Clive Bundy breaks out the porch monkey stereotype / slur

That’s what that slur is, ladies and gentleman.

Anyway, Bundy Ranch was fun while it lasted as whatever it was…

Here’s the thing, or a thing.  You read his words, and it’s obvious as cornpone, common man wisdom of a sort.  Rugged old-timer saying how the country is going to hell is actually a pretty standard trope.  And within what are some very unenlightened observations about black people, Bundy is not actually being malevolent, racially or otherwise.

But that’s a nuance that I don’t expect to be appreciated, and I do not lament that it’s not.  Bundy is just too retrograde and anachronistic and ignorant for Bundy and Bundy Ranch to be a standard bearer for whatever we think it ought to say about limited government.

I’m mindful here that Bundy is merely expressing Paul Ryan’s version of sociology, but with phrases and wording that are now unacceptable against contemporary norms.  Inasmuch as Ryan’s words were actually acceptable themselves, this being a matter of some contention.

I am convinced this discussion of what class of people takes welfare and has babies out of wedlock is in fact completely useless.  It almost always devolves into ugliness, and there is not actually a policy question to be addressed there.   So Republicans might as well stop.  But they won’t, I’m sure.


6 thoughts on “Clive Bundy breaks out the porch monkey stereotype / slur

  1. pm1956

    And now bundy is trying to deny that he said it–except that there is a video of him saying it.

    Some people have backed off their support for bundy (rand paul, for one). But the whole thing about Bundy support was foolish in the first place, as Jon Stewart makes clear in this clip:

    Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this whole Bundy phenomena is that i have to give credit to Glenn Beck, who not only did not declare bundy to be a hero, but actually warned conservatives away from Bundy (or at least tried to do so). Imagine Glenn Beck being cautious and rational! Well, it happened.

    1. Erik Petersen Post author

      I am not a ‘fan’ of Beck in any literal sense, but I have listened his show enough over the years. He’s been much more inclusive in his approach than people might think.

  2. pm1956

    What really bothers me about this entire bundy story (and lets not talk about the whole racism part) is that so many conservatives were in favor of him and thought he was a patriot when he explicitly denied the validity of the US government and the US constitution. They would never have done this is the President at the time this happened had been a republican. Even their patriotism is conditioned by partisan politics–“I support the constitution ONLY as long a our tribe is running the government”. When Obama is the President, then federal laws can be ignored with impunity and the welfare cheat/lawbreaker is a hero.

    1. Erik Petersen Post author

      Well Bundy Ranch did allow for some substantive observations, these conforming nicely to the conservative worldview. IE, that maybe the federal government shouldn’t have title to all this land. The bureaucracies’ capriciousness in enforcing administrative rules. The absurdity of the BLM having armed personnel. Those observations have not been invalidated, but like I say, I have no illusions that Bundy Ranch is going to be an example that makes any of those cases.

      But yes, there was some confirmation bias. Ezra talked about this a couple days ago. It’s making the example fit your analysis rather than use your analysis on the example.

      As you know I don’t think conservatives are susceptible to confirmation bias any more than anyone else.

  3. pm1956

    1. The US claim follows from the US victory over Mexico in 1848. US existed long before the state of Nevada, and bundy “claim” (he has never provided any substantiation of any sort) does not predate 1848 (Mormons were still in Illinois in 1848)

    2. BLM has not been ca[pricious–they have gone to court and won multiple times (Bundy has always lost in court–his claims have no legal merit whatsoever). Given that bundy has refused to comply with multiple orders, all legal, over a 20 year period, I see nothing hasty or capricious about BLM actions. Can you make a case for this, or are you just asserting nonsense?

    3. Why should the BLM not be armed? Do they not have Second Amendment rights? Further, given thet they knew that armed “m ilitia” (read terrorists) where gathering and threatening to use force, being armed was simply common sense. Clearly, the BLM acted with far more restraint than Bundy (whose son assaulted BLM personnel) or the militias (who threatened to use force). Finally, the BJM have a law enforcement arm who are legally authorized to be armed and to use force to enforce federal laws–they have a police agency (

    So all 3 of your points are invalid.

    Bundy is a welfare cheat, as well as a racist. He is far more of a moocher than the “welfare queens” that Reagan called out. He is a taker, not a maker, who is stealing from the public, as well as a criminal. he belongs in jail.

    Stop trying to defend him–you are only damaging your credibility.

  4. google

    Its like you read my mind! You appear to understand
    a lot about this, like you wrote the e-book in it or something.
    I feel that you can do with a few % to pressure the message house a bit, however instead
    of that, this is magnificent blog. A great read.
    I’ll certainly be back.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s