ELECTIONATE DECEMBER 18, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Democrats are gearing up to push gun-control legislation, but on Monday afternoon White House Press Secretary Jay Carney characteristically dodged questions about President Barack Obama's role in pursuing it. Pressed on the issue, Carney said he couldn't go into specifics and that the problem was complicated, raising the question of how the president would attempt to advance the issue in the aftermath of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. While gun-control advocates might be anxious because Obama hasn't launched an all-out offensive for an enumerated gun-control platform, such legislation probably stands a better chance if the president leads from behind, at least for now.
There are reasons for gun-control advocates to be relatively optimistic about their chances after Newtown, but there’s one overriding obstacle facing even the most limited gun-control measures: the House of Representatives. Not only do congressional Republicans oppose gun control in principle, but many of them risk primary challenges if they dare reconsider unconditional support for the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment. Given that 2013 already promises challenging votes on a fiscal cliff deal and perhaps immigration reform, most House Republicans would rather not anger their base by deviating from their strict stance on gun rights.
Passing even a limited gun-control measure during this session of Congress would require splitting the House Republican caucus, and if that’s the goal, then Obama should stay on the sidelines. The White House can't force Republicans to compromise, and associating Obama with such a measure isn't likely to broaden its base of support. After all, 94 percent of House Republicans represent districts that supported Mitt Romney, and although the president commands the support of a majority of the electorate, he's a polarizing figure who triggers reflexively partisan responses from a deeply conservative Congress. If the president took the lead, it would become even harder for the GOP to entertain the tightening of gun control—at a moment when some House Republicans might actually consider it.
If gun control weren't already in the news, then, yes, Obama would need to get off the sidelines and advance the issue himself. But the post-Newtown political climate is giving gun control its own momentum, and it could prove to be self-sustaining. Leading Republicans have largely stayed silent on gun control after Newtown, while West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, the NRA-endorsed Democrat best known for taking “dead aim” at cap and trade legislation in a campaign advertisement, announced his newfound support for a ban on high-capacity magazines and assault guns. So did Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, another NRA-endorsed Democrat, who ascended to national prominence by appealing to rural conservatives. Recent YouGov/Huffington Post, ABC/Washington Post, and CBS News surveys all show support for stricter gun control measures hitting or exceeding 50 percent and increasing from pre-Newtown levels. With Senators Feinstein and Lautenberg pledging to introduce bills banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, the issue doesn’t seem likely to fade soon.
Would a change of heart among pro-gun Democrats, combined with the GOP's silence and growing public support for gun control, break enough House Republicans for assault guns or high-capacity magazines? It's conceivable. If a few Republicans with strong conservative credentials did so—probably first in the Senate—more could follow. But the key is not to disrupt the political conditions that could create GOP defections on gun rights. Movement from conservative Democrats and sustained media attention on the issue is far more likely to convince a few Republicans to change their positions than a high-profile push by a polarizing president would. The president can't be completely silent on the issue, since that might disenchant Democrats. But Obama's statements must be carefully calibrated to avoid turning the issue into a classic contest between Republicans and Democrats. The president's early focus on children might be a successful frame.
If Republicans are unified against gun control after the next few weeks, which might still be the likeliest outcome, then Obama could take a larger role in hopes of preparing Democrats and the public for legislation later on. Democrats have remained silent on gun control for more than a decade, but the politics of the issue have changed and national Democrats aren't particularly vulnerable on gun-control issues. Gun control legislation won't pass so long as Democrats are unwilling to vigorously press the issue, especially since part of the decline in public support for gun control might be attributable to the decade-long silence of gun control advocates on the national stage. Democrats need to fight a battle over gun control and emerge unscathed before they'll again feel confident discussing the issue on a consistent basis, and if Obama advocates for the issue at a time when Republicans don't feel comfortable voicing their opposition, the president might move the polls and leave Democrats more confident in their ability to campaign on gun control than they have at any point this millennium.
9 comments
So we didn't elect Obama to lead we elected him to read???? (comforting speeches) So Nate is advocating if Democrats plead and grovel we might get some watered down gun control legislation (insane people must wait 3 days before buying machine guns, gun show owners should not sell to people saying bwah ha ha I am going to hunt me some kindergartners) I say screw this, make these aholes stake out a position and stick to it and when the time for re-election comes show the pictures of dead school children and their grieving parents and stress how these evil bastards love guns more than our own children.
