PLANK DECEMBER 17, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The first presidential campaign I covered was in 2000, when I was in charge of the Concord Monitor's coverage of the Democratic side of the New Hampshire primary, between Al Gore and Bill Bradley. It may seem hard to believe, but much of that primary was fought over which candidate was tougher on gun control. Bradley led the way, attacking Gore for having been the "poster boy" of the NRA as a congressman and senator from Tennessee, and calling for "very tough gun legislation," including the "registration and licensing of all handguns, gun dealers out of residential neighborhoods, trigger locks, background checks, but above all, what we need is a leader who’s committed to this every day he’s in office. Otherwise, you’ll never beat the NRA." Gore countered by noting that he was a co-sponsor of the Brady Law, and cast the tie-breaking vote to close the gun show loophole: "We have got to take [the NRA] on strongly and pass new gun control legislation—not aimed at hunters and sportsmen, but at these handguns that are causing so much distress in our country."
We all know what happened next. In the general election, Gore came under fire from the right for his pro–gun control stances; his loss of West Virginia, a state that had been solidly Democratic for decades, and Tennessee, his home state—either of which would have put him over the top in the Electoral College, rendering Florida moot—was ascribed to his having spoken out on guns. In that sense, the Supreme Court helped tilt the tables against gun control even before their 2008 D.C. v. Heller decision: Had the Court not ruled for George W. Bush in 2000, Democrats surely would not have taken such a strong lesson from that election, that any serious talk of gun control was to be avoided. But they did, and in the decade since, we've heard nary a peep from the side of the spectrum that had previously made this one of their causes. John Kerry restrained talk of gun control in 2004, the same year that Bush let the assault-weapons ban lapse; Rahm Emanuel touted his success in electing explicitly pro–gun rights Democrats to the House in 2006; Barack Obama has until now skirted concerted efforts on this front.
It's worth keeping this recent history in mind now as we contemplate what can be achieved in the wake of the Newtown horror. There is no question that the path of serious reform is incredibly steep. Jon Chait lays out the obstacles as well as anyone, noting that any legislation would have to go through a House that is controlled by deeply pro–gun rights Republicans, most of whom are now ensconced in safe districts where the biggest threat to their livelihood is a primary challenge from the right. But some of the resigned fatalism we've heard over the weekend seems overdone. Yes, public support for serious gun control has dwindled over the past decade. But it's surely dwindled in part because Democrats stopped talking about it. Look at this graph charting support for stricter regulations on the sales of firearms—it ticked up slightly after the Columbine shootings in April 1999, to 66 percent, and then began its decade-long decline after the 2000 election, to 44 percent last year. There are many factors contributing to that decline. But I'll wager that the biggest one was the absence of sustained, high-profile support in the political arena. Voters were not hearing a pro–gun control message from anyone in the public sphere, aside from the few hardy advocacy groups still carrying the flag. Not only that, but they could sense that those whom you'd expect to support the cause—Democrats—considered it a political loser. And no one likes backing a loser.
No question, guns have a deeper hold on the American psyche than in most other parts of the developed world. But gun politics are not as static as we often make them out to be. Heck, as Jill Lepore documented not so long ago, the NRA wasn't even unflinchingly anti–gun control until the final decades of the 20th century. And as my colleague Nate Cohn has noted, there was the hint of a post-election shift underway on this issue even before the Newtown massacre. Simply put, the Democratic coalition is much less reliant than it was even a decade ago on voters who prioritize gun rights. At the presidential level, the party no longer even competes in states such as West Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and it has shown that it can win states such as Ohio and Virginia despite very poor showings in their more conservative, rural precincts. The picture is of course murkier downballot—the party's Senate majority relies on members from rural states such as Montana and North Dakota where resistance to gun control runs higher. But even there, the landscape may already be shifting. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who has an A rating from the NRA and famously fired a rifle at cap-and-trade legislation to signal his independence from the national Democratic agenda, said this morning that he would be willing to reconsider measures like the assault-weapons ban.
