Bill Tallen

Can’t see the forest for the trees” traditionally describes someone who cannot understand the situation as a whole because he’s too focused on the details. One remedy is described in a French expression from 200 and some years ago, back when they were winning wars against half the world: “coup d’oeil,” (literally “strike of the eye”), the ability to see the key factors of a situation at a glance. The meaning of a thing stands out, the best course of action is clear, and the details can be sorted out later. Be cautious, though: This requires a discerning eye, relevant experience and training.

Another useful idiom comes from the world of spooks and intelligence analysts: “the first report is always wrong.” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, whose background is not in law enforcement, intelligence or the military, did not follow that advice recently when she spoke to the press too soon about the most recent protestor fatality in Minneapolis, no doubt uncritically repeating unconfirmed first reports from subordinates. She probably won’t make that mistake again. However, as Napoleon memorably put it, “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”

When hasty first reports or impressions lead to faulty conclusions or bad choices, we fall back on confirmation bias — crediting only evidence, information and arguments that confirm our pre-existing beliefs and values. We each see the world through the lens of our own experience, but too often it’s mismatched experience or inapplicable memories that don’t resemble the situation at hand. We only see what we’re looking for, or what we are comfortable with, and we don’t know what we don’t know. Then there’s just plain, willful ignorance: We criticize the actions of a pilot (although we’ve never flown an airplane) or a cop or soldier (though we’ve never been one).

I won’t dive into the details of the recent events in Minneapolis. Plenty of smart, experienced people have taken that dive and it behooves us to read and listen widely and not just jump to a conclusion that suits our preconceived notions and values. In the interest of transparency, my opinion, after days of watching listening, and applying my own training and experience, is that the two recent fatalities among “protestors” in Minneapolis were both awful, and lawful. Fatalities are always tragic, whether justifiable, excusable or malevolent, in a nation at peace under the rule of law. Let’s stop arguing about freeze-frame minutiae and wait for the investigative and legal processes to play out.

What’s more important for us right now is to look at the big picture, which shows us the height of the cliff we are rolling toward. In time, one hopes, to apply the brakes.

This is not really about illegal immigration. In his two terms as president, Barack Obama deported over 3 million illegal aliens, and 56 of them died in the process, through neglect and lack of care in the detention camps where they were held. There were no fatalities among protestors, because there were no protests, and very little outrage, which goes to show you the opportunism and callousness of the political left. Its ideological core, and its dark money, show an endless supply of tolerance for one of their own, and an endless supply of hatred for their political foes, and no shame over the inconsistency. Back then it was all about the “fundamental transformation of America” but now that a counter-revolution has reversed the tide, they’ll incite and exploit anything to galvanize opinion against the current administration; to sow chaos and division. That’s what they’re good at.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s incitement and support for unlawful forms of protest against federal law enforcement in Minneapolis has been widely interpreted as an attempt to divert attention from his likely indictment on charges related to the massive, years-long fraud conducted by illegal aliens in his state. 

Last week's remarks were worse. Walz said that he had told the president and border czar Tom Homan to withdraw ICE from Minnesota. If they won’t do that, Walz asked, “is this a Fort Sumter?” That of course was where South Carolina militiaman Edmund Ruffin got tired of politics (“It’s when politics fail that the swords come out and homes burn,” said a wise man) and without orders fired the first cannon shot at Fort Sumter, triggering the American Civil War. Then Walz invoked John Brown, the abolitionist whose armed takeover of a federal armory at Harper’s Ferry in 1859 was an earlier precursor of that war. Remarks like those are not helpful at this point. 

That’s the forest we’re in; and on the far side of it is the edge of a high cliff. Let’s slow this roll.