Here’s a copy of an email this lady friend sent to me. I thought it was well written and speaks for many of us, the silent majority, in the west and perhaps all across this great country. Let me know what you think.
I think she sent this to the American Cowboy magazine in response to a story. Or it might have been to Cowboy and Indian Magazine.
Who Speaks for the West?
> Dear Mr. Mullins,
>
> I read your fine article on politics and the West and the gerbil on the wheel in my brain has been making tracks off and on ever since. I grew up on a cattle ranch in South Dakota, rodeoed in High School and Little Britches Rodeo and then headed off to college and a poly-sci major. I was a Republican female at the end of Nixon’s scandalous resignation and the beginning of the feminist movement. All my college professors were big Liberals so we had some pretty heated discussions. I hadn’t done a lot of scholarly researching upon which to anchor my Conservatism, I was just a ranch kid who “knew” that the hippies were so fundamentally wrong on every issue, I hardly knew where to begin. I was piled on by my classmates and put down by the professors but they never shut me up or swayed me. I had some sympathy for the feminists as I had spent all my life helping both my mother in the house and mostly, the kitchen, and then when those chores were done, cowboyed and took care of animals with my sister and father. We were Dad’s ranch hands because we were all he had. And for the most part, we did a good job, as good a job as any man could have done. If we were discriminated against because we were female, we were never aware of it. The thing about riding and working cattle, if you do it well, nobody cares what sex you are. It’s just appreciated that you showed up and didn’t quit until the job was done. Still, I could see where a woman who didn’t want to be the traditional housewife might run up against some discouragement and disapproval. So, like I said, I had a little sympathy for my sisters who railed against being held back by masculine attitudes. However, I parted ways with them over their demand for a sexual revolution with its accompanying crudity and lowering of civil discourse, and their leftist bent toward having the federal government “fix” their problem by force. Then, I lost complete respect for them and their cause after they refused to condemn Clinton for being the poster child for all the things they swore they hated about men. They revealed themselves for what they truly are–socialists.
>
> Since those college days I have continued to follow the American political scene very closely. I have educated myself on Conservative ideology to the point where I totally understand where I’m coming from. I didn’t have to “find myself.” I was never lost. I just needed to be able to ‘splain things to my opponents and I think I’ve gotten better at that through the years.
>
> If it weren’t for the fact that the federal government owns so much of the land in the West, I would say that being ignored by the bureaucrats is a good thing. If you could get back most of that land for private ownership, then I would say, sit back and revel in being ignored. The less active the federal government is, except for national security issues, the better off we all are. I think that is the attitude of most ranchers and cowboys. We are a stubborn, independent bunch and don’t want to be told what to do and don’t want to feel as though we need to mettle with other people’s business, either. It’s tough to stay out of other people’s business, though, when they want the rest of us to sanction and support their choices. Especially when that sanction and support requires more and more of our money in the form of taxes, regulations, penalties, and the favored euphimism for more taxes: “user fees.” This cowboy character is the main reason the West is ignored by the press. Westerners refuse to be victims. You didn’t see the ranchers whose herds were stranded by biblical-proportioned blizzards, crying in front of a camera because FEMA wasn’t doing enough to help them. The only pictures I saw of their incredible plight were sent to me over the Internet. It showed the cattle huddled in groups looking like creatures from special effects because of the snow and ice encasing them and surrounding them. Then the next pictures showed the Colorado National Guard flying in to drop hay and ranchers doing whatever they could to get food to them. Where was the media fixation with this disaster? It wasn’t there because nobody was asking for federal help or sympathy. They were rolling up their sleeves and helping themselves and each other. Where was Oprah crying for the dying cattle and the people whose livelihood was at peril of being completely lost? And for that matter, which method was more successful? The victims of Hurricane Katrina waiting for FEMA, or the Westerners doing for themselves?
>
> I am a huge proponent of states’ rights. I am a Constitutionalist. I am all for more of the Sagebrush Rebellion. Everybody talks about how the “tone” in politics is too harsh. Well, I’m sorry but whenever we try to “deal” with the Liberals, we get screwed. And they continue to harp about how mean we are. It reminds me of a dog that is growling because he wants the bone the other dog has. If the dog with the bone gives it up to the growling dog, does that make them buddies? Hell, no! It makes the growling dog all the more confident to steal that dogs bone the next time. We need more spine and fight in the politicians we send to Congress. Unfortunately, the type of men we need don’t typically run for public office. Too many politicians pick a party because of where they are, not because they really understand or believe the ideology. They say what the voters want to hear and might even have good intentions of following through, but once they get to the Beltway and the media starts calling them mean-spirited cretins, all the fight and bluster just seems to drain right out of them. I’m sure it’s very lonely being a true Conservative in Washington, DC.
>
> To me, one of the most important reasons for voting a Republican into the Presidency again is because of the Supreme Court and the fact that the next president will surely be nominating at least one justice. We need to tip the court back toward Conservativsim and strict adherence to the Constitution. When you get too many Liberals on the Court, you get rulings such as the one on Eminent Domain which expanded that law to mean that any government entity can decide if it wants to take your land and give it to a developer who might improve the land, meaning more tax revenue for the government. That is such a violation of the original intent of the framers. It is being challenged and many states have passed laws to protect against its far-reaching implications, but in the meantime, several U.S. citizens have had their property seized to make way for a fancy development. That’s just not right and no amount of palavering by the Libs and their media accomplices can make it so.
>
> Every time the feds pass laws or decide to bestow federal largesse on certain groups, the consequences are far-reaching, long-lasting and often include unforeseen negatives. Ethanol subsidies have caused farmers to plow up their alfalfa fields and other crops in order to cash in on the sky-rocketing corn prices. Now we have hay and horse feed shortages resulting in the dumping of well-bred, young horses at sales for $200 and $300 a piece. You can blame the banning of horse slaughter for this, too. Another do-gooder, Liberal idea that is causing more suffering and damage than anyone could have imagined. Many farmers have become dependent on subsidies and that is a real shame. I know that quite a few are surviving purely because of the subsidies. But, people like TV correspondent, Sam Donaldson, receive huge sums in subsidies because they dabble in farming as a hobby. Do we taxpayers really need to pay Sam Donaldson over $70,000 a year because he raises a few Angora sheep? Where is the common sense? Unfortunately, when you are talking about federal policy, there isn’t much of that.
>
> Lastly, when I hear someone say they are a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, I get a headache and my eyes start to bleed. The one cancels the other out. That’s the kind of muddled thinking espoused by soccer moms who have watched too much Oprah. It “feels” right, smart and superior to all us troglodyte, judgmental Conservatives. If you accept and condone the premises of the Liberals on social issues, the next logical step is to pass laws forcing everyone to not only accept and condone them, but to fund the consequences of these behaviors. The only way you can be fiscally conservative is to expect everyone to take care of themselves and their own responsibilities. This country has become the greatest in the world because it is a society of individuals who love freedom. It has not become great because of all the government programs. All those do, is put a drag on the economy and limit our personal freedoms.
>
> If the West wants to regain control of its own territory and citizens it is going to have to fight a powerful federal government for them, and playing nice with the Liberal Elites ain’t going to get you squat. There is not a Democrat running who has any intention of doing anything but expanding an already overgrown, over-fed federal government. When they try to sound populist they are merely trying to appeal to the whining victims who claim the government isn’t doing enough for the “little guy.” The best thing the government can do fo any of us is to get out of the way.
>
> Jill Hiller
> Valparaiso, Indiana
Dennisranch 