Wisconsin's 2010 US Senate race between then incumbent Democrat Russ Feingold and eventual winner Republican Ron Johnson provided a good example of why little progress on gun safety is likely to happen in the current political environment.
In June of 2010, then candidate Johnson was asked by a Tea Party group what kind of gun restrictions he might support. As we might expect from any decent human being with common sense, Johnson gave a perfectly reasonable response: "You know, like we license cars and stuff, I don't have a real, I don't
have a real problem in minimal licensing and stuff. I mean I don't."
New to politics, Johnson had not a clue as to the extent to which the gun lobby controls (this is the real "gun control") the modern Republican Party. He was forced to retract the comments, said he used the "wrong word," and by July of 2012 he was framing ownership of high capacity clips and magazines as a constitutional right. In other words, by July of 2012 Johnson on the issue of gun safety had become just one more hack Republican: no resolve to do anything about the problem, no courage to stand up to extreme elements of the gun lobby; talk of licensing now a distant memory.
But I don't think anyone, including Republicans, ever expected much more than party hackery from RoJo on most issues. What was more disturbing, rather, was Feingold's response at the time of Johnson's 2010 pro-licensing comment. The campaign put out a radio ad attacking Johnson, with Feingold saying "I approve this message because you shouldn't have to wait in line at
the DMV to get a license for your constitutional rights and freedoms." That was the Democrat.
After Johnson flip-flopped and groveled at the feet of the NRA, the Feingold campaign said, "Russ Feingold has never needed a do-over when it comes to opposing gun registration." That was the Democrat.
In essence, Feingold was attempting to run to the right of Johnson on gun control. This was not unique to Feingold; since guns became a wedge issue in the 1980s, the typical Democratic response has been to "position" themselves in ways that might maintain the party base while not alienating independents.
The result? The so-called gun debate in the United States, when it does happen (usually after horrific tragedies like Columbine, Virgina Tech, Aurora, and Newtown), is skewed way to the right. Policy items like licensing and registration, which would be prerequisites for any serious attempt to do something legislatively about guns, are off the table from the start.
As long as Republicans are easily intimidated and bullied by the gun lobby, and as long as Democrats choose positioning over principle, we are not likely to see any meaningful changes in gun policy coming out of Washington or the state capitols.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hello Tony. Boy, was I confused by this post. The babblings of Ron Johnson, and the similarities between the terms "license", "permit", "registration" and the way they are used somewhat interchangeably by people were no help. However, after re-reading several times, and following the link to the 2 year old JS article the mists have cleared. It seems quite obvious that RoJo initially was using the word "license" or "registration" while really meaning "permit". Like a CC permit, which I incidentally support. This world would be a much different place is most women were carrying. And in the interest of disclosure, while also hopefully avoiding the pitfalls of firearms "flaunting" or "verbal intimidation", I'll admit to handgun ownership myself, and having had handgun/self-defense training. Now on to the business of your post. I feel quite strongly your characterization of Russ Feingold is wrong in the extreme. It is highly unlikely his position on gun REGISTRATION (what this issue was about) is due to him "pandering" to the NRA or to Independents as you charge. It is highly LIKELY it is due to the fact that Russ is an expert on constitutional law. He certainly would know that firearm registration has been found unconstitutional by the court in Haynes v. United States. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=390&invol=85 He certainly therefore would have been able to recognize that neophyte Johnson was in over his head and mis-speaking, thinking he was talking "CC permit" when in fact he had just advocated gun registration. Two very different things, one supported by the US court, one not.
At worst, Russ was taking a forgone conclusion (that gun registration has been struck down as un-equal application of law to felons and non-felons) and then re-framing that basic legal fact in the Ad as a "bold, gun-rights stance" for the purpose of that campaign moment. He was only seizing the opportunity to use his own legal awareness (and RoJo's lack thereof) to twist RoJo's words back at him to make him look as stupid. Ron's first remark really was wrong, as his aids would have informed him. Johnson could not feasibly have taken a stance in favor of gun registration since it has been to date found unlawful. Team Russ was amused and tried to capitalize on it. Russ did not need to "pander to the NRA" or anyone on this. Your analysis of Feingold's behavior is so pants on fire you must have had rocket fuel for dinner.
I do agree that no "discussion" of this and related issues will ever come to anything. The lies, assumptions, rhetoric, lack of listening or any real experience, the quasi-religious fervor amongst all people guarantees that. Anyways, was this post an example of a Logical Fallacy? I'm not sure if that's the correct term, you would know. But IMO you made a lot of assumptions and then wove them into an incorrect conclusion based on nothing. Whatever you call that, that's what this was. Now I gotta go polish my Glock, see ya.
Post a Comment