refuge's area were 'interesting', to plundering their sacred ground, to saying that, in fact, his group is concerned about the way Paiute artifacts are being stored.
We might be tempted to remind him that the original inhabitants of the land were really the animals whose homes he's now destroying and that cattle are not a native specie, just to see what the next version of his story would be. /end snark/
~~~~~~~~~~~~
But in seriousness and more to the point, it's very likely that Mr. Bundy assumes he'll hold a position of authority in whatever brave new world it is he seeks to usher in, unless he truly believes in communism, as does apparently his security officer, Mr. Payne. Or perhaps he intends to bring about anarchy, which is a beautiful concept in principle but only works with populations of people who are willing to be to the greatest degree possible at any given time both self-responsible and self-respecting. If we are both of those things, we'll also take responsibility for others where that's appropriate (which is rarely when a majority of people are taking care of their own business), and we'll respect others - not to be confused with necessarily agreeing with them.
It's this last that's missing in the Oregon occupation. What Mr. Bundy and his crew are demonstrating is arrogance, which bears only the thinnest veneer of resemblance to either healthy pride in oneself or real self-respect. A person who's proud of oneself and who respects oneself has no need to bully or intimidate others, to try to force anyone to bow to their will. A self-respecting person in Mr. Bundy's current situation would surrender himself to proper authorities (not those of his choosing, but those duly tasked by the community at large to deal with his particular crimes), listen to counsel, take his lumps, learn a thing or two, and go home and get himself together so he could be a better man.
It should be said: By the same token, a self-respecting person who finds him- or herself swept up in the energy and excitement of a riot and about to commit or in the midst of committing an act of theft or violence will also stop and take whichever of the same steps outlined above as are appropriate in their given situation.At the base of it, a self-respecting person who finds him- or herself lashing out at or hurting others on any level will stop, take stock, and make course corrections where possible. If each of us takes it upon ourselves to do that in our own lives anarchy will work, as this design leaves room for inevitable human mistakes without supporting or perpetuating unstable long-term patterns. Until such time as we all do that, government - or one can call it 'leadership' if that term is more acceptable - is necessary for successful social groups.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
We believe that Mr. Bundy believes he's respecting himself, his God, his family, and his country in his actions. However, while he does have support from some, many others, ourselves included, feel that he's behaving very disrespectfully. His choice is to hear just enough of what his naysayers have to offer to figure out how best to next twist his story, but not to hear their resounding call to vacate the county and stop interfering in other peoples' business. (Anyone making that call, by the way, can count on not being invited to the big land giveaway after the coup, or probably any parties at the ranch. And we'll probably be kicked out of America.)
More tellingly, he's picky about whose support he accepts of the little he's getting. This is not a guy who's interested in differing opinions, nor likely to take good advice if he gets it, which makes him less than desirable as a leader should he succeed in starting and winning a revolution.
Beyond that, he's a zealot, which brings us back to the FBI's choice to wait these people out. It's not a matter of taking them or the threat they present less-than-seriously at all, but quite the opposite. Storming in guns blazing would indicate that the FBI doesn't believe these guys would shoot back, as would cutting the utilities or refusing the occupiers peaceful entry and exit. Those responses would indicate an ignorance of the difference between angry people and would-be martyrs, and of what some humans are capable of when torn between an earnest belief and what they see as an imperfect reality. The Fed has every reason to believe, most likely correctly, that any perceived aggression on its part will immediately escalate out of control.
On the other hand, given time, even if Mr. Bundy can't justify stepping down off the soapbox of his principles for a moment, many of his supporters will start to consider some of what's being said and the consequences of the actions they're taking and will go home and/or give themselves up. The more people come out intact and alive the better (whether here or in Ferguson or Baltimore or Iraq or wherever else people are holding up as examples of why every incident needs to end in bloodshed if any incident does). Given time, even Mr. Bundy may come to realize that he's doing more harm to his cause than good.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The system isn't perfect, but we have yet to hear Mr. Bundy offer concrete plans for a better one. And just how much of the government does he intend to overthrow? Will it be only the DoI (under the auspices of which the BLM and Fish & Wildlife operate) and USDA (which runs the Forest Service; we wonder if he's aware of that), or is he going to save us from the DOT, the IRS, the SBA, and the SSA as well, just for starters? If he liberates us from all these organizations, does he have plans in place for maintaining food quality and the interstate system, for supporting and overseeing small businesses, and for funding and administering social security programs? Or will he just eliminate all of that, conveniently dumping a million-and-a-half dollars worth of debts held by his family and plunging the American and potentially the world economy into some degree of chaos? Most importantly, will he listen to cogent, reasonable advisers and make studied decisions, or just impose his will on 'the People', as he's currently doing?
It's doubtful that we'll ever know how Mr. Bundy would handle the responsibility of running the nation. (It's as accurate to say that we hope we'll never know.) Of more immediate concern is that this event end with the least possible negative impact all around, and maybe some positive effects. There are changes that need to be made, on all sides - in Mr. Bundy's case as in so many, the power in a cult leader's speech is the truth they sprinkle throughout their rhetoric - but this is not an effective or productive way to make those changes or see them made, and in fact these means bring one to question whether productive change is even in fact Mr. Bundy's real intended end.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
This piece has been edited to reflect that the DoI rather than the USDA operates USFW..
Comments
Post a Comment