Our democratic republic & the town hall gun-toters
E.J. Dionne, Jr. gets to the heart of the matter. See the Washington Post full op-ed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081902961.html
This is not about the politics of populism. It’s about the politics of the jackboot. It’s not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It’s about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.
There is a philosophical issue here that gets buried under the fear that so many politicians and media-types have of seeming to be out of touch with the so-called American heartland.
The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.
Comments are closed.
These kooks have always been out there on the fringes. It was not to long ago that their forefathers were claiming that the Civil Rights Act was a fiendish plot hatched by the Soviet Union, and would initiate “white slavery”. But back then, there were few leading politicians like Palin who would wink at these demagogues, and the media took its job seriously, unlike today.
I think the right making a point of bringing guns to the president’s appearances is reminiscent of the sort of thuggish intimidation that Ernst Rohm’s SA cadres perpetrated in Germany before they were crushed (by the even more brutal SS) in the Night of the Long Knives after Hitler came to power.
The question is, how can this be opposed before it metastasizes into more overt armed insurrection or terrorism?
Obama should announce that he is, henceforth, declining to appear in the states which have laws that make it legal to carry firearms to an appearance of the President of the United States. He should also say that he’s not doing it for his own safety, but out of concern for those who might be cut down by the withering hail of the gunfire of his own secret service detachment, if someone’s firearm goes off by accident. The assassination attempts against four of the last nine Presidents indicate that there is no little risk at these events.
This is what I’m referring to when I say that both the Democrats and Republicans like to use fear to control the agenda and demonize the opposition. There have been no shots fired, no one hurt, and no laws broken – queer conditions for an armed insurrection or terrorism, eh? Apparently Richard Nixon is not the only one who thinks vigorous protest against the powers that be is akin to a threat against national security! Better have President Obama bug the phones of the most prominent people involved so we can uncover the “plot” of their “insurrection” before it happens.
Sorry. You and Dionne are correct in what you say about moral consensus, but utterly mistaken in what the gun-toters are saying.
You are disputing not their actual philosophy, which is rational, but a straw-man. And the only reason you believe this straw-man to be a plausible articulation of the philosophy of gun owners is because you’re bigoted enough to caricature them as a bunch of illiterate buck-toothed hicks. Such folk, in your view, couldn’t possibly have a rational philosophy.
Or so I suspect from Dionne’s words and tone, and your full-throated agreement. But I don’t know you, so I acknowledge I may be mistaken about your motives, or what psychology underlies the error.
C’mon, Magdalena, you’re missing the point. Armed men are showing up at Obama’s event in order to send a message that they are willing to use violence (sorry, “water the tree of liberty”) to prevent progress on his agenda. You don’t see this as an issue??
The Administration is defending their right to carry arms. my objection is not about their right to carry firearms, it is with the message being communicated by those guns.
And quit with the ludicrous attempt to portray some sort of equivalence between the fear-mongering of the previous administration and the current administration. There is absolutely no similarity between them in that regard.
I do not question the philosophy of gun owners in general. Neither does Dionne.
I question the rationality of those who choose to bring and display guns openly at political events that are meant to be the venue of civil, reasoned and democratic discourse.
RC – You’re doing a terrible job of mind-reading (or maybe straw-man constructing?): I’m a gun owner and hunter myself: in the hunting community there is a non-trivial contingent of folks who find the idea of a black president utterly unacceptable, and that’s not a straw man: that is my direct experience. I’ll do a post on that soon, complete with photographic evidence.
Magdalena,
Bush had protestors removed from his appearances for wearing t-shirts. That’s over reaction.
Objecting to people bringing guns to public debates where the president is speaking is not over reaction. It’s common sense.
Mr. Dionne writes:
“It’s about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence”.
How does he know it’s a minority? Or is that a usual rhetorical device? In my head there echoed the gun-toting minority of 1775, who fired the shot heard round the world.
Or was he referring to the baton-toting observers in Philadelphia during the election in 2008?
illiterate buck-toothed hicks
Who made that accusation or insinuation? As an Appalachian I’m particularly sensitive to such characterizations.
I think some have stated that these people seem motivated by the individualist “one man army” gun nut philosophy, that they want to communicate their willingness to use violence for political ends, and that many of them appear motivated by racism. Nothing more.
vigorous protest
What a funny euphemism.
