Oregon sheriff meets Ammon Bundy, greets him with handshake not handcuffs https://t.co/okwaZSlmjR pic.twitter.com/WnRPU7C3ZG
— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) January 8, 2016
[S]ocial media and Op-Ed pages of newspapers were inundated with condemnations of white privilege and arguments that the far-right militants would have been violently removed if they were people of color. There is a crucial point missing from many of the liberal hot takes on the Oregon paramilitary occupation, however. In their hyper-emphasis on white privilege, many are depoliticizing the situation. To be clear, these articles are absolutely correct. If the extremists occupying the federal building were not white, they would be attacked. But if they were leftists, even if they were still white, countless historical examples show they would be attacked, too. That is to say, race is certainly a big factor; there is no doubt whatsoever about this. But it is not the sole factor. These aren’t just any white people occupying a federal building; these are right-wing white people occupying a federal building. The U.S. state is much more accommodating and even supportive of the right.
Considerable amounts of ink, column inches, brain cells, and pixels have been expended parsing the Bundy Brigade’s occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in remote southeastern Oregon. Somehow, the (very legitimate and reasonable) question always seems to get asked: Why aren’t the feds and local law enforcement acting to remove the law-breakers? If you look at the federal government’s history in such situations, one learns something unsurprisingly but nonetheless disturbing: In many respects, the U.S. government SUPPORTS what Ammon Bundy’s Gang That Forgot To Bring Snacks are doing. Why? Because much of the federal government is fundamentally deeply Conservative. When you get below the level of elected officials and political appointments and delve into the level of those who implement day-to-day policy, what you find are career politicians, many of whom call the political Right-wing home.
Combine that with most local government and law enforcement agencies in rural areas trending Conservative by nature, and what you get is an environment in which government isn’t really at odd with criminals like Ammon Bundy. In fact, they’re in many respects singing from the same hymnal.
There can be little doubt but that if the wildlife refuge had been taken over by radical leftists who demanded the land be turned over to the working class, the full force and fury of the federal government would have been brought to bear upon those who’d be described by the media and government as “domestic terrorists.” Bundy and his merry band of miscreants are merely “armed protestors,” and their “grievances” are discussed as if they have legitimacy and are worthy of consideration.
Move along, sheeple; no double standard here….
In fact, it bears stressing that much of what the militants are calling for is actually supported by the U.S. state:
- The U.S. government favors privatization, which the armed militants are calling for.
- The U.S. government favors nationalism, which the armed militants flaunt in spades.
- The U.S. government favors constitutionalism, which the armed militants preach like the Bible.
Since the 70s, the federal government has consistently and violently acted against Left-wing groups who taken armed action or looked as if they might. Groups like the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, and MOVE in Phildadelphia, have been infiltrated and/or violently attacked and destroyed by the feds.
Look at the photo of Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward shaking hands with Ammon Bundy…and ask yourself if the same would be happening if the wildlife refuge had been occupied by armed Muslims or Black Lives Matters protestors? While pursuing a nonviolent resolution should almost always be the goal, no reasonable person would believe that Sheriff Ward would be shaking hands with a Muslim or African-American protestor in the same friendly, relaxed manner. The tension would be palpable, in part because the media and the local populace would be demanding that decisive action be undertaken- yesterday.
Like the Black Lives Matter civil rights movement today, these past grass-roots movements led by people of color were violently repressed. But the U.S. government feared these movements not just because it is racist (which it most definitely is, at a structural level), but also because they were calling for a radical change to the right-wing status quo. These movements were not just led by people of color; they were led by people of color who were radical leftists…. [A] brief look at history strongly suggests that, if the armed militants occupying the federal facility in Oregon were white leftists and not white rightists, they would be crushed by the U.S. government.
It’s easy to blame the disparity in reactions on racism- and that’s certainly part of the equation- but doing so ignores the reality that, at a fundamental and structural level, the U.S. government supports Right-wing interests. The feds have no real incentive to react violently against the Bundy Brigade, because their interests are aligned to a very significant degree.
If you find reason to argue with my assertion, I’d ask that you ponder these questions for a moment: How many Tea Party rallies did the feds break up? How many Tea Partiers were arrested? And how many peaceful Occupy Wall Street rallies were attacked by law enforcement? And how many Occupy protestors were arrested and detained?
There are apples-and-oranges aspects to that argument, of course…but the point is sound. Government reaction was fundamentally and significantly different in the case of each group. Tea Party rallies were allowed to proceed unimpeded and peaceful Occupy Wall Street rallies were met with a considerable and forceful response from law enforcement. To think that’s not by design would be to err on the side of naiveté and denial.
[T]he U.S. government consistently clamps down much more heavily on left-wing protesters than it does on right-wing ones.
At the end of the day, the U.S. government does not see right-wing movements — even far-right ones like those led by the Bundy family and his fellow militiamen — as threatening as left-wing ones.
Black Lives Matter has been violently repressed by the government not just because it is a civil rights movement, but also because it has explicit left-wing demands that challenge firmly entrenched institutional powers in a way that right-wing protest movements like the Tea Party do not.
If the U.S. state truly considered the right-wing militants in Oregon a threat, their armed occupation would have ended immediately after it started — by force.
Instead of seeing this double standard simply in terms of white privilege, we should see the U.S. government’s incredibly gracious and accommodating response to the armed occupation of a federal building by right-wing extremists as reflective of not just the U.S. state’s racism, but also its fundamental conservatism.
Yes, this disparity is absolutely about white privilege and institutional racism, but that tells only part of the story. The truth is that at the day-to-day policy implementation level, the U.S. government has a fundamentally Conservative bias, which it makes no attempt to camouflage.
Justice may be blind…but she’s certainly not color or ideologically blind.