Last week, talk-show host and budding media mogul Glenn Beck excoriated those among the supporters of government-beleaguered rancher Cliven Bundy who were “crying for revolution, insurrection and a call to arms,” admonishing anyone of that mindset to stop listening to him and following him on social media. He also articulated that those among his fans who took exception to his criticism of some Bundy supporters were not real fans.
Beck has done a lot of great work, and I support and admire his call to follow God and the ethos of men like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi, but I do have a problem with his delivery and the practical application of his message to real-life, real-time situations such as that which Cliven Bundy and his family faced.
In truth, I believe that Beck probably alienated more people than he may have intended. Now, it’s clear that there were some dedicated knuckleheads among those who assembled at the Bundy Ranch, some of those who proposed using women and children as human shields, for example. However, the broadcaster’s blanket criticism of the demonstrators’ deportment and their relative disorganization came off as somewhat impulsive, and even conceited.
Beck maintained that he didn’t think grazing rights were a sufficient cause to challenge the federal government in such an overt manner and pointed out that the catalyst for the affair was the rancher failing to pay duly owed grazing fees.
Here I must take exception. As someone who regularly details the federal government’s overreach and incremental inculcation of big-government progressivism into its policies over the last hundred years, Beck has to know that the plethora of laws and regulations implemented in this area relate directly to the kind of control against which he speaks on a daily basis.