Waco: Two Metaphors of America

By guest columnist Al Rodbell

The first time most Americans heard of this small city in Texas was in 1993, when a compound of a fringe messianic religion, "Branch Davidians", was located there. The standoff, where the "messiah" David Koresh faced off with local, then the federal, authorities ended in what is largely seen as a travesty of governmental authority which caused the death of scores of innocent people.

Last week, twenty two years later, there was another bloodbath in Waco; this one also pitted government police power (a concept encompassing all use of force, from local police to national guard) that used such authorized lawful violence against another fringe group. David Koresh developed his cult under the expanded right of the First Amendment freedom of religion, while motorcycle gangs are protected under the expansive interpretation of freedom of speech — that we may associate with whomever we please unless there are very specific unlawful activities that must be proved by due process.

Waco 1993 demonstrated the excesses of government force; Waco 2015 showed why government must have power, ultimate power at times,
1993's 51-day siege ended in 76 deaths
which includes limiting of activities and enforcement using force against citizens — the very same quality of violence that was misused in Waco 1993.

Use of Government force is rarely as clearly justified as it was last week. It is often to merely assert the legitimacy of government, ours in the U.S. that is predicated on democratic ideals (and some degree of practice) tempered by a Constitution that embodies principles beyond a single moment in time. A year ago this power of government faced off with an armed group, headed by rancher Cliven Bundy, that denied the the right of the U.S. government to claim ownership of part of the vast land that was not private property — grazing land in what became the State of Nevada — but was part of the Western Frontier. One rancher refused to acknowledge this and pay a fee to the federal government and challenged the U.S. to make him pay. In this case, the U.S. chose not to accept the challenge, and by doing so indicated that the claim to authority is limited by any organized group that is willing to call the government's bluff.

Waco 1993 was something like this, but with a very different outcome. The government, under the guise of it's inherent police power that is legitimized by due process, used force against those in a peaceful private facility, burning dozens of men women and children alive. The outrage by some who have a propensity to find the current system oppressive anyhow was the motivating force for a counterattack. It was in the form of blowing up a major Federal Building in Oklahoma city on the anniversary of Waco 1993, once again with the death of large numbers of innocents.

Most would agree that the use of authorized police power is appropriate against motorcycle gangs who intimidate and kill, gaining power in the illegal drug trade in association with the most violent Mexican cartels. Last week's melee resulted in nine of the men shot dead by police and close to 200 are being charged with murder.

There is another dynamic to this story. For the last year there has been a nationwide movement under the title #blackLivesMatter that stems from the bias among some police agencies against African-American young men. One result of this, the degree of legitimacy I will not address in this essay, is to cast aspersion against all local police forces, painting with a very broad brush. Whether this will result in an improvement of policing or further exacerbating our political divide is an open question at this time.

"Waco" now represents both sides of major divide anchored on one end by the term "police state", and the other by "law enforcement". In reality there are excesses in all aspects of government. The law profession does provide for disproportionate protection of the wealthy accused of civil or criminal actions, in this respect thwarting the will of the people and elected representatives. Yet, it is a profession that is integral to maintaining and defining that elusive concept of "due process". Lawyers are not charged with inserting themselves into settings where their lives are in danger, as are sworn police officers. Lawyers do not carry weapons yet their activities can destroy lives by excessive prosecution just as frequently as those in blue uniforms.

"Waco" — both versions separated by almost a quarter century — should be part of the national discussion of creating a lawful society. We need police, just as we need a legal profession, with the caveat that the professions serve the larger society. Each group by the very nature of things will attempt to isolate themselves from legitimate criticisms that could lead to lessening their own benefits. Only an active, but open-minded citizenry can ensure that all of our segments of law enforcement serve our society. The challenge is ongoing.

                       Al's commentary can be found at AlRodbell.com.

Please subscribe if you haven't, or post a comment below about this article, or click here to go to our front page.