With the Orlando shootings, there has been a spike in the rhetoric surrounding terrorism, its relation to religion and its relation to guns. On the on side, there is a sense of denial that terrorist act are related to guns. On the other side, there is a sense of denial that terrorist acts are related to religion. The first is the peculiar denial of the right, the second the equally peculiar denial of the left.
Let me deal with the issue of guns first. Let me say from the outset that I do not want to do away with the second amendment of the constitution, though I would not shed a single tear if it were repealed. We could debate the meaning of the second amendment ad infinitum, and I won't engage in that debate, but simply suggest that there have been perhaps three emergent trends in the argument for nearly universal gun rights. The first, of course, is the sportsman's argument, the one I am most attuned to defend. Whether one engages in blood sports or not, I can understand its appeal and there should be few limitations on weapons designed for hunting which would include various forms of shot guns and rifles with limited capacity magazines. The second is the "self-defense" argument. Most arguments around self-defense are specious and beggar common sense, but here again I can understand the appeal and there should be few limitations on weapons designed for self-defense, which would include various handguns with limited capacity magazines. The third is the "armed militia" argument. Though it is not often openly articulated, it is the assumption that weapons are necessary to a military or police style operations to "defend the homeland," and the greatest threat to the homeland comes from the federal government itself, either through its inaction or its direct acton.
I say "few limitations on the ownership of guns" designed for hunting and self-defense, which implies, of course, that there should be some limitations created around "public safety." My direct analogy, and it could be administered in almost exactly the same way, is the DMV. Each weapon should be licensed, and while it might be cumbersome to affix a license plate to a hunting rifle or a handgun, the ownership of a weapon should nevertheless be "registered" and changes in ownership "tracked." This would not prevent the private transfer of a weapon from one individual to another, and would place the burden of "registration" on the one receiving the weapon. Failure to register a gun would be a criminal offense, not unlike the failure to register an automobile, and those in possession of "unregistered" guns would be subject to penalty. Likewise, not unlike an automobile, each gun operator, in order to operate the gun, should be licensed. This has the added benefit of registering the intent to own and operate weapons just as obtaining a driver's license registers the intent to drive automobiles, along with prior "testing" to determine one's ability to safely operate a weapon and "screening" to determine one's "fitness" to own weapons. Not unlike a motorcycle "permit" or a commercial permit, special permissions beyond hunting and self-defense could be easily "stamped" on the license -- e.g. a permit to carry a "concealed weapon" or a "special use weapon" like the AR-15. Moreover, each weapon should be individually insured by the owner in much the same way that automobiles are insured, both as property and as a liability. Insofar as the "reckless" use of weapons is a public safety issue, not unlike the "reckless" use of an automobile, it is unfair for the general public to bear the cost of injury or death resulting from the improper use and/or storage of a weapon. Bits and pieces of this are in place here and there, but it has not been "normalized" in the way that automobile registration and insurance has been "normalized" under interstate commerce assumptions and laws with national data-bases.
Who would object to this and why? Administrative cost should not be a factor because fees could be structured to cover on-going costs. It would create yet another government bureaucracy and those who object to "big" government might object on principled grounds, but once such a system were "normalized" private ownership of guns would be no different than private ownership of automobiles or real estate. It wouldn't infringe on the right to "own" firearms, any more than it infringes the right to own real estate, but it would be different than, say, private ownership of a toaster. I suppose that, given sufficient determination, one can imagine "murder by toaster," but it is difficult to imagine, even for the most determined, mass murder by toaster. It isn't difficult to imagine mass murder by AR-15, and only the most willfully ignorant gun advocates can claim that guns themselves are NOT a public safety hazard. It beggars my patience to explain to the willfully ignorant why a "good guy with a gun" is not an answer to the public safety concerns, and it does nothing to dispute a program like that set out above, which would have the added benefit of additional "research" -- that is to say, the actuarial research and the profit margin of the insurance industry would begin to drive "rational," through the vaunted free market, limitations on the types of weapons available to the general public and at what cost. Imagine, in other words, if the gun owner's insurance company that had to pay out claims related to the Sandy Hook or the Orlando shootings. Would it have issued insurance to either individual? At what cost?