RC – I have that new post I promised up now:
http://vox-nova.com/2009/08/20/9255/
Vigorous protest is not a euphemism in this case. There have been no laws broken here. These people fall in the same category as flag-burners, whose way of protest transgresses socially acceptable forms of dissent. It’s really, really not a good idea to throw around terms like “terrorism” or “insurrection” or insinuate that assassination is in the offing unless one has something more to go on than hysterical conjecture. Speaking of terrorism, I wondered when the Democrats would start making use of the T word. George Bush and Co. loooooved the T word and it was too effective a tool for them for the Democrats to leave it alone for long. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
Again I am not really gung ho about defending these people, who, you are correct, obviously DO NOT have a lot of common sense. I am sure there is someone out there who is violent and on the edge, just like there were real threats 2001-2009. But the focus on these eccentric people is not about the one or two crazies who are actually dangerous; the Dems are focusing on these people in order to deflate legitimate opposition to policy, tarring decent people with the “nut” brush. They would like us to be absolutely terrified of these people with, gasp, legal guns being used in a legal way, and they would exploit that fear to acheive their policy ends. EXACTLY what Pres. Bush would do.
This is the kind of thing authorities do when they realize their control of the policy debate has slipped (President Bush’s presidency was one long slippage). It has happened rather early for President Obama but that’s what happens when the person leading the debate has so much inexperience. A few more years in Washington before his election might have seasoned him a bit more and he would have some idea how to pull this kind of thing off; instead he is going down the same road as President Clinton, another leader who initially was too inexperienced to be effective. It’s a hard lesson for Obama to learn, and it will hurt even worse when the Republicans take back so many seats in the House next year, but in the end he will be more skillful for it and hopefully have better success with his other initiatives.
I am now going to have a late supper with my “un-American,” “evil-mongering” relatives. (Some more favorite Bush phrases, now all adopted by the Democratic leadership).
“…the Dems are focusing on these people in order to deflate legitimate opposition to policy, tarring decent people with the “nut” brush.’
No. We are asking why the ”legitimate opposition” not only fails to call these people for what they are, but in many noted cases (congressmen included) actually encourages their bandying about of firearms–and dangerously so–around the venues for set aside for large-scale public debate.
Magdalena – again with the ridiculous assertion of some kind of equivalence between the fear-mongering-as-policy the Republicans used, and the legitimate, sensible worries about the un-subtle inmtimidation being attempted by extremists who are bringing guns to a presidential appearance.
Given the history of assassination attempts and plots the last 50 years or so – I’m sorry, Magdalena, but no one is THAT dense. No one.
I can think of two possibilities:
1. You’re being deliberately obtuse.
2. You think that if you say “tu quoque” enough, it’ll stick.
Sorry, but a great big fail on both counts.
The unvarnished truth is this: People are bringing guns to Obama rallies to communicate their willingness to use lethal violence if Obama “goes too far.”
Demagogues like Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh are comparing Obama to the freaking 1930s NAZI PARTY IN GERMANY, saying he’s a “threat to the bill of rights,” Republican Govcernors are making serious mentions of the word “seccession” (what happened the last time a bunch of governors used that word, Magdalena? Here’s a hint: it devastated large parts of the then-United States.) Sean Hannity is using the word “treason” to describe the current executive. The NRA is literally asking recipients of fund raising calls, ““Do you think Hillary Clinton and 3rd World Dictators in the UN are trying to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights?” – note that I’m not describing some Stormfront basement fascist type mumbling to himself in his mom’s basement – no, that’s the NATIONAL FREAKING RIFLE ASSOCIATION.
The right wing is using scary rhetoric to describe policies that are well within the establishmentarian mainstream of American policy history.
The left has NOTHING that compares to the tsunami of utter, mendacious horse manure being flung by the right in America.
Enough with this feigned “confusion” that “Gee, the left is scare-mongering too!!1!”
Nonsense. No it’s not.
Magdalena, in many respects you seem to be a level-headed rational person, so you’re not seeing things that aren’t there. No: you’re making a thoroughly disingenuous argument, and it is a great, big steaming pile of nonsense.
“Magdalena, in many respects you seem to be a level-headed rational person, so you’re not seeing things that aren’t there. No: you’re making a thoroughly disingenuous argument, and it is a great, big steaming pile of nonsense.”
Worse than nonsense, I’d say.