- blackton
December 18, 2012 at 8:55am
I echo Blackton's sentiment. Nate advises "But Obama's statements must be carefully calibrated to avoid turning the issue into a classic contest between Republicans and Democrats." On top of the moral imperative to actually DO something and to lead, I say yes turn it into a classic contest. Another issue on which Republicans can be on the wrong side of history.
- dubyadoubte
December 18, 2012 at 11:40am
I agree with Nate 100% here. The goal of gun control legislation such as banning assault weapons or large-scale ammo clips should not to be "heighten the contradictions" with the evil bastards at the NRA so we can all work ourselves up into a righteous lather. This sort of crap doesn't make our children safer -- quite the contrary, it builds up immunity among those infected with the NRA virus to rational discussion and steps to actually curb gun violence and save people's lives. If the Democrats had the same sorts of legislative majorities today that they did in 2009-10 when the passed the ACA and other major legislation on party-line votes, Obama can and should serve as the drum major for gun control. But the Democrats don't have that kind of control, and no amount of berating of House Republicans by us liberals or the MSM or even Joe Scarborough is going to change their minds or their votes and actually start getting guns and ammo off the streets and out of the hands of the crazy. Obama, rightly or (mostly) wrongly, is a polarizing figure for these Congressmen whose votes are needed for the necessary legislation. Let him speak in generalities, let him show his willingness to sign the right kinds of legislation coming from Congress, let his staff quietly work with Congressional staffs to introduce the right kinds of legislation and move them along. But there is no need for Obama to be front and center on this debate, which has a momentum of its own and is likely to be sustained for some time. One ironic item is Rupert Murdoch's call on Twitter for Obama to "lead" on gun control, and the turn that the NY Post has taken to push for the same. Of course, a major reason for why Obama doesn't want to lead on this issue is because Murdoch's baby Fox News has been the primary source of Obama demonization with its audience and, hence, with Congressional Republicans. If Murdoch wants to lead on this issue, he may want to start by giving Jabba the Ailes an order to start pushing gun control at Fox News and stop inviting mindless NRA shills onto the shows (and, if Ailes balks as he is likely to do, tell him that you will rip up his new 4-year contract and see him in court). Murdoch hates losing money more than almost anything else, but he hates losing influence more and he knows how to cut his losses in a hurry if he needs to -- just ask those who used to work at News of the World.
- wildboy
December 18, 2012 at 3:50pm
I agree with Wildboy--Nate has nailed the dynamics of this issue. For the time being. Let the issue proceed on its own momentum. I don't mind a fight, but polarizing the issue further for the right may be damaging in the long term, as Wildboy notes. Let's try this, first--polls show that even most gun nuts support some forms of gun control. Let's see what we can do without introducing the scary socialist into the mix.
- Curran1
December 18, 2012 at 5:30pm
wildboy, I am willing to bet anything that there will be no gun control bills voted on or passed for the next 4 years except for the most superficial, at which point Republicans will then claim it is the best that can be done and when there is another mass shooting claim, hey, we tried gun control...see how it doesn't work? I am not saying citizen agitation isn't important, it took both MLK and LBJ to get civil rights legislation...but do you really imagine if LBJ took a back seat we would have had the voting rights act? What legislator do you imagine will take the lead on this? Any Democrat will be torn to shreds as being hyperpartisan if they advocate something tha can work and any Republican would be labelled a Rino. So Manchin will push some toothless piece of legislation and get Republicans to go along and since it is a Democrat who does it Democrats will as well.
- blackton
December 18, 2012 at 9:48pm
Yeah right. Chicken in Chief, like on the cliff negotiations, preparing to lower taxes on rich people and cut benefits to the poor. With Democrats like this who needs Republicans?
- Sophia
December 18, 2012 at 9:58pm
Permit me to add: this isn't good for the Democratic Party, at all. Refusing to lead on gun control, and weakening the social safety nets, is a recipe for harm. It hurts people. People die. The Democratic Party will become irrelevant too. All the promise of the Convention and the election? Forgetaboutit. Our leaders don't really mean anything they say. So, lots of us will be voting for another party in 2014 unless we see even a vague ghost of FDR.
- Sophia
December 18, 2012 at 10:00pm
OK, so not leading from behind as of this morning. Bravo.
- Sophia
December 19, 2012 at 2:36pm
I wouldn't call it leading from behind--- mucking up the message from behind is the rather constant pattern on domestic issues. Sophia's 10am post nails it. Haven't a clue what the 236 post is all about, but rest assured that the 10am post will be the operative post within a couple of days--- if not by this evening.
- drofnats1
December 24, 2012 at 10:20pm