For the past couple weeks, standard rhetoric about the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has included the theme that if the occupiers were not white, the occupation already have been ended by force.
That may, unfortunately, be true. Fear and trust levels tilt depending on the physical and ideological resemblance of the protesters to those in charge and those who are watching from a safe distance. If the occupiers were African American, Native American or Muslim, and even if all other factors were the same, considerably more support for an immediate and unmistakable show of force might have been voiced. That is a sad comment on this nation. But to frame that problem as an argument for a more violent response in Oregon rather than tempering the response elsewhere entirely misses the point.
We do not always need to shoot or lob in tear gas. Those who complain bitterly about what is not being done for reasons of race or right-wing politics should be encouraging restraint in more such situations and viewing what is happening at Malheur as progress.
We applaud law enforcement, from the locals on up to the FBI, for not provoking or escalating violence. They know they have the upper hand and can calmly keep it. The occupiers are contained and are digging themselves an ever-deeper hole. If these armed men were occupying a densely populated urban center vs. a remote federal compound, the situation would require different handling. Right now, they present no danger to anyone else.
Force is not always the best demonstration of power. Sometimes standing back, watching and waiting are the most effective tactics for showing who is in control. Lessons learned at Waco and Ruby Ridge can be applied in Oregon, and perhaps eventually they will be applied in other places where, in the recent past, the injudicious use of deadly force has ended lives and widened rifts that may not heal for decades.
What the public really wants is not a massacre at Malheur but a clear showing of the consequences of such insurrections. Millions of people who will be filling out income tax forms in the next several weeks rightly will wonder why Cliven Bundy can get away with not paying his grazing fees and his sons can get away with moving into a federal building. Why are their rights considered more valuable than those of the neighbors who depend on the economic contributions of the wildlife refuge – or will, once the weather warms a little? Those are fair questions, and they suggestion another: Can law enforcement protect what belongs to the public?
There is actually little doubt of that; the question is how. A great deal is going on behind the scenes. It’s difficult to imagine that anything is going on at Malheur that the FBI doesn’t know about, or that numerous scenarios haven’t been considered in minute detail. Various other cases are moving slowly through the judicial system. The perception that nothing is being done is not accurate.
While we share the frustration of all who want faster, more emphatic results, we need to remember that this is not an adventure movie. The protesters want to the government to bolster their reputation as victims. Their talk of martyrdom is cheap; unless they do something incredibly ill-advised, they will be walking into custody unharmed. Sure, we’d like to see the power cut off and the perimeter sealed against more support, and we wince at photos of fences being cut. But let’s not hand a public relations victory to people who are behaving badly.
The official response at Malheur is a firm step in the right direction. No one is endangered; there’s no reason to stop talking and start shooting, just as there is no reason to give in to any of the occupiers’ demands.