From the moment Obama was the right has been shrieking about he is a racist and a socialist and not a real American. . . there was even serious speculation that he was the anti-Christ. To their credit, the right has backed off on the anti-Christ claim, but the others are still in play, and not only on the fringes. And now people are showing up armed at town hall debates.
And when someone on the left points out that, gee, all this ill-informed hysteria over Obama might lead to violence. . . it’s the LEFT that is fear-mongering?
That’s not even laughable. It’s the sign of a party that simply will not take responsibility for its own actions.
Magdalena – You really think burning a flag at a protest and waving a gun around at a protest places these people in “the same category”? Really?
Indeed, worse than “nonsense.”
M.I., as far as I know, no one is “waving a gun around” at a protest.
People who bring guns to a protest do so with the same reasoning that motivates people with SSA to make out in front of Mormon churches or people to burn flags. They do so because
1. They want to make a point about their rights
2. They are political exhibitionists who care more about making a point than making a sound argument
3. They get a thrill from provoking reaction (in other words they like to tick people off)
That’s all I mean when I put them all in the same category. There is likely someone somewhere who would like to shoot President Obama and is planning to do it (it’s a big country with a lot of freaky people in it). That person is probably not walking around in public with a rifle.
“Watering the tree of liberty” does not indicate a desire to kill anyone. In the paranoid fantasyland inhabited by people like Glenn Beck, Obama is setting the stage for the destruction of the Republic by weakening the Constitution, after which he and his ACORN army will descend to feast on the flesh of all virtuous Founding Fathers-worshiping Americans. The point of having access to a gun in this scenario is not to assassinate anyone, it is to defend one’s family and one’s collection of Ronald Reagan memorabilia from the liberal hordes pouring through the door. They sincerely believe this is a real threat and they mean to “water the tree of liberty” with their own blood, by dying as martyrs for their god, the Constitution, rather than living under the reign of the dark lord Obama and his witch queen.
Probably the paranoia will dial back a bit after the midterm elections and the GOP gets control back of the House. Until then we will continue to have people engaging in in-your-face exercising of Second Amendment rights and other political theatre. And many prayers for the Secret Service who have the duty of protecting the President and his family from the people who constitute a real threat and the FBI who have to keep track of actual domestic terrorists. Somehow I doubt we will be having an insurrection any time soon but I will keep refreshing nytimes.com just in case… okay that was unnecessarily snarky. Maybe I am wrong, I don’t know. I just feel that all this indignation and horror is a bit over-wrought.
They get a thrill from provoking reaction (in other words they like to tick people off)
Prediction: if Obama doesn’t do as I recommended above, they are going to “tick” the secret service off enough that one of them is going to be blown to pieces by the “withering hail” of the secret service’s guns.
And, when that happens, I wonder if you’ll call all this “indignation and horror a bit over-wrought.
Second prediction: you’ll blame Obama.
No again, Magdalena.
Here’s a prediction, one I really, really hope I’m wrong about:
Within the next year, some disturbed rightist will make a serious attempt on the life of the president.
It will be a natural, obvious, reasonably-to-be-expected consequence of the paranoid fear-mongering and “he’s-planning-to-eat-our-children-but-only-the-white-ones” lunacy emanating from every organ of right-wing propaganda – Fox News and talk radio, primarily – but any attempt to name that particular elephant in the room will be met with “What? What did we say? How were we supposed to know that chanting “Will no one rid us of this meddlesome socialist” day and night might lead to anything bad??”
And, sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the Republicans are going to get their butts kicked in 2010. Again. The Dems will have 3 more seats in the Senate, and maybe 18 more in the House. The Repubs will blame their loss on the “liberal media” and the fact that Acorn stole the election by legally registering black people to vote (or something) and still not grasp that the country is starting to look at them like you look at someone on the street who is ranting about how the CIA is stealing his thoughts: a mixture of pity and alarm.
Matt:
The only people I see talking about assassination of a black president are Democrats. Not to deny that racism exists, but I don’t think the white supremacists want the heat that would come of that.
