Blog No. 231. El Paso and Dayton: What Now?

Members of the Dayton, Ohio, community attend a vigil Sun., Aug. 4, 2019. CBS News

The outrages In El Paso and Dayton laid bare two gaping wounds in America 2019: feelings of hate and white supremacy morphing into domestic terrorism and the scourge of mass killings. If Donald Trump is not the cause of these wounds, at least he bears a major responsibility for our failure to come to grips with them.

It is probably idle to debate whether Trump is a racist or white supremacist at heart. It is clear that he is at least what might have once been referred to as a “fellow traveler” or, in the modern lexicon, an enabler. There is no question that, whether he is acting from personal instinct or political convenience, racists and white supremacists have taken aid, comfort and encouragement from his rhetoric and the behavior of the crowds at his rallies. It is no coincidence that the manifesto of the El Paso shooter paralleled Trump’s language, including his description of the swarms of asylum-seekers at our southern border as an “invasion.” If one truly perceives an invasion, it is a short jump to believing that a lethal response is justified.

In a statement read from a teleprompter after El Paso, the President spoke out against white supremacy for the first time. He did so with all the conviction of a prisoner delivering a message written by his captors. By contrast, one can only imagine the conflagration in presidential hair we would have witnessed if the shooter had been a Mexican, a Central American or a Muslim.

While Tucker Carlson, one of Trump’s acolytes at Fox News, claims that white supremacy is a “hoax,” the FBI knows better.  FBI Director, Christopher Wray, testified last month that the FBI has made about 100 domestic terrorism-related arrests since October, a number comparable to cases of international terrorism. And, according to Wray, “a majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we’ve investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence.” While Wray seeks to address the problem, some knowledgeable observers believe that he is handicapped by a lack of presidential leadership. For example, as reported in the Washington Post:

Some veteran counterterrorism experts said the FBI and the federal government have done too little, despite concerns that have been building for more than a decade.

Dave Gomez, a former FBI supervisor who oversaw terrorism cases, said he thinks FBI officials are wary of pursuing white nationalists aggressively because of the fierce political debates surrounding the issue.

“I believe Christopher A. Wray is an honorable man, but I think in many ways the FBI is hamstrung in trying to investigate the white supremacist movement like the old FBI would,” Gomez said. “There’s some reluctance among agents to bring forth an investigation that targets what the president perceives as his base. It’s a no-win situation for the FBI agent or supervisor.”

Presidential indifference, or even hostility, to combating white supremacy as domestic terrorism has also been experienced at the Department of Homeland Security. An August 5, 2019 article in the Los Angeles Times documented the extent to which the Department “has sought to redirect resources away from countering anti-government, far-right and white supremacist groups.”  In April, Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan announced a new Office of Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention, including “racially motivated violence.” It appears, however, to be largely a re-creation of an Obama-era initiative—with notably fewer resources. Under the Obama administration, a similar office had about 40 full-time staff and a $24 million annual budget, while the new office has fewer than 10 full-time employees and a budget below $3 million.

However well-earned the terms “racist” and “white supremacist” might feel, hurling insults at Trump will not move him and may not move many voters. There is a term in the law, res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. By now, Trump’s behavior has spoken for itself many times, the public has had more than ample opportunity to appraise it, and their appraisals are unlikely to be changed by the application of derisive labels. There is more point for Democrats to focus on the concrete problem of domestic terrorism and to insist (with, one may hope, support from at least some Republicans) that sufficient resources be devoted to combating it.

Mass shootings, of course are a grievous problem on their own. The motives of the Dayton shooter remain unclear, but that event demonstrated yet again our appalling vulnerability to violence from military style weapons in the hands of those who are angry for political or personal reasons. In this instance, Trump has shown signs of getting the message and has expressed support for expanded background checks. Breath, however, should not be held—we have seen this movie before. After the tragic Parkland shooting, Trump held a televised meeting with Congressional leaders in which he expressed broad support for gun control, and even had the chutzpah to chide others for being intimidated by the NRA. Almost  immediately, however, Trump had a second meeting–a private session with an NRA lobbyist–and proceeded to beat a hasty and craven retreat.

It remains to be seen whether Trump will develop more backbone this time and, if so, exactly what he might be willing to support. It also remains to be seen whether he will not merely endorse a specific piece of legislation but persuade Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring it to the floor for a vote. In gun issues, as so often is the case, McConnell has been a decisive road block. He has not, for example, permitted a vote on the Bipartisan Background Checks Act which passed the House with 240 votes, including those of eight Republicans. The bill would require a background check on most every gun sale or transfer, allowing exceptions for some transfers within a family. It would mean background checks at gun shows, where most states do not currently require background checks on purchasing from  private individuals. Trump has claimed that McConnell is “totally on board” with legislation strengthening background checks, but what that will mean in practical terms is anyone’s guess.

In any case, the Background Checks Act, even if passed, would not have stopped the El Paso and Dayton shootings. Thus, while the Act would be a constructive first step, and one which has overwhelming support from the public, much more is required. One possibility, which appears to have backing from Lindsey Graham and some other Senate Republicans, is legislation supporting “Red Flag” laws . Such laws allow family members or law enforcement to limit a person’s access to firearms if he or she is deemed a potential threat to the public. The proposed law, if passed, would not be administered by the federal government but would provide financial assistance to assist states to do so.

The most direct approach to preventing the next El Paso or Dayton would be a law banning the sale of assault weapons and limiting magazine capacities to 10 rounds. Such a law was adopted in 1994 but lapsed in 2004. During the time the law was in effect, it reduced killings, even though its effectiveness was limited by exemptions and exclusions. Democrats have attempted to revive the ban, but have been consistently blocked by Republicans. Several Democratic candidates for president have called for such a ban, but it is unclear how advocacy of such a ban would play as an election issue in 2020. The NRA is riven with internal disputes and appears to be a less powerful political force than it once was but it should not be discounted. On the other hand, there may have been some narrowing of the “passion gap” between supporters and opponents of gun control: the fact that, historically, opponents have tended to bring more passion to defeating gun regulations than  supporters have brought to support them

Still, if Democrats make gun control in one form or other a flagship issue in 2020, they must do so carefully. As David Brooks cautioned on the PBS NewsHour, the issue often exposes a culture gap:

[Gun control has] turned into a culture war, where, for a lot of people, it’s not about guns at all. It’s about my culture vs. your culture. And if you want to control my guns, which are part of my gun clubs, part of my community, you’re just a bunch of coastal elites coming after me.

Every new tragedy brings with  it hope—the hope that it may be the bridge across the passion gap and the culture gap that will finally liberate the GOP from the grasp of the NRA and allow its members to join with Democrats in taking action on guns. Will El Paso and Dayton be that bridge? Let us hope so.