So again, who would object and why? It could be argued that it would not keep weapons out of the hands of "criminals" or those with malicious intent. Of course not, but let's follow it through. On the assumption that gun manufacturers will not engage in a black market, almost all gun sales will originate with a legitimate "dealer," who, by the way, should also be licensed just as liquor dealers are licensed. One can assume that the original sale of any particular weapon will take place at a legitimate dealer. Just as a legitimate liquor store dealer won't sell knowingly to minor, thus relieving himself of liability and criminal charges, a legitimate gun dealer won't sell knowingly to a potential customer who is unlicensed, thus relieving himself of liability and criminal charges. If sufficient incentive were available, would a gun dealer willingly violate the law? Of course, but he would be a criminal and subject to criminal sanctions, and he would have an "inventory" issue. He would need to account for the missing "serial numbers" relative to a specific, licensed buyer. Could he fake the license? Of course, but routine cross-check audits would likely discover the fraud, particularly if the fraud were pervasive. Could a "criminal" use a fake license to purchase from a legitimate dealer? Of course, but the same cross checks would likely discover the fraud, particularly if the dealer had no intent to conceal it, and would alert law enforcement if nothing else. Could a legitimate buyer use his license to buy a weapon with the intent of distributing it to criminals? Of course, but that would make the legitimate buy a criminal with criminal intent and, when discovered, subject to criminal prosecution. No law, or set of laws, is a perfect screen against criminality, but the vast majority of citizens might grumble about the bureaucracy necessary to enforce the law, just as I grumble about the DMV, but they would nevertheless comply and there would be numerous check points to keep the honest citizen honest.
So yet again, who would object and why? Those who would object to any form of "government incursion and tracking?" It shouldn't perhaps be surprising that Trevor Noah and others were able to find an Al Queda spokesperson, Adam Gahdan, pointing out the ready availability of guns within the US, an unchecked availability of which the Orlando shooter took full advantage. Of course, with hindsight, no one would argue that he should have had the weapons he had, but the "licensing" prohibitions that would have prevented his purchase of the weapons was voted down by the republican majority in the Senate. Sam Harris has been accused of islamaphobia, and I admit that there's something just a wee bit too preachy, something a wee bit too committed to the cause of debunking the notion that "islam is a religion of peace." At some level, I prefer the urbanity of a Christopher Hitchens, who could quickly and easily debunk the notion that christianity, as it has been practiced historically, is a "religion of peace." I would be the first to admit that the jihadist terrorist probably represents islam as a whole about as well as the white supremacist National Vanguard represents christianity as a whole. Nevertheless, the doctrines professed by both the radical islamist and the radical christian have their fundamental roots in the religion practiced by a regional majority, particularly the regional majority of those on the evangelical right, a "demographic" steeped in and susceptible to what Richard Hofstader called the "paranoid style in politics." Here, for example, is a snippet from the National Vanguard, a white supremacist group, that touches the core of the "paranoid style:"
Except for a relatively small minority of very sick persons who actually relish the idea of surrender and fantasize about being victimized, those who choose to give up their arms are hoping to be protected by the government. They trust the government. They believe the government has their best interests at heart. They think of the government as a friend and generally approve of the government’s policies.
I wouldn't want to suggest that this represents anything but an "extremist" point of view, but so long as we worry about "islamic extremists," we might as well worry about right wing extremists like the National Vanguard, the World Church of the Creator, and the Aryan Nation, all of whom profess to be Christian and all of whom, according to the FBI, represent "a continuing terrorist threat." They are as virulently anti-government as the most radical "islamic extremist," and lest we forget, an emerging terrorist threat of special interest terrorists or those who occupy "extreme fringes of the animal rights [leftist], pro-life [right], environmental [left], and anti-nuclear [left]." Though the animal rights and environmental "extremists" tend to resort to vandalism, those who support the "pro-life" movement have shown their willingness to take up arms to demonstrate their support of life. All are as virulently anti-government as the "islamic extremists." Obama has received considerable heat for not calling out "radical islam," but the terrorist reality facing the FBI is not limited to islam, and it is a terrorist reality, particularly that from the right, adverse to any form of "government" tracking or control of firearms.
In the original Harper's article he tells us that "the basic elements of right wing thought can be reduced to three." The first element of right wing thought concerns the familiar refrain around taxation -- i.e. that since the Roosevelt's new deal, there has been a "sustained conspiracy" to "undermine free capitalism, bring the economy under the control of the federal government, and to pave the way for socialism or communism." Although there are clearly remnants of this line of thinking, particularly in the efforts to undermine social welfare programs and the federal taxation that supports them, the communist bug-a-boo has largely dissipated. There is no real, external communist threat, and the communist nations that remain, particularly China, have become more "capitalist" threats than ideological threats. What to do when one's favorite bug-a-boo has been "defeated?" One needs, more than anything else, a new "bug-a-boo," and 9/11 provided it -- the threat of "international terrorism," particularly that in support of "jihadist ideologies." These same ideologies had undermined "stability" in the middle east for some time, and disrupted access to oil, but now the threat had been brought to our shores. There were, of course, conspiracy theories that Bush himself had engineered the attacks for precisely this reason, to advance his own oil interests and provide a new bug-a-boo, but I find that no more credible than any other conspiracy theory. It was, however, terribly convenient. It not only provided a new bug-a-boo, but the ideology of "jihadism" and the muslim religion itself was a traditional enemy of christendom. Substitute the "war on terror" for the "war on communism," and the rhetoric of the right can resume unabated, particularly since there was incontrovertible evidence that they were "out to get us."
