Posted on 04/16/2014 9:56:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The righteous indignation burns a little brighter on this side of the Atlantic than it does in Europe and beyond — the United States, per Fitzgerald, “having about it still that quality of the idea.” Forged in revolution, informed by soaring sentiment, and defined by acts of variously prudent dissidence, Americans of all sorts fancy themselves to be fighting the good fight. Judging by the rapturous reception that he has received from conservatives of late, Cliven Bundy is one of these sorts, and protests such as his, it seems, are how the West was won. After a longtime dispute with the federal government, the rebellious cattle rancher has forced the government to back down. Hooray?
Not quite, no. Sympathetic as I am to his plight — and quietly thrilled, too, by anyone standing up to the state’s endless overreach — I fear that Bundy’s champions are rather mixing up their issues. There is a veritable mountain of ugly, dangerous, and indulgent law in this country — so much, indeed, that anyone seeking seriously to diminish it will need a lawnmower rather than a paring knife. And, as we learned at Waco, where Leviathan goes, trouble will inexorably follow. Certainly, Bundy’s predicament is the product of an unlovely changing of the guard — of our statesmen having managed to transmute the unmistakable shouts of “liberty or death” into the convoluted edicts of power, and to substitute soaring charters of rights and untrammeled expressions of individual sovereignty with memorandums and edicts that determine the extent to which ranchers may encroach upon tortoises. Certainly, too, Bundy’s story is that of a family that has raised cattle in the West since before the automobile was invented being turned into a grotesque social experiment. Nevertheless, as one of the better of those statesmen once said, this is a nation with a “government of laws and not of men” — and not the other way around — and it seems to me that this principle should not be considered null and void because one of those men happens to have an agreeable tale, a photogenic complaint, and a romantic genealogical past.
History teaches us that, in all cases of rebellion, the final arbiter is success — a standard that, as a matter of raw fact, has some merit. Still, History is wrong to glue success and virtue together as if they were inextricable. George Washington is a man I admire greatly, and, in his fight against the British at least, he and his contemporaries had the distinct and happy advantage of being right. But had the signatories to the Declaration paid for their treason with their sacred honor — as they were greatly worried that they might — would they have been rendered as fools by their loss? Or would they have been a group of men who got the morals right but the fighting wrong? Likewise, if Bundy had lost in his altercation with the feds, would that have made his cause any less noble? I rather think not.
Which is to say that the stirring defenses of Bundy to which both Powerline’s John Hinderaker and National Review’s own Kevin D. Williamson have committed this week are all well and good, but that they ultimately conflate two questions that no ordered republic can have conflated for too long. Hinderaker rightly contends that the federal government has “squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze” — the effect of which “has been to drive the ranchers out of business”; that, preposterously, “the federal government owns more than 80 percent of the state of Nevada,” a number common in many Western states; and that, ultimately, “Cliven Bundy is just one more victim of progress and changing mores.” These grievances serve as an indictment of the regulatory state, yes. But they do not serve as an executioner for our ailing rule of law. If Cliven Bundy’s behavior is legitimized by the gravity of his circumstances, how many others may follow suit, singing his name as they go?
Hinderaker concedes at the outset that “legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on,” that Bundy’s claim that the federal government does not own the land is flagrantly incorrect, and that Bundy has been relegated to defending himself because “no lawyer could make that argument.” (I’d quibble with the last point, but perhaps we know different lawyers.) Then he suggests that Bundy didn’t have a chance in the “age of Obama.” This is a strange claim to make. The rule of law, as my editor Rich Lowry noted yesterday morning, has been extolled by presidents for centuries if not millennia, among them Abraham Lincoln, who hoped that “reverence for the laws” would “become the political religion of the nation” and that “the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions,” would “sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.” Are we really to believe that the government’s backing up its rules with force is unique to Obama? And why would we imagine that Bundy would have a chance if he doesn’t have a case?
That there is a point beyond which the state may not advance without expecting legitimate pushback is acknowledged by even the most committed of the state’s enablers. Indeed, this principle is baked into America’s instruction manual — albeit with a caveat. “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive,” the Declaration reads, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” But it also chides the hotheaded among us, inviting us to remember that “prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes.” As far as we know, Bundy is not set on starting a revolution. (Although any shots fired would, certainly, have been heard around the world.) But then he isn’t set on civil disobedience as we understand it, either. There is a compact that governs disobedience, and it might be said to follow an old Spanish proverb: “Take what you want but pay for it.” Bundy did not ready himself for prison in order to make a point, but hoped that his obstinacy would lead to a direct change in policy with no consequences to himself. He wished, in other words, to win — nothing more, nothing less. That, in a vacuum, his winning looks good to limited-government types such as myself remains beside the point. If he can opt out, who cannot?
