Maybe if Cliven Bundy found himself a husband he wouldn't need the government to help take care of his cows.
— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) April 17, 2014
A great deal of the discussion about the Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada has focused on the legal questions — the litigation between Mr. Bundy and the BLM, his eccentric (i.e., batzoid) legal rationales, etc. But as Rich Lowry and others have argued, this is best understood not as a legal proceeding but as an act of civil disobedience. John Hinderaker and Rich both are correct that as a legal question Mr. Bundy is legless. But that is largely beside the point. Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. How could it be otherwise? The law was against Mohandas Gandhi, too, when he was tried for sedition…. Henry David Thoreau was happy to spend his time in jail, knowing that the law was against him, whatever side justice was on.
Let me see if I have this straight…. Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher and anti-government wackjob of little note, has for years grazed his cattle for nothing on BLM range land. Despite frequent legal setbacks, Bundy has continued grazing his cattle on Federal property. Now that the feds are coming down on him, Bundy is fighting for “freedom” in the same way that Gandhi did. And of course, Conservatives and every virtually every bat$#!t crazy Tea Party lunatic has seized on Bundy’s plight as evidence of the federal government persecuting those who dare to stand up to it. Evidently, the rule of law is only consider applicable when you can bend it to your advantage.
I find it interesting that those who would decry the idea of getting something for nothing- if we were talking about a poor single mother trying to obtain birth control- seem to have no problem at all with Bundy’s freeloading. Bundy is in fact getting something for nothing from the government, but because he’s a Conservative who’s been fighting the government, he’s a patriot standing up for liberty. As opposed to the single mother, who’s just looking to suck at the teat of Big Government, whom she’s dependent upon for her slut pills.
I find Kevin Williamson’s “argument” to be nothing if not hypocritical. He asks what to him seems a reasonable question: “Is government our servant, or is it our master?,” without understanding that the range land is not Bundy’s property Government doesn’t exist to serve hypocrites looking to freeload off the American Sheeple. Ergo, by grazing his cattle without paying for it, he’s getting something for nothing- what some might refer to as “stealing.” The BLM range land is owned by the government- an extension of the American Sheeple- which means “not Cliven Bundy.” As a businessman in need of a service, he should be willing to do what any other proud capitalist would do- pay for that service.
Despite what the Right-wing crazies and the conspiracy theorists might have convinced themselves is true, this isn’t about freedom or liberty…or any other Conservative buzzword. It’s really about creating another opportunity for those who hate government (and The Black Guy in the White House ©) to beat their chests and pretend they’re on the side of liberty and freedom.
Prudential measures do not solve questions of principle. So where does that leave us with our judgment of the Nevada insurrection? Perhaps with an understanding that while Mr. Bundy’s stand should not be construed as a general template for civic action, it is nonetheless the case that, in measured doses, a little sedition is an excellent thing.
You can bet that if Bundy was a Liberal, Williamson and the rest of the Conservative cognoscenti would be vilifying Bundy as a freeloading, something-for nothing sluggard dependent upon Big Government- a “taker,” not a “maker.” As a fellow Conservative (i.e- a real American), of course Bundy’s a patriot and freedom fighter…just like Mahatma Gandhi.
Except that Cliven Bundy is nothing like Gandhi; Cliven couldn’t carry Gandhi’s jock…if he’d worn one. Gandhi drove the British Empire out of India without firing a shot. He was intelligent, rational, and committed to nonviolence. Bundy is a freeloading opportunist who believes the generalized Conservative opposition to getting something for nothing only applies to losers and Liberals. Worse, he’s more than happy to use the threat of violence against the government to get what he wants. Bundy’s a freedom fighter in the same way I’m the Queen of England.
If Bundy wants to graze his cattle on BLM range land, he can do what he should have been doing all along- pay for it, which is what “real Americans” do if they run a business. They pay for goods and services they need; it’s a system I like to call “capitalism.” What Bundy’s advocating for is little more than a kleptocracy smothered in balloons, ribbons, and patriotic double-speak.
What’s been happening in Nevada is not an “insurrection,” despite Williamson’s claims to the contrary. It’s a collection of rabble rousers looking to seize on any opportunity to voice their hatred of government and whose understanding of the Constitution is at best questionable and at worst non-existent. They want rights, but they’re unwilling to meet the corresponding responsibilities. That’s not patriotism; that’s hypocrisy.
