There’s a protocol in American politics for dealing with days like this. Those who follow it forswear politics. They offer heartwarming words for the victims and their families. They talk about prayer, loved ones, and their own children and grandchildren. They deliver affecting speeches. They do not talk about gun control.
As a result, those speeches—no matter how heartfelt they are, no matter how much comfort they offer a confused nation—can sometimes seem a bit awkward, at least to those who know what’s missing. Today, two Presidential candidates who are, by all appearances, personally in favor of at least some measure of gun control, spoke about what happened at a showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colorado—the largest mass shooting ever perpetrated by one person in the U.S.—and didn’t once mention the issue.
“If there’s anything to take away from this tragedy, it’s the reminder that life is very fragile,” President Obama said when he spoke in Florida on Friday, at what had originally been intended as a campaign event. “Our time here is limited and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives. Ultimately, it’s how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.”
Mitt Romney, addressing the crowd at his own hastily modified campaign stop, said, “Today, we feel not only a sense of grief but perhaps also of helplessness.” He continued:
New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg was a different story. “Soothing words are nice,” he said, “but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”
He might be right about that. But he knows as well as anyone else that it’ll never happen. Both Obama and Romney had good reasons to stay away from policy questions today, and not just because they might be accused of politicizing a massacre.
Though Obama is often accused of or perceived as being adamantly pro-gun control—the N.R.A. regularly makes scary claims about his plans to crack down on firearms as it asks for money, and he’s been a catalyst for higher gun sales—the truth is that national Democrats all but gave up on gun control measures over a decade ago. That decision can be traced back to Al Gore’s loss in 2000, which some Democrats attributed to his having gone too far left on the issue during the primaries, turning off, among others, white working-class voters, including union members—exactly the type of voter that Obama’s having problems with now.
Though gun control appeals to some portions of the Democratic base, it still poses a problem of motivation: for most pro-gun-control voters, the issue isn’t the first thing on their mind when they go to the polls. The same isn’t true of the other side.
So it’s unlikely that Obama will pick up gun control during this election—he doesn’t want to give Romney any more momentum than he already has. On the other hand, it’s not at all clear that Romney would use it anyway.
Back in April of 2007, the Democratic National Committee put out a press release about Romney. It didn’t go as you might expect:
But there is something we can do. We can offer comfort to someone near us who is suffering or heavy laden, and we can mourn with those who mourn in Colorado.Neither man mentioned the issue that would, in another country, or at another time in this country’s history, have been on everyone’s lips. (In a powerful piece today, Adam Gopnik made a persuasive case that behaving that way is due to a simple lack of courage.)
New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg was a different story. “Soothing words are nice,” he said, “but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”
He might be right about that. But he knows as well as anyone else that it’ll never happen. Both Obama and Romney had good reasons to stay away from policy questions today, and not just because they might be accused of politicizing a massacre.
Though Obama is often accused of or perceived as being adamantly pro-gun control—the N.R.A. regularly makes scary claims about his plans to crack down on firearms as it asks for money, and he’s been a catalyst for higher gun sales—the truth is that national Democrats all but gave up on gun control measures over a decade ago. That decision can be traced back to Al Gore’s loss in 2000, which some Democrats attributed to his having gone too far left on the issue during the primaries, turning off, among others, white working-class voters, including union members—exactly the type of voter that Obama’s having problems with now.
Though gun control appeals to some portions of the Democratic base, it still poses a problem of motivation: for most pro-gun-control voters, the issue isn’t the first thing on their mind when they go to the polls. The same isn’t true of the other side.
So it’s unlikely that Obama will pick up gun control during this election—he doesn’t want to give Romney any more momentum than he already has. On the other hand, it’s not at all clear that Romney would use it anyway.
Back in April of 2007, the Democratic National Committee put out a press release about Romney. It didn’t go as you might expect:
Smooth talking Mitt Romney heads to South Carolina today, one day after skipping his first National Rifle Association Annual Meeting since purchasing a “lifetime” NRA membership in August. While Romney has told audiences that he is “after the NRA’s endorsement,” he dodged the NRA convention in St. Louis despite being in the same town at the same time for a fundraiser.In fact, it appears that when he was governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed legislation that would have banned one of the weapons used in today’s attacks. He doesn’t want to have to explain away another part of his record in office any more than Obama wants to risk losing more white men in swing states. This is the fact of life in a Presidential campaign: politics almost always trumps policy.
Romney’s decision to duck the NRA meeting raises important questions. Was Romney afraid to be ridiculed by real NRA members over his claim to have been a hunter “pretty much all my life,” despite having never been issued a hunting license and having been on just two hunting trips? [Associated Press, 4/05/07; Associated Press, 04/06/07] Or was Romney simply trying to avoid explaining his real record on gun control issues?
A new analysis of Romney’s gun control record by prominent gun owner’s rights activist Dave Kopel found that Romney “has a thin record to back up his claims of support for the Second Amendment.” Not only is there “little evidence of executive leadership by Romney on Second Amendment rights,” but Kopel noted that “Romney occasionally considered the Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature too soft on gun owners.” Kopel also highlights that, as part of the $500 million in new fees Romney imposed on Bay State taxpayers, Romney quadrupled the fee for a Firearms Identification card (FID).
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/07/obama-and-romney-on-aurora-shooting.html?printable=true#ixzz21GIZ5V4J
No comments:
Post a Comment