Setting out to make “the case for a little sedition,” my colleague Kevin Williamson ended up making a whole lot more, relying for his rhetorical firepower on wholesale revolutionaries Mohandas Gandhi and George Washington — men, lest you forget, who succeeded in bringing down the existing order in its entirety. “Mr. Bundy’s stand should not be construed as a general template for civic action,” Williamson writes, thereby demonstrating the problem rather neatly: When you change the government, you do not need to worry about setting a precedent; when you merely disobey it, you are setting yourself above a system that remains in force. Respectfully, I would venture that Williamson is here suggesting that he is to be the arbiter of legitimate rebellion — a peculiar position for a libertarian concerned with the integrity of the political process to adopt.
When can one refuse to obey the law without expecting to bring the whole thing down? Certainly such instances exist: I daresay that I would not stand idly by quoting John Adams if a state reintroduced slavery or herded a religious group into ovens or even indulged in wholesale gun confiscation. But Bundy’s case is not remotely approaching these thresholds. Are we to presume that if the government is destroying one’s livelihood or breaking one’s ties with the past, one can revolt? If so, one suspects that half the country would march on Washington, with scimitars drawn, and that West Virginia would invade the Environmental Protection Agency.
Speaking in 1838, Abraham Lincoln argued,
When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made. — I mean to say no such thing.
Nor I. As government expands and civil society retreats, bad laws pile atop bad laws, and the cause for dissent is magnified and deepened. Cliven Bundy has been dealt a raw hand by a system that is deaf to his grievances and ham-fisted in its response. But this is a republic, dammit — and those who hope to keep it cannot pick and choose the provisions with which they are willing to deign to comply.
— Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review.
Bingo!!
Are we to presume that if the government is destroying one’s livelihood or breaking one’s ties with the past, one can revolt? If so, one suspects that half the country would march on Washington, with scimitars drawn, and that West Virginia would invade the Environmental Protection Agency.
Why would we not presume that. Just because the government has wronged many and there are an abundance of injustices, is not reason to continue expanding the injustices. At what point our we to prostrate our selves before the government. Our livelihood, our land, our families, our very lives? Are we citizens of a Republic or serfs?
As Henry David Thoreau said: Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.
As government expands and civil society retreats, bad laws pile atop bad laws, and the cause for dissent is magnified and deepened. Cliven Bundy has been dealt a raw hand by a system that is deaf to his grievances and ham-fisted in its response. But this is a republic, dammit — and those who hope to keep it cannot pick and choose the provisions with which they are willing to deign to comply.
We are no longer a Republic. Ask yourself this. Just whose head are we going to roll over this? We seem to be lacking any representative we can hold responsible for so many grievous violation of our God given rights. The representatives we do have are becoming more and more a ruling aristocracy of men of wealth and years of learning law behind them. They bear no connection or resemblance to the average citizen and thus can at best only pretend to truly represent us.
We do not owe an allegiance to the massive bureaucracy of the federal government simply because it exists. Yes we are supposed to be a Republic, but darn it sometimes right and wrong are more important that law!
I'll borrow from Thoreau again: The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw...
Was the stamp act merely “ham fisted”?
We the people have the responsibility to refuse to obey unjust laws.
Well let’s see. In the 50’s and before, there were “JIM CROW” laws all over the country, but mainly in the south. MLK fought against that kind of laws, and won. Now Bundy sees that these BLM laws are “ILLEGAL”. Yep it’s the law, but it’s an ILLEGAL law. and he is fighting to get rid of it. So, who’s to say that what he’s doing isn’t the same thing as what MLK did in the 60’s?
“Nobody likes to see the massive power of a federal agency targeting an individual citizen. But there aren’t any good guys in this, just one who is less bad than the other. Hell yes the government overreacted. But Bundy also broke the law. The courts have ruled against him at every stage. And at the end of the day the government will continue to pursue it and he’s going to lose his land and his business through less visually attention grapping means.”
Yep. The Feds stood down because the blowback from a shootout would have been a nightmare.
Somebody higher up the food chain had the good sense to realize that you don’t need a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.
I expect the Fed will now pursue less spectacular methods and I expect they’ll win in the end.
I think it is exactly the same thing.
National Review has become more and more a disappointment. War hawks and RINOs.
