Politically Motivated Bad Behavior

Bad behavior is routinely accepted — to a degree. Rudeness, bullying, and intimidation — to the point of an armed showdown with authorities — is where many draw the line of civility while others argue that this type of uncivil “disobedience” has become a necessity.

by Amelia Templeton OPB

by Amelia Templeton OPB

Are actions without regard to how they affect others really what the People must now do to lobby for change?

Currently, the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge appears to be almost over. But, this type of fighting over hotly contested political issues will more than likely go on like it has in the past — politically motivated but without party affiliation.

“The right has no monopoly on the kind of people who’ll justify violence or extremism based on what they think are infallible beliefs.”

This time the confrontation with the government of the People began over land rights and mandatory minimum sentencing policies. Other times, as reporter Rocky Barker explained, “I saw environmental activists hound foresters and range conservationists” and “it wasn’t long ago that ecoterrorism was the big fear…”

“What makes the harassment, threats, intimidation, bullying and disrespect worse is that it happens routinely around the West.”

It’s happening routinely around the world!

In Barker’s article, he went on to elaborate on the fact that congress and the executive branch are the ones making and executing the laws while federal employees are the ones on the front lines taking the heat when heated disputes arise over public policies.

What creates “the heat”? Friction.

indexWhen we have two opposing views and the sides are unwilling or unable to make an honest attempt to listen to, clearly see, and do their very best to understand the opposing point of view, compromise becomes impossible. Frustration results. Absolutism rubs people the wrong way… creating friction.

Eventually, frustration results in bad behavior. That said, there is no excusing disobedience that crosses the line to terrorism. But there is good reason for all of us to try to comprehend why we continue to see acts of violence perpetuated by frustrated individuals.

We need to look more closely for the root cause of the frustration in this country over public policies.

As Alexis de Tocqueville, the French aristocrat who came to America in the early 1800’s to see our great republic, observed…

“Americans frequently change the laws, but the foundation of the Constitution is respected.”

He warned…

“I think that in changing their administrative processes as often as they do, the inhabitants of the United States compromise the future of republican government.

Constantly hindered in their projects by the continuous volatility of legislation, it is feared that men will in the end consider the republic as an inconvenient way of living in society; the evil resulting from the instability of secondary laws would then put the existence of fundamental laws in question, and would indirectly bring a revolution…”

He also predicted that we would move rapidly into despotism — ruled by absolutism. Have we arrived at that point in time?

Political revolution, by definition, is a fundamental change in a political organization. In the 1800’s, Americans frequently changed the laws? Now? I don’t think so. I think the laws are being changed on us, not by us. In the 1800’s, the foundation of the Constitution was respected? Now? I think the foundation is being ignored, eroded, and misconstrued.

But, this is the political season of seasons. There is no better time than now to ask our representatives and potential representatives to step up to the front lines and explain what they see as the foundation of our country.

My personal views on federal lands, the Constitution, and the tactics it takes to be heard are in opposition to the armed occupiers of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, but, I would also hope something good could still come out of this disastrous, misguided attempt at “civil” disobedience.

The people of Burns should be heard.

Waitress Linda Gainer “is one of many people who say the occupation has torn her community apart. Gainer has fed nearly everyone involved with the standoff: occupiers, FBI agents, journalists, visiting environmentalists and others, but has received criticism for permitting the occupiers to buy food from her cafe.”

“People say that we’re unpatriotic, we’re terrorists,” she said. “You shouldn’t go around and say nasty things about people just because you don’t agree on something.”

Another view:

The Malheur occupation has broken down that spirit of cooperation, said Vanessa Leathers-King, 33, whose great-great grandfather was the first in her family to ranch in the county. She divided the community into three groups: Bundy allies, federal government allies, and a lot of people who identify a bit with both — like her.

“I believe there is a lot of government overreach that is affecting this way of life, affecting small towns,” Leathers-King said. “The part I don’t agree with is taking illegal action to change it.”

Even so, she feels her neighbors have labeled her an occupation supporter, and she pulled her son out of school after students bullied him for being a “Bundy-lover.”

We’ve all heard the old saying that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” but we don’t seem to be able to recognize the destructive nature of absolutism itself — in each of us.
In the case of this armed occupation, one dead so far. One community divided. The total damage? Unknown. The chance for something good to come out of this—up to us.images

Standoff Over Land Rights: Sensationalism Without Substance

The armed take-over of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has permeated the national media sensationalizing a story without providing substance to the debates we should be having. And when opinions feed the sensationalism without adding substance to the conversation we should be having, the public is not well served.

My U.S. House Representative, Raul Labrador, is a master at capitalizing on sensationalism without adding much substantial information to back his remarks.663Ranching Standoff

He criticized those who were calling the occupiers such as things as “Vanilla ISIS” by calling those people “demeaning liberals.” And those that objected to Representative Labrador calling the action an act of civil disobedience, he called “liberal hacks.” Isn’t his choice of words to print in the paper rather demeaning themselves? Or, has this type of political rhetoric become acceptable from a politician? Are his words meant to incite emotion while avoiding what the topic of discussion should be—the substance of the debate?

Labrador did bring forward two issues —land management and mandatory minimum sentencing— and he tossed in a few facts but not nearly enough. For a lawmaker, and the citizens that should influence decisions, much more should be considered.

federal_landsYes, large percentages of land here in the west are owned and managed by the federal government. But what are the facts behind the accusation that the land is inadequately managed and, if that accusation is true, is the inadequacy due to cuts in federal funding for adequate management? That’s a conversation the public and lawmakers aren’t hearing.

And for Mr. Labrador to compare the land burned by the men at the center of this dispute (160,000 acres) to a naturally occurring fire under drought conditions in a mainly sage brush terrain (Soda Fire burned 284,000) is without a doubt sensationalizing the issue….this ongoing issue.

WHAT EFFORTS ARE STATES MAKING TO CONTROL FEDERAL LAND?

State lawmakers, notably in Utah and Idaho, have sought a legal way to take control of federal land. However, Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden has said the state’s constitution gave up claims to the land when Idaho joined the union.

Congress has the authority to turn over federal land to the states, but efforts to pass such a law have failed so far.

What the country needs to be made aware of is that they own large swaths of the west. The country should consider how they would like that land managed. This is what we know about how voters in the west feel…coloradocollege-816x352In Idaho, there is ongoing debate about the ability of our state to mange the land effectively enough to avoid having to turn around and sell chunks of it on the open private market. Private land sales are out of public control. That’s a fact. Once federal lands are sold, it’s hard to image there will be any turning back.Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 3.39.29 PM

“As long as (the Wilks brothers) pay their taxes, I’m not worried,” Commission Chairman Jim Chmelik said.

Is money all that matters?

Where I agree my current House representative is on mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Reform is needed. Good point.

But the management of federal lands and the idea that states and the people who have used these federal lands own them, and should have them back, requires an in-depth, fact-based debate, not sensationalism that further divides us.

When and where is open substantive debate going to happen?