Pondering in the aftermath of Malheur

There is a curious silence now in the wake of the closing chapter of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge incident in Oregon. For both those who either supported the stated objectives of the armed occupiers or saw it as insurrection based in lawlessness, there is a collective pondering in the aftermath of Malheur of just what happened and perhaps what the significance of it was, if any.

And were anyone on either side of that paradigm to be intellectually honest, it would have to be agreed upon that in many ways there are legitimate concerns from both, radical as some may or may not be.

For the part with which I may concur with some of the people who made the brazen stands at Bunkerville, Blanding, and Malheur, I am of the notion that our government at present has lost sight of the impermeable truths laid forth in the most prolific documents ever written with regards to human governance in society.

From the highest levels of federal government to the lowest of local municipal courts, a notable semblance of concerns for the input of corporations over that of the people’s interests has gained a strong foothold, one that seems to be growing ever in veracity, each day taking larger steps towards the eradication of civil liberties as we once knew them.

But at the same time, I cannot help but think that when Ammon, Ryan, and Cliven Bundy, along with the mixed bag of quasi-radical and ill-informed middle-aged radicals touted the words, “We the people,” they surely did not have me or anyone who disagreed with them in mind.

This is the crux of the failure of their message.

If and when anyone had the opportunity to affect or assert reason to the claims of the land-and-liberty bunch, they were shunned immediately and labeled bootlickers, people who clearly did not see that their blind servitude to the government had reached brainwashed proportions and whose input was not worthy of consideration. 

How in fact do you argue with people who have meticulously constructed an imaginary paradigm out of loose interpretations of their understanding of law?

The groupthink that took hold in this group was salable. And while much of their of government overarch resonated with people, the outright unwillingness to consider opposite or even merely objective points of view, in my opinion, was their demise.

It cannot be overemphasized that in any movement the importance of an objective is imperative to the integrity of its message. Otherwise, much like the frenzied cumulative behavior of the prepubescent boys of “Lord of the Flies,” suffrage and perhaps death of innocents will be the collateral damage.

This was an important happening in the lexicon of history of the American West and its continued struggle for its relevance in our nation. What exactly it was important to may remain to be seen.

See you out there.