CNN's Chris Cuomo
Since I have excoriated CNN (especially Carol Costello and Erin Burnett) over their coverage of racial issues (ie. the Trayvon
Martin case, etc.), I HAVE TO credit
CNN, especially Chris Cuomo for
doing an excellent interview with the very flawed and inarticulate Cliven Bundy AND for dealing with the
issue in a far LESS politically partisan and inflammatory way than many of his
co-workers at CNN.
Here is a good clip of a good portion of that
interview;
I believe Chris Cuomo went out of his way to be fair
and even-handed with an obviously inarticulate man. He did NOT look to bait
Bundy into digging an even deeper hole and even appeared to look to understand
Bundy’s concerns over what he saw as federal overreach. Cuomo delivered a very “fair
and balanced” interview of a highly controversial man. It was certainly a much
more fair and unbiased report than any of those done on MSNBC and FNC. In fact, Chris Cuomo even defended FNC host Sean Hannity, as "a friend," who he's certain shares none of Bundy's racial views.
Bundy, to his great detriment, has allowed his
poorly articulated and archaic racial views to overshadow a legitimate state’s
rights and federal overreach issue.
THAT (Bundy’s reckless racial commentary), is not
the national media’s fault.
Its ultra-partisan way of handling it certainly IS!
That is why Chris Cuomo stands out, today, as a
beacon of non-partisanship.
Many paternalistic bigots have attempted to use
Cliven Bundy’s grossly inarticulate words to (1) undermine his very real issues with federal overreach and land
management abuse, via high fees and senseless regulations and (2) to tar those who supported those
legitimate issues as “racists,” for having defended Bundy’s views on federal
overreach.
Many of these paternalists have likened Bundy’s
racial views to those of the critics of the existing American welfare/dependency state.
Indeed legislators like Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and others HAVE rightly note
that the existing welfare/dependency state “breeds dysfunction.” That is as
sad, as it is true, BUT it is also undeniable. I've been to hundreds of fires
and many hundreds more emergencies in urban housing projects (mostly in the
South Bronx). The stairwells and elevators in ALL those buildings reek of
urine. Drug deals and sexual encounters regularly go on in those enclosed stairwells.
The marauders, the violently dysfunctional control those areas. Others live in
abject terror. Many people born into those areas DO get an education and good
jobs and LEAVE those areas.
However, the idea that the paternalists seem to
posit; that there’s very little difference between the population (and their
behaviors) in any given urban housing project and that of any up-scale suburban
neighborhood is naively ignorant.
Poverty, like LIFE itself doesn’t just “happen to us.”
We make things happen, we bring BOTH the good and the bad into our own lives.
Just as specific human qualities and actions bring about prosperity
(innovation, ambition, focus, delaying gratification, planning, etc.), specific
human qualities and activities bring about poverty (recklessness,
irresponsibility, poor impulse control, the inability to delay gratification,
substance abuse, illiteracy, etc.).
Cliven Bundy may well be an inarticulate, “hick,” at
least in the eyes of many urban elites, who’ve harped on what they’ve called
his “nostalgia for chattel slavery,”
BUT interestingly enough, one of Bundy’s black supporters (Jason Bullock)
seemed to paint a very different picture of the old codger; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCto_bGIT2o
What counts the most, how poorly or well one
articulates their sentiments, or how well they treat others? Many people who
say all the right things, never act in accordance with their own words. Hell,
con-men and sociopaths ALWAYS say the right things and practice coming across
as “good & decent,” even “caring and empathetic.” We put weight on people’s
words at our own peril. It SEEMS that Jason
Bullock attempts to convey that Bundy’s actions appear to belie his words.
Bundy’s plight SHOULD
bring to light federal policies that abuse individual ranchers via escalating
fees and senseless regulations. His unilateral actions (NOT paying fees that
other ranchers are forced to pay) were illegal, but the federal policies
themselves seem to have been poorly implemented, probably abusive, even potentially
immoral.
There are legitimate issues around government overreach
and federal land abuse here, and seeking to bury those legitimate issues
beneath an avalanche of trumped up racial outrage is patently dishonest.
Many years ago, a College classmate of mine said, “Almost everyone derives at least some of
their income from government today. We have an army of local, state and federal
officials, from educators, to police, to workers in a vast array of government
agencies, private contractors who pave roads FOR the government, workers in
private Corporations that have huge government contracts, farmers and ranchers
who get government subsidies, etc., so WHY do so many of us (especially so many
military and former military...GOVERNMENT WORKERS) fear the growth of
government so much?”
I call that, “The HAPPY Slave narrative.” People
like that classmate simply embrace the universal slavery to the state that
Libertarians and many Conservatives reflexively question.
What troubles me is the abject close-mindedness of
those who don’t question the “happy slave narrative.” WHY? I should say, what
motivates people to simply accept the idea of a universal slavery to the state
as inevitable? I can’t respect that view, but that’s just me, I guess.
