In defense of Cliven Bundy

The Bundy family’s claim that their 19th-century settlement on the land will always secure grazing and water rights, as promised by the government in the past, looks to be withheld for now.

The Bureau of Land Management’s echoing failure to forcibly confiscate Cliven Bundy’s property earlier this month in Nevada disgruntled many in the government championing leftist community.

Some of the reactions from those who oppose Bundy’s efforts have been analogous to those observed from people who cannot accept that their favorite boxer or mixed martial arts fighter just got KO’d by the underdog.

The dramatic confrontation between civilians and mighty federal agents that resulted in their contemporary retreat has many so-called liberals scrambling for any arguments against this patriotic protest for property rights.

Similar to how liberal media outlets like MSNBC selectively diagnose cases of interracial violence as racist acts to demonize whites, MSNBC has selectively played on the alleged million-dollar tax debt to criticize Bundy.

As someone familiar with the left’s welcoming attitude towards millions of undocumented immigrants, excessive welfare and recognizing tax-evading, multi-billion dollar companies like Google and the NFL, I find it incredibly inconsistent to portray one family refusing to pay taxes as epic freeloaders.

Others distract themselves with race politics, obsessing over Bundy’s racial remarks or believing that the light-colored skin of most people involved is the primary reason for the movement’s popularity and growing support among conservatives, not the human strive for liberty.

Another example of desperate criticism against Bundy’s protest arises from the display of their Second Amendment right.

This is finely summed up by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and his inane public statement April 17 in which he told his audience that Bundy and his hundreds of supporters “are nothing more than domestic terrorists.”

Guns do not inherently indicate violence or contempt. Bundy and his supporters had every right to arm themselves and mirror the federal guns that were drawn at them.
Additionally, it’s ironic that a politician would make such an insulting remark when the White House has openly contemplated equipping real terrorist groups in Syria with stinger missiles just last week.

Bundy might be violating the law, but it can be argued equally that the federal land grab is unjust and shouldn’t be complied with. The fact that laws can be tools of oppression becomes less ignorable considering the law-breaking and dishonest nature of our current government itself.

When all it takes is a quick stroke of a pen to change policies denying people their property rights, I can’t help but agree with former congressman Ron Paul that this situation is a symptom of growing American authoritarianism.

Even if the Bundys are kicked off their land someday soon, the example they launched of peacefully resisting and not readily submitting to questionable acts of authority will never be erased.

It is an example we should follow as Americans if the bureaucrats show up at our door next.

edharo@indiana.edu
@EdHarodude