“Too many people think they get to be judge for a day whenever they want.
I tried reading up on the issue with Bundy to see how far up the court system it went, but almost everything presented so far on FR is just confusing dreck focusing on ‘the infamous they’, instead of the legal merits of the case from both sides.”
Well said. I’m not a lawyer and my guess is neither are most of the folks holding forth with a legal opinion.
I am married to a lawyer and when I asked Mrs Snarky Bob what her thoughts on this case were she said “The application of law is different than the statement of law”
She then said that laws involving public land and water rights are complex enough that she had no opinion because she didn’t really know the facts of the case.
Well said. I’m not a lawyer and my guess is neither are most of the folks holding forth with a legal opinion.
I am married to a lawyer and when I asked Mrs Snarky Bob what her thoughts on this case were she said “The application of law is different than the statement of law”
She then said that laws involving public land and water rights are complex enough that she had no opinion because she didn’t really know the facts of the case.
And yet the folks in Washington crank out new regulations and laws that no one can interpret all day long.
“I have wondered for a long time what business a Republic that is supposed to represent the will of the people has passing laws no one can comprehend.
And yet the folks in Washington crank out new regulations and laws that no one can interpret all day long. “
I believe that’s because The application of law is different than the statement of law.
A law gets passed, then amended or changed as circumstances change.
It’s not just DC that churns out laws. Every governing body with the power to do so writes laws.
Like a lot of things the actual reality of law is a lot messier than the theory of law.
“Nevada grazing law says that Bundy, by historic use, has a grazing easement on the land, regardless of who owns the dirt.”
You do have a point.
Hubby and I bought a piece of land (about 4.25 acres) ten years ago. At the signing, we found out that 0.25 acres of that land was an easement for two other properties.
We had to maintain the road for their use, couldn’t fence it, and had no right to keep them off of it. They had rights to drive it first.
How do you get infallible from:
“and I don’t mean agreeing with it I mean by abiding with it and seeking change from within.” — me.
That wasn’t the goal of the Founding Fathers. Their goal was to put a check on that very sort of thing happening.
Remember Tacitus’ words? “Laws were most numerous when the state was most corrupt.” No state is eternal, especially when being attacked from within. The Founding Fathers learned from history; leftists unilaterally reject history.
“That wasn’t the goal of the Founding Fathers. Their goal was to put a check on that very sort of thing happening.”
Except it id happen. The country changed, society changed.
I was speaking of the current reality. Not how things ought to be.
If the Founding Fathers laid down on the job in response to their day’s reality, there would have been no United States. Great men shape reality rather than succumb to it.
“If the Founding Fathers laid down on the job in response to their day’s reality, there would have been no United States. Great men shape reality rather than succumb to it.”
I agree, but great men also work with the realities of what they have.
This isn’t 1776, none of the parties involved in this are pure as driven snow and the laws in question are complex and not easily resolved by a couple of paragraphs copied and pasted on an internet forum.
I understand that emotions are running pretty high about this but the topic of this thread was really about the current rule of law.
Not how things ought to be. Not what the founders would have done since the current reality is much different now.
No, great men transcend the realities they have to face, and even surmount them. Those who “work with” the reality are ordinary men, rather.
The rest of your post is filled with nonsequiturs. The Founding Fathers weren’t as “pure as the driven snow” either (no man is), but they had faith in God, which is the key here. “This isn’t 1776”, so submit? What makes 1776 different from any other revolution of the planet?
Don’t speak about the “current rule of law” when those at the top rule by fiat.
“The rest of your post is filled with nonsequiturs. The Founding Fathers weren’t as “pure as the driven snow” either (no man is), but they had faith in God, which is the key here. “This isn’t 1776”, so submit? What makes 1776 different from any other revolution of the planet?Don’t speak about the “current rule of law” when those at the top rule by fiat.”
Wasn’t talking about the founding fathers. Cliven Bundy isn’t blameless. He obviously felt as if he had reasonable case. He went to court. He lost. He went to court again. He lost again.
This started years and years ago. He was aware he was considered in breach. It’s not like he was suddenly ambushed and had his property taken.
It’s not 1776 and taking a rifle out to join the fray is no longer an optimum or even workable position. We’re all wired together whether you like it or not.
That’s the reality.
The same way matters of personal honor aren’t settled with duels anymore.
Civil law and the court system are how things are settled now.
I was heartened to see the Feds back off. I don’t think anything was actually “Won” from that action, but it did probably save a lot of fruitless bloodshed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.