And then there is Obama. No, a president alone cannot pass laws. But he can start making a push. Obama's powerful and surprisingly explicit call for action last night was unlike any argument the country has been exposed to on this issue for a long time. It's too soon to say, but it now seems possible that Obama makes this issue a priority for a second term that was otherwise relatively lacking in a new agenda. There is personal motivation here that goes beyond his deep upset as a parent, and goes back to his years as a community organizer and state legislator in a city with some of the worst child gun violence in the country. He, like other Democrats, relegated the issue to the rear this past decade, and no one but the gun lobby itself really believed he'd take it up in a second term. It would be the height of irony if, on this point, the right wing turned out to be correct. And the gun lobby's not stupid. They weren't worried about Obama taking up this cause because they didn't think it would make a difference if he did. They know that persuasion works. Especially if you have the field nearly all too yourself, as they have had for too long.
Follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
11 comments
No other enumerated constitutional right -- not even freedom of religion, I think -- leads to such apocalyptic paranoia. But even leaving aside the whole intent of the framers with that "well-regulated militia" stuff, we accept reasonable limits on other individual freedoms for the good of society; we understand that freedom of speech doesn't, famously, give us the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but apparently it's tyranny if we want to reduce the possibility that someone will *open* fire in a crowded theater. Yes, I am overly pleased with my wordplay here, which is probably not even original. But the point still stands.
- frippo
December 17, 2012 at 1:18pm
Good one, frippo. Yeah, it's about time the Democrats abnd maybe even the surviving sane Republicans stopped being such cowards on this issue.
- mgorvine
December 17, 2012 at 2:45pm
At least today, the responses from people like Joe Manchin, John Yarmuth and Joe Scarborough are encouraging. On the other hand, when I called the local office of my Republican (and NRA A-rated) Senator Pat Toomey to ask about his position on the issue of regulating assault weapons in the aftermath of Newtown, his staffer could only muster the answer that the good Senator would "listen to all of his constituents" in formulating such a position. I told him, as politely as I could, that as a constituent and father of three small children that I expected his position to be in favor of a ban on assault weapons and multiple ammunition clips. I also told him that, should the Senator feel otherwise, he should publicly announce this position to his "constituents", preferably in a speech to a group of victims' relatives, and not hide behind a spokesman or a formulaic Facebook post. Here's hoping.
- wildboy
December 17, 2012 at 3:10pm
pop culture--in movies, TV, etc.--is all about violence. no wonder that commercial interests in trash media can trump real stewardship. screenwriters, et alia, in effect, are not allowed to exercise their skills as a "race to the bottom" heads us toward cultural bankruptcy. the chicken-and-egg conundrums about the bill of rights and firearms are aside from a lack of mentoring because of commercial greed. now we have enormous numbers of people (such as the very poor/uneducated/unemployed) essentially dependent on TV serving as babysitters and disreputable "mentors." and violent "diplomacy," such as optional wars, serve throughout the USA as domestic "infotainment" that is on a level of understanding that is most disappointing indeed.
- cdmcl3
December 17, 2012 at 3:18pm
"There are many factors contributing to that decline [of support for gun control]. But I'll wager that the biggest one was the absence of sustained, high-profile support in the political arena. Voters were not hearing a pro–gun control message from anyone in the public sphere, aside from the few hardy advocacy groups still carrying the flag. Not only that, but they could sense that those whom you'd expect to support the cause—Democrats—considered it a political loser. And no one likes backing a loser." Amen. And it applies not only to gun control, but universal health care, financial regulation, progressive taxation, Keynesian economics and a whole host of other issues where Dem leaders have been mealy-mouthed for decades, BHO being the latest poster-child example. Voters drift further and further right when no centrist (forget left wing) positions are strongly articulated. I found BHO's Sandy Hook speech to fall into the mealy-mouthed category--- as have most speeches (much less actions) since 2008. But some BHO support (rather than complete silence) and some real support from some Senate Dems and elsewhere may begin to make a difference. Release of classroom pictures would do yet more.[[Grossly inappropriate??----- you prefer they die incognito in vain??]]
- drofnats1
December 17, 2012 at 3:59pm
Wildboy, I think it is critical for you and others who plead for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to state specifically what you mean. The old federal ban only stopped sales of certain new semi-automatic weapons and new magazines over 10 rounds capacity. Other weapons with identical operating characteristics were never banned. Existing weapons and magazines were freely bought and sold. We now have many tens of millions of semi-auto rifles and pistols, and hundreds of millions of magazines in private hands. If you advocate the confiscation off all these, think through the implications. If instead you favor registration or some other set of regulations, say so. When you ask the political establishment to ban something, consider what that means.
