Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

tencats

(567 posts)
Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:33 PM Feb 2016

How the Bundys lost control of the story at Malheur

Oregon Standoff: A Clash of Values, Symbols and Stories

A perceptive examination of the recent events at Malheur, highly recommend to all interested to read through.

Ammon and Ryan Bundy started this story by taking over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. “We’ve taken over their fort,” said militiaman LaVoy Finicum, “and it won’t go back to the federal government.”

The Bundys tried to frame the standoff as “salt-of-the-earth ranchers v. tyrannical government.” They leveraged a controversial Oregon rancher’s legal battle to vilify the federal government, writ large. Freedom was their primary core value, wrapped in the secondary value of patriotism.

But Bundy’s critics, led by local residents, conservationists and sportsmen soon re-framed the narrative as “dangerous extremists v. democratic principles.” With plenty of help from the militants’ own missteps, they turned the focus to core values of fairness, democratic due process, community and respect for nature. This new frame more accurately painted the militants as enemies of freedom, not its defenders.

snip

In the larger narrative, the Bundy Bunch themselves became the villains. Heroes were local law enforcement, particularly the Sheriff, local ranchers and members of the Paiute tribe, who forcefully denounced the Bundys. Representatives of the federal government wisely kept a low profile. A heavy-handed display of federal power would have played into the Bundy narrative.

http://www.resource-media.org/oregon-standoff-a-clash-of-values-symbols-and-stories/#.VrodXSm9CWj
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

mercuryblues

(14,537 posts)
2. yuppers
Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:43 PM
Feb 2016

then took gofundme money and spent in on a drinking binge. The stolen valor was the cherry on top of their rag tag team of "give it to me for free or I will shoot" crowd.

They wanted Ruby Ridge, they got "Punked"

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
3. Potential supporters were upset that the takeover was sprung on them without warning
Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:54 PM
Feb 2016

Those who worked with Ammon in planning the initial protest felt betrayed and conned.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
4. When a cowboy hears the call of the Constitution, there's no stopping him!
Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:01 PM
Feb 2016

Or maybe his inlaws were coming to visit and he wanted to be elsewhere.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
5. I know the feeling about the inlaws coming to visit
Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:13 PM
Feb 2016

My devout Catholic inlaws once sent us a portrait of Jesus--with the eyes that follow you around. We literally rolled on the floor laughing. It went into the attic, but when the inlaws were coming to visit we hung it in the living room a week in advance in a vain attempt to get the laughs out of our system.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
6. They lost it when their rationale started hopping around like Peter Cottontail
Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:32 PM
Feb 2016

Remember how this all started as a protest on behalf of the Hammonds about their mandatory minimum sentences for breaking the law? The trial judge abused his discretion in sentencing them to less than the five year minimum, and after a trip to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and back, the court ruled that yes, the law as written means what it says, even for white ranchers.

After the Hammonds went back to prison, the rationale for the Bundy gang started bouncing around: Grazing fees, freedom, government tyranny, uh, freedom and . . . let's see, the liberty to use and abuse public land however we see fit. The rules that have been worked out over decades of use between the government, environmentalists, sports enthusiasts, ranchers, and other interests were deemed by the Bundy gang as of no effect, and they unilaterally demanded that everyone else accede to their whim, and grant their use of the land priority over every other consideration.

The public reacted as it often does to selfish children, and said, "No." This set these spoiled brats off, and they received the due recompense for their illegal actions - criminal charges, arrest, and incarceration awaiting trial. The narrative was never much larger than that. If you want to change the way things are, there are legal and equitable methods available; the Bundy gang either didn't want to do that, or they were dissatisfied that things didn't go their way.

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
8. They destroyed their point with guns, and even Ammon came to realize it
Tue Feb 9, 2016, 03:20 PM
Feb 2016

After Finicum sat out all night with his rifle, Ammon concluded that they were being portrayed as too militant, so he had everyone put the long guns away.

Finicum seemed to admire Ammon's intelligence and was especially loyal to him. When the Pacific Patriot militias first arrived, before they were turned away by Ammon, it was Finicum who told them to put their long guns away.

That was all too late, of course. By then everyone knew that it was not peaceful civil disobedience, it was an armed takeover.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How the Bundys lost contr...