Paul’s missed chance

Politics attracts more than its share of crackpots, and we shouldn’t blame candidates for the excesses of their deranged fans, but a teachable moment went sadly unrealized last week when Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky visited Mesquite.

There he encountered notorious welfare cowboy Cliven Bundy, who has grazed his cattle on publicly owned land for years without paying fees to the federal government. His tab has grown as he’s fought — and lost — legal battle after legal battle. And in April 2014, he called for a “range war” as the Bureau of Land Management’s rangers moved to seize his cattle in obedience to a federal court order.

In reply, scores of armed insurrectionists flocked to the Bundy ranch, and a bloody standoff was very narrowly averted when the BLM backed down.

It must have been confusing for Bundy to meet Paul, since Bundy declared in 2014 that “I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.” Paul is running to be president of the United States, an entity that is apparently no more real to Bundy than the kingdoms of Westeros are to normal people.

Then again, Bundy probably overlooked that, because Paul spoke his language when the candidate outlined his plan for dealing with federal land. “I’d either sell or turn over all land management to the states,” he told a crowd in Mesquite, in response to a question from Cliven Bundy’s son, Ryan Bundy.

In reply, Bundy said this, according to The Associated Press: “In general, I think we’re in tune with each other. I don’t think we need to ask Washington, D.C., for this land. It’s our land.”

Of course, they’re not in tune with each other at all. Bundy believes federal land is already under state or county control. Paul’s reply clearly implies that the federal government exists, that it has the right to own land, that it currently owns the land in question, and that, as policy preference, Paul’s administration would sell or transfer the land to the states. One cannot sell or give away what one does not own, after all.

And while there are some significant issues surrounding state takeover of federally managed lands, including costs and personnel, there’s nothing unusual about Paul’s stance. Republicans in the Nevada Legislature, in fact, voted for a joint resolution in the recently concluded session that asks Congress to turn over more than 7 million acres for state management.

Still, Paul is a guy who knows his way around the U.S. Constitution, which is why it’s unfortunate that, when Ryan Bundy boldly asserted, “There’s simply no place in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to hold land. Period,” Paul didn’t say something more educational in reply.

You know, something like, “Of course it does, young man. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, what some call the ‘property clause,’ specifically authorizes Congress ‘to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States, and nothing in the Constitution should be construed to prejudice the claims of the United States or a particular state.’”

And then Paul could have added, “And by the way, Mr. Bundy here has been using land that we all own as citizens and taxpayers of the United States for his own personal gain for more than 20 years. He’s refused to pay the fees that all other law-abiding cattle owners pay. He’s used the court system of a government he claims not to recognize to argue his crackpot theories, and he’s lost. So he should pay up right now, because I’m against welfare whether its for corporations or cowboys.”

Instead, Paul didn’t tell the Bundy family the uncomfortable truths they and their supporters so badly need to hear. And for a guy who fancies himself a new kind of leader unafraid to speak contrarian truths, that was more than a little bit disappointing.

Steve Sebelius is a Las Vegas Review-Journal political columnist who blogs at SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 702-387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.