- nehocm002
December 17, 2012 at 4:40pm
Two conflicting attitudes may be present. One is the belief among elected officials that once they have voted up or down on something, the issue need not be revisited for several years. Proponents of serious weapons legislation must therefore offer up lengthy, complex legislation all at once. The other attitude may be to rely on standing committees who report to Congress only after studying gun violence for several years. Similar committees have been setup in the past and have met with limited success. This could be why many proponents of legislation to restrict gun sales believe that lobbyists for gun manufactures have the upper hand.
- Doug12
December 17, 2012 at 4:42pm
"When you ask the political establishment to ban something, consider what that means." Agreed in full. The old assault weapons ban was ineffective and the categories of guns and ammo that it banned were haphazard, due mostly to the effect of lobbying by the NRA and gun manufacturers. It's their Constitutional right to so lobby, but it is the American people's constitutional prerogative to insist that their elected officials respond to this tragedy in a meaningful way. So let's proceed against semi-automatic firearms, as well as the ammunition used in such cases, in specific categories, as the Australian government did when it banned multi-ammo clips and initiated a nationwide gun buyback program. So no more sales of handguns or rifles that can fire more than nine bullets from a single magazine -- after that, the shooter has to reload one bullet at a time (exceptions can be given for state-licensed rifle ranges at which multi-capacity semi-automatic rifles can be stored under lock-and-key and automated security systems). And have a gun buyback program for the offending types of weapons that are presently in circulation. And close all loopholes for purchasing guns without an automated background check. And update Federal (and state) laws on the sale of guns to the mentally ill or those who are caregivers for those who are mentally ill. In exchange for all that, I would be happy to give the NRA all the concealed carry laws they could want with the caveat that any concealed carrier has to pass a course in gun safety and target practice overseen by the DHS or, better yet, the FBI; carry only one gun that is otherwise legal under the new rules; and have their license automatically revoked for any felony or violent misdemeanor charge or any diagnosis of a mental health issue, even if it is currently under treatment (including depression or anxiety -- which means I, for one, could not concealed carry under these regulations, but so be it). That would be a fair and specific trade in my mind. Nobody's guns need to be confiscated and nobody's Second Amendment liberties to carry a gun for self-defense or hunting need to be impinged provided that he or she remains a law-abiding and mentally healthy individual. As for the supposed Second Amendment liberties to carry a gun to defend oneself against government tyranny or prepare for the end of the world, I would respectfully stipulate that (i) no such liberties are Constitutionally recognized and (ii) belief in same is strong evidence that such person is not in fact a mentally healthy individual.
- wildboy
December 17, 2012 at 5:19pm
It's too late. As we work on education, especially in science and technology to keep up with the rest of the world, little anti-social, maladjusted but very bright children will be breeding and unleashing new viruses from their basements and building new compact nuclear weapons in their backyards, and then taking them too school to make a point we will long remember. If anyone's left.
- skahn
December 17, 2012 at 5:32pm
"As for the supposed Second Amendment liberties to carry a gun to defend oneself against government tyranny or prepare for the end of the world, I would respectfully stipulate that (i) no such liberties are Constitutionally recognized and (ii) belief in same is strong evidence that such person is not in fact a mentally healthy individual." Yes, wildboy, survivalists are, by definition, balmy. I saw a relative of the Newtown shooter's mother on 48 Hours Saturday, and she stated that the mother was collecting guns in preparation for the coming economic collapse. And the mother was taking her mentally-ill son to a shooting range to hone his skills with a Bushmaster. ABC News stated this morning that the same Bushmaster was the weapon that killed her and 26 other people. The mother was almost as unbalanced as her son.
- magboy47.
December 18, 2012 at 12:39am
Limit assault weapons, absolutely. About mental illness - it's not predictive of violent acts. It's a false presumption that identifying and limiting people with various mental disorders from having weapons that only perpetuates harmful stereotypes. History of violent behavior, on the other hand, is more predictive.
- bsemple
December 18, 2012 at 1:24am