What's the Matter with Oregon?

 

I'm feeling conflicted about the takeover of federal land in Oregon. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which I respect, says there are a whole lot more so-called "militia" groups out there ready to cause an insurrection if we let them, so the feds need to crack down.

“We believe these armed extremists have been emboldened by what they saw as a clear victory at the Cliven Bundy ranch and the fact that no one was held accountable for taking up arms against agents of the federal government,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project.

And many people have pointed out the huge difference between the way the forces of law and order have treated these armed rebels--ignored them, even when they are occupying federal land--and the way they treat mainly peaceful protesters in Missouri, or at the Mall of America...or even teens carrying toy guns. I pointed out the difference myself:

Dennis Fischman

January 3 at 7:53am ·

These people have a wholly fictitious idea of what's in the Constitution, and they have been in open rebellion against the U.S. government for years, and they're alive, well, and armed. Because they're white.

(And I would add, they're Christian, not Muslim.)

A Threat, or a Joke?

Without denying the racism, Albert Bumeko over on Deadspin writes that these so-called militias are not a well-organized threat--just a bunch of idiots with guns.

These men are not frightening. They are jamokes. They are exactly jamokes. Their guns, on the other hand, are very frightening—for precisely and entirely the same reason and to absolutely the same degree that those same guns would be frightening in the hands of toddlers.

(And all the people lampooning them as #Y'allQaeda and making fun of them for not planning their occupation well enough to feed themselves would presumably agree.)

The Danger of Action Before Understanding

Chris Faraone, an independent journalist published on DigBoston, has been writing about these groups for a long time, and he says the situation is much more complex. True, the occupiers are the gang that couldn't shoot straight, and even local people who agree with their positions disagree with their tactics.

But that's partly the point. There are people who agree with their positions about federal government arrogance in managing public lands. They could be completely wrong, but here on the East Coast, we'll never know--because nobody is talking to them.

I have a new perspective on occupation of federal land since visiting Alcatraz last month. Apparently while I was busy studying for my bar mitzvah, American Indians occupied Alcatraz for a year and a half before the Nixon Administration finally moved them out. That gives me pause. 

The Nixon Administration left the occupiers in place, for nineteen months, and after three days, my liberal friends are shouting for the use of force? What's wrong with this picture?

Please tell me what you think!

And more important, how you think about the action. How do you separate fact from fiction? What are the issues worth considering and what are the distractions, and why?

P.S. I find it bitterly ironic that this occupation has taken root in a wildlife refuge called Malheur. "Malheur" is French for "unhappy misfortune." Whether this event is a bizarre one-off or a harbinger of things to come, it shows what a terrible situation the United States is in these days. I fear for my old age, and for the next generation.

You Probably Think This Report is about You

Are they so vain? Or are "conservatives" like Michelle Malkin decrying the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Rightwing Extremism Report because, despite the fact that it doesn't once use the word "conservative," the report hits too close to home?

According to The Nation (June 8):

The nine-page report was a routine threat assessment issued to law enforcement and counterterrorism officalis that warned of the potential for a raise in homegrown terrorism. It concluded that the combination of an economic downturn and the election of the first African-American president [sic] could cultivate a right-wing "resurgence in radicalization and recruitment," including among disgruntled veterans.

Specifically, as summarized by ThinkProgress:

Anti-immigration: “Rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.”

Recruiting returning vets: “Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”

Gun-related violence: “Heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms...may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.”

This is specific and (to anyone who remembers the Oklahoma City bombing) highly credible information. It does not bear the stigmata of ideological bias: "DHS had released a similar report on left-wing extremists a few months earlier." Anyway, who ever accused DHS of being a nest of leftists? Some attention to reality here, please!

It makes me wonder what conservative commentators are thinking when they hear "rightwing extremist" and think it applies to themselves. If they are identifying with the white nationalists and the militia movements, what does that say about so-called mainstream conservatives?