Drawing courtesy of Keely Madden Kovalik. #illgetrightonthat, #NeverAgain
In the wake of the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida, the nation has witnessed the usual dithering by politicians in Washington, exemplified most vividly by President Trump. In a televised meeting he expressed broad support for gun control, and even had the chutzpah to chide others for being intimidated by the NRA. But he then had his own private meeting with an NRA lobbyist and proceeded to beat a hasty retreat. This behavior exhibited the same pattern he had followed in dealing with the DACA issue: a public meeting sounding reasonable and arguably “presidential,” only to be followed by a collapse under pressure from his base. In such instances, “The Art of the Deal” might better be styled “The Art of the Craven.”
Despite Trump’s failure of leadership, there remains a possible glimmer of hope. In the days and weeks following the shooting, the nation has witnessed an extraordinary demonstration of resolve by those students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who survived the shooting. We have witnessed young men and women who are poised, articulate to the point of eloquence and, while unfailingly civil, unyielding in their demands for action. Inspired by their leadership, students from all over the country staged 17-minute (one minute for each fatality) walkouts last Wednesday. On Saturday March 24, the Stoneman Douglas survivors will stage a mass demonstration in Washington, D.C.
Will the students and their supporters make a difference? Will this tragedy be different from all those that have preceded it? It is too early to know, but perhaps there is a chance. Blog No. 165, November 14, 2017, “The Sutherland Massacre and the Challenge of the AR-15,” explored the popularity of assault weapons as well as the difficulty of passing gun control legislation. (The term “assault weapons” is used here as elsewhere to include the assault-style weapons available on the commercial market that are semi-automatic rather than the automatic version in use by the military.) The blog noted, as many others had, that while gun control enjoys broad public support, that support has not been translated into action on Capitol Hill. One reason is the raw political power of the NRA. Observers have also noted a gap in the intensity that advocates of gun control and their opponents bring to the issue. As National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru put it succinctly:
[A] fact that politicians in both parties know well: There are many more intense, relatively single-minded supporters of gun rights than opponents of it. An elected official is much more likely to lose office because he voted for regulating guns than because he voted against it.
Can the Stoneman Douglas survivors eliminate, or significantly erode the “passion gap”? Perhaps. They have received significant financial support and on Sunday evening made an impressive appearance on 60 Minutes (which readers who missed it can view here.)
The demonstration on March 24 will be important, but what will be even more important is what comes after that.
The students have already made a difference, which we saw when the Florida legislature passed, and Republican Governor Rick Scott signed, a bill that included a provision strongly opposed by the NRA: raising the age limit for assault weapons to 21. (That provision was one that Trump had expressly endorsed but then promptly abandoned, citing lack of political support. It is now to be studied by the Commission headed by Betsy DeVos.) While the Stoneman Douglas families supported the Florida bill, it fell short of meeting their core demands of banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The students are not likely to find the going any easier on Capitol Hill.
It is unlikely that an assault weapons ban, a limitation on magazine size, an expansion of background checks to cover gun shows, or raising the age for buying assault weapons will pass Congress before the 2018 election. Looking to that election, two of the Stoneman Douglas survivors have initiated a “Parents Promise To Kids” on Twitter: #PPTK, #ParentsPromiseToKids, parentspromisetokids.org The requested pledge is quite simple. There is a parent contract, a grandparent contract and a general contract, and the parent version provides: “I [parent name(s)] promise to [child name(s)] that I/We will vote for legislative leaders who support our children’s safety over guns!” Notably, the pledge does not require support of any particular measure, so may be of questionable effectiveness. Another approach has been taken by a progressive organization, CREDO Action, that is circulating a petition asking Senators and Congressmen not to accept money from the NRA. The results of such efforts remain to be seen. But even if Democrats should gain control of the House and, far less likely, the Senate as well, passage of gun control legislation would remain an up-hill battle.
The only proposal about which Trump appears to remain enthusiastic is the arming of school personnel. That proposal is supported by the NRA but is broadly unpopular with students, parents and, most particularly, teachers. In a March 1 article, “Trump Wants To Arm Teachers. These Schools Already Do,” the New York Times reported that many schools, mainly small and rural, have already armed their personnel. There does not, however, appear to be any data on how well or poorly that approach has worked in practice, and it seems a very dubious foundation for a national formula for school safety.
Resistance to gun control, and operating as if a wholly-owned subsidiary or the NRA, has not always been a cornerstone of the Republican Party. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush all favored one form of gun control or another. Notably, President Reagan joined Presidents Ford and Carter in 1994 in supporting the ban on assault weapons that would expire ten years later.
By 2013, when RINOcracy began, the NRA was firmly in command, and support of gun control was one of the signature heresies we announced at the outset. It remains one today, and readers are urged to honor and support the Stoneman Douglas survivors in their quest for a rational gun policy.
The premise that “Trump did it” ( Did not pass gun laws) is a basic misunderstanding of separation of the three powers of constitutional government. Laws are passed only by Congress. Should The Donald veto a proposed law, then you have a case.
Note he signed the Omnibus Budget Bill in order to fund the military with an objection to the budget process that only four members of Congress prepared it before another impending deadline to shut down the government.
I loved the young peoples’ speeches at the march on Washington D.C. Pay attention, Congress, they mean business with their emphasis on votes by the people.
As always, thoughtful commentary and well worth spending time contemplating Agree with all the above comments, but I increasingly believe the path forward (as one parent expressed it) was to not wait for Washington or the government to solve the problem. I applaud Florida for passing their bill. No one got everything, but the situation is better…that is called progress. If some rural situations find arming teachers (and compliant teachers!) who are onboard with training and then carrying, fine. I believe each state is unique, and their residents need to creatively address what will best work for them. Then pass laws, and enforce them, that address this horrific issue. And obviously not just for schools. For entertainment events, church gatherings,
every arena where a group gathers. This can stop, if those passionate enough about it push their states to follow Florida’s example, and get a group together to exchange ideas and creatively address the issue as they see it pertaining to their state. And eventually, states will be able to piggy-back ideas off one and other.
Stacey, you make a number of good points, but one stood out: “Nobody gets everything.” That used to be the bedrock of our political system, but now it seems almost everyone wants to win it all. That is a loss for us all.
Doug, another excellent, thoughtful blog. I never cease to be amazed that the NRA continues to vehemently oppose even the most modest gun control measures: stronger background checks and bans on mentally ill or violent offenders from buying weapons. I am a hunter who owns two shotguns, two rifles and a 9mm pistol, but I am at a loss to explain the need for an AR-15 to blow Bambi away. I know that is not the NRA’s argument. Perhaps I should go out an buy a tank, a couple of bazookas and maybe an anti-aircraft gun or two to protect my house and neighbors who don’t do their part. Just a thought…….. 🙂
Doug: when the environmental movement was just gaining national attention, supporters of the movement identified “the dirty dozen” congressmen who were most closely identified with poluting enterprises. If memory serves, many (all?) of the congressmen were defeated in the next election.
I wonder if such a tactic would work with the recipients of the NRA”S largesse. ?
i think after sandy hook, parents had such a hole in their being, their anger couldn’t be as laser-focused as it needed to be to effect change. these kids, though! they can do it – they will all be voters sooner and later – maybe the change won’t be this year, or next, but they are not going to let go until it happens and they will vote out of office those who refuse to change. i am confident of this. and i will be with them saturday in hyannis.
Comments are closed.