Sowing Conflict

The second amendment establishes militias so states can resist tyranny -- especially that of an overzealous federal government. The Governor of the state of Oregon wants federal forces to leave. The state legislature has not asked for federal troops. The Oregon courts have placed limits on use of force for Portland police, and federal forces appear to disregard these limits.

If every branch of state government wants federal forces to de-escalate, and the US congress has not authorized deployment of federal forces to Oregon, it seems federal activities are dangerously close to being an invasion. If such was the case, wouldn't the Governor be obliged to use the state militia to resist federal encroachment? Fortunately, Governor Brown has been much more measured in her response...but have we really come to this? Do we have no peaceful means available to respond to protests against police misconduct? 

Vandalism and arson are crimes, and I believe they should have no part in these protests. But if any one thing seems likely to increase tension and violent confrontation, it is the presence of federal troops in body armor carrying crowd-control munitions.

We rightly laud the bravery of unarmed civil rights marchers in the 60s who suffered direct physical violence to show the rightness of their cause. If federal presence in Portland has the goal of protecting federal buildings, perhaps the most effective -- and least escalating -- means of doing so would be for unarmed federal agents to form a ring around the buildings. And maybe talk to the protestors. That would be brave. And probably very effective.

But if the presence of military-style federal forces is just more political theater designed to enrage and divide us...that is entirely different. If our leaders only know how to sow conflict, then we might just need to stop looking to them for guidance, and instead look to each other to recognize our shared humanity.