But let’s talk about something a little different. Obviously racism is a problem, violence is a problem. I’ve seen MS-13 graffiti in my neighborhood. A couple of guys were murdered at a park two miles from my home for looking like they belonged to the wrong “set”, but were unconnected to any gangs. A mile from my home, twenty guys beat one man, then advanced on the responding officer who had to retreat and call for backup. A guy stole my son’s scooter and we spotted it and called the police. We were subjected to quite offensive accusations of racism, that the only reason the police were there was because of his race (still had the title with the VIN, no question of ownership was possible). Never mind that I am hispanic like he was, I look white so I must be a racist. But heck, my ancestry is technically “Californio”, so it must not count. You’d be surprised what you hear some Spanish speakers say about people who look white when they don’t know you also speak Spanish. An elderly couple a mile and half from my home were murdered in a home invasion robbery.
Racism and violence are rampant in our society. Someone shot Reagan. Someone killed Kennedy. People get killed in my town. I’d be surprised if someone DIDN’T target Obama. But is it evidence of some creeping conspiracy at work? By no means! It’s simply business as usual in the United States of America. There’s nothing much political about it. Of course, the left believes no crisis should go to waste.
’d be surprised if someone DIDN’T target Obama.
Doug, to be blunt, a lot of the right is hoping and praying that Obama gets a bullet in the brain. No, no one is directly saying “Go kill the president.” They are saying he’s just like the Nazis and wants to eat babies and Acorn is the Vanguard Of The Black People who are Coming to Get Revenge On Whitey for Slavery and Oppression, after Obama Takes Away Your Guns.
When the nutcase they’ve spent months winding up into a paranoid ball fails (please God)in his attempt, the Right will feign shock that anyone could blame them for the actions of a lone nutcase.
I haven’t seen anyone praying and hoping for that, and I’m pretty right wing. Of course, I’m not in tune with the racists and black helicopter folks. Are you certain it’s not left wing fear mongering, similar to the right wing fear mongering?
Why on earth would I blame Obama for something like that. The Secret Service does what the Secret Service does without getting tips from the Prez on how to do their jobs. They are very efficient and don’t open fire without a good reason so there would be no reason to blame anyone but their target. Geez.
All polling that I have seen (and the Dem operatives I have talked to) say things are not looking hot in 2010, but I suppose that could change, a lot of it depends on if the recovery which appears to be jobless so far starts to really kick in on Main St. For everybody’s sake I hope it does. Also if the Dems can mitigate their current p.r. problems and steer the agenda toward more uncontroversial issues, that would help too. November 2010 is a long time away, I am just pointing out that at the present time more people would be voting GOP than Democratic, I think the last estimate I read was 20 seats going GOP in the House. But pre-election estimates don’t count for anything.
Also if the Dems can mitigate their current p.r. problems and steer the agenda toward more uncontroversial issues, that would help too.
No, Mag. “Less controversial” as you’re using the phrase there usually means “do things the Republicans won’t make a spectacle of themselves screaming ‘fascism’ about.” The Republicans are banking on the fact that the country will get so sick of their incessant screaming that they’ll be given another chance just so everyone won’t have to hear the screaming for awhile. That’s what “controversial means in Republican propaganda terms.
Here’s the thing the Dems need to learn: the attempts at “bi-partisanship” are all going to fail because the Republicans aren’t interested in “healing the rifts” the divide the country: they want to make those rifts worse because they benefit from them.
The things the Dems want to do are are anywhere from popular to very popular on an issue-by-issue polling basis. At this point, they need to just shove their agenda down the Republican’s throats, and then reap the electoral benefits when their popular agenda begins to actually benefit the country, and they can point out that those popular policies and initiatives were passed without a single Republican vote. That would translate into an electoral landslide.
And, sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the Republicans are going to get their butts kicked in 2010. Again. The Dems will have 3 more seats in the Senate, and maybe 18 more in the House.
My guess is more modest — a single seat in each the Senate and the House. Dems will lose Alabama-2 and Idaho-1. They would lose Maryland-1 but the GOP is putting up a ultraconservative. Republicans lose Illinois-10, Louisiana-2, and Pennsylvania-6.
In 2008, Pro-Life Democrat Steve Driehaus unseated Pro-Life Republican Steve Chabot. Right to Life endorsed Chabot saying that when both candidates are pro-life they endorse the incumbent. In 2010, Driehaus will win and RTL will support his opponent, contradicting their previous claims.
Ya heard it here, first!!
But even if the Democrats lost a single diget number of seats in the House, they would come out ahead, with most of the classes of 2006 and 2008 now re-elected, you would find them less skittish about taking tough votes.