The Hundredth Meridianrnby Chilton Williamson, Jr.rnWar on the WestrnMavbe because the Sage Brush Rebel-rnHon coincided with the energy boom ofrnthe late 70’s and cady 80’s when Westernrnindustrialists and developers were firmlyrnin the saddle, its rhetoric rarely, if ever,rnachieved the intensity that Rockv Mountainrnpoliticians and other public spokesmenrnhave used in denouncing the Clintonrnadministration’s efforts to redesignrnthe social, economic, and political structuresrnof their region. “War on the West”rnis a phrase heard repeatedly from suchrnsober and responsible Western representati’rnes of both national parties as RepublicanrnSenator Malcolm Wallop ofrnWyoming and Governor Mike Sullivanrn(also of Wyoming and the first Democraticrngovernor to endorse Bill Clinton’srnbid for the presidency), who recently assuredrnthe Wyoming Woolgrowers’ Association,rn”If you think you’re sufferingrnfrom paranoia, don’t worrv about it.rnThey really are out to get you,” addingrnthat “the assault on public land issues isrnaffecting culture values” of Westernersrnin general and the people of Wyomingrnin particular. Most dramatically, JamesrnWatt, Secretary of the hiterior in RonaldrnReagan’s first administration and arnWyoming native now residing in Jackson,rnwarns that Westerners “are learningrnto fear our government.” At least onernmeeting of Western lawmakers has convenedrnin recent weeks for the purpose ofrndiscussing the issue of states’ rights.rnWhile the word “secession” has yet to bernspoken, there is no question that thernWestern mood is increasingly a rebelliousrnone.rnParallels do exist between Washington’srncurrent attack on the West and thernassault by the northern states against thernSouthern ones that culminated in thernCivil War. The environmentalist movement,rnsome of whose cohorts advocaternthe extension of “rights” to trees, rocks,rnand mountains, has given the old FreernSoil agenda new meaning: while the Bureaurnof Indian Affairs stonewalls chargesrnof brutalitv committed bv its peacernagents against the Native Americans entrustedrnto its care, the federal governmentrnembarks on a program to emancipaternmillions of acres of land from abusiverncattlemen and exploitive miners.rnAnd like the conflict between north andrnSouth, the growing enmity between thernWest and the rest of the country is fundamentallyrna matter of opposing cultures.rnIn spite of the Census Bureau’srnclaim that the majority of the Westernrnpopulation today lives in cities, the culturernas opposed to the demographics ofrnthe region remains rural, not urban, asrnthat of most of the nation at large hasrnbecome. (The Census Bureau classifiesrnmy hometown of Kemmerer, Wyoming,rnas “urban,” although it has a populationrnof just over 3,000 people and the closestrnneighboring town, population 1,500, isrn45 miles awav.)rnThrough all kinds of issues having nornexplicit connection with the War on thernWest, institutions and practices integralrnto Western life are currently under attackrnby cither political or cultural forces orrnboth—among them the productive usernof land, animal husbandry, hunting, gunrnownership, rodeo, independence, andrnprivacy. What Westerners hear fromrnWashington these days is the messagernthat rural people are dinosaurs, a dwindlingrnminority whose values are antiprogressivernand whose interests thereforernneed not be consulted. (For instance, itrnis plain to everyone by now that thernClintons’ national health care plan isrnwildly unsuited to the requirements ofrnrural areas, particularly in the West,rnwhere it will of course, if passed, be impartiallyrninstalled.) Though Wyoming’srnwealth is produced by its mineral resources,rnits values, as Watt argues, are derivedrnfrom agriculture and from the widernopen spaces that promote a spirit of independence.rnBut “agricultural values”rnare the last thing an administration committedrnto the principles of GATT—rnwhich, as Wendell Berry insists, willrnonly complete the destruction of thernfamily farm that American agriculturalrnpolicy has warred against for the last 60rnyears—cares about, while “independence”rnis precisely what our federal mastersrnin Washington wish to subvert, anywherernand everywhere, within the formerrnAmerican Republic.rnStill, the Southern metaphor seemsrnless apt than the colonial one, as employedrnby Senator Wallop when he accusedrnInterior Secretary Bruce Babbitt ofrnattempting “completely [to] reorder thernrelationship between the federal governmentrnand its Western colonies. I callrnthem colonies because [the federals]rndon’t believe them to be states.” In fact,rnthe historical relationship between Eastrnand West is a textbook example of colonialism,rncharacterized by exploitation ofrnresources and abuses of economic andrnpolitical control exercised at a distancernby foreign capital and governance. Inrnthe eariy days of exploration and developmentrnthese practices were unavoidable,rnsince many or most explorers andrndevelopers were necessarily agents of interestsrnand associations operating in arnwilderness devoid of interests and associationsrnof its own. As the Western territoriesrn(with the lust)’ encouragement ofrnthe U.S. government) became settled,rnhowever, regional social and economicrntextures thickened, gi’ing rise to indigenousrninstitutions existing alongside remotelyrncontrolled ones. Though Washingtonrnwas as eager for reasons of securityrnand convenience to sec the Western territoriesrngrow into proper states as it hadrnbeen to have them settled up, it neverrnreally countenanced the transition, beingrnaccustomed to regard the West less as arngeographical extension of the Americanrnbody politic than as a vast resource dumprnfrom which to feed and develop thernEastern half of the country, as well as arnwhite area on the map in which to performrndangerous experiments—that being,rnafter all, the federal government’srndefinition of the word “desert.” Thernrirst question that comes to mind regardingrnrecent revelations by the De-rnMARCH 1994/49rnrnrn