The second element of right wing thought is the contention, according to Hofstader, that "top government officials have been so infiltrated by communists, that American policy, at least since the days leading up to Pearl Harbor, has been dominated by men who were consistently and shrewdly selling out American interests." Here again, substitute the old bug-a-boo of communism with the new bug-a-boo of international terrorists. With his election, Barack Hussein Obama, the top government official, bar none, became the man "consistently and shrewdly selling out American interests." Trump's "birther" rants against Obama during the last election cycle, and the repeated claims that he was of Kenyan descent provides a case in point. As reported by the Huffington Post, "Trump appeared via telephone on CNBC, where he argued that questions about Obama's birthplace have not been adequately answered, despite Obama releasing a copy of his birth certificate over a year ago. 'Nothing has changed my mind,' he said." Such rhetoric has it's direct correspondence with white supremacist rhetoric, this a headline drawn from the web site of the National Vanguard, "a glimpse at the progressive element of Obama's homeland, Kenya." Which came first might be difficult to prove, and it's not surprising that "nothing changed his mind," in part because evidence to the contrary, for the conspiracy theorist, is itself evidence of just how "shrewd" those engaged in the conspiracy have become and how effectively they "fake" evidence. After the mass shooting in Orlando, essentially "I told you so," followed by "insinuations" of Obama's complicity with, or at least sympathy with, the terrorists was reiterated, though the message quickly became confused for reasons that I will touch below.
The third element of right wing thought, according to Hofstader, is that "country is infused with a network of communist agents ... so that the whole apparatus of education, religion, the press, and the mass media is engaged in a common effort to paralyze the resistance of loyal Americans." The whole apparatus is "political correctness," or the on-going inability to "speak the truth." In another headline from the white supremacist group, National Vanguard, we are told:
the whole Trump story is a simple one: black, “Muslim” president leads to natiivist backlash, with a consummate salesman-demagogue giving his followers permission to say what had previously been beyond the bounds of polite discourse.
They hold some suspicion of Trump, along with any republican support of Isreal, in part because, as the same author put it, "the high profile jews supporting Trump make me sick." Nevertheless, they see in Trump's "anti-poitical correctness" campaign at least a partial vindication of their "ideology,"
Let’s take “white supremacy” out of the realm of insult. It is an ideology, after all, not simply a slur, and it is believed by tens of millions of Americans. It is the proposition that the real (“great”) America is white America, and while the “melting pot” can absorb some blacks, Asians and Latinos, the essential core of what America is remains the Christian, European iteration that prevailed for 200 years. It is English-speaking, Merry-Christmas-wishing, and ruled by “real” American men, not by women or people with the middle name Hussein.
I will not attempt to answer the question which comes first, the sorts of extreme paranoid "christian" religion espoused here or the tribal hatred of anyone outside the tribe -- it is ultimately a chicken and egg question. I will suggest again that it is no different in kind than the extreme paranoid "muslim" religion that fears incursion of secular western culture and their tribal hatred of anyone outside their particular tribe.
It probably goes without saying, but I will say it anyway. The paranoid style of politics is particularly amenable to the NRA messaging and the proliferation of firearms. I do put some faith in the notion that my neighbors are mostly benign, regardless of their skin color, religion, or place of origin. For the very few who are not, I do put some faith in the notion that our government has our "best interests at heart," and that we are "protected by the government" and its agencies. Those who place their faith elsewhere, believe that their neighbors are malignant, who believe their government facilitates their malignancy, would probably feel the need to arm themselves for "protection." At the farthest extremes, they would probably feel the need to arm themselves to combat the government itself, if not actively through acts of terrorism, then at least defensively against their incursions. It is, perhaps, not surprising then that the NRA messaging has found it's natural home in a conservative party that has been "dog-whistling" paranoid political thought for some time, "dog-whistling" that has finally called forth Donald Trump, a hound that cannot seem to restrain its barking.
Here again, I do not believe for an instant that the NRA is in conspiracy with the likes of Al Queda or the National Vanguard or their ilk. I believe they are pretty much what they appear to be, representatives of the gun industry. Ultimately, the ends of the gun industry is to make a profit from the manufacture and sale of firearms. How they justify that profit to themselves and to others is another matter, and it is that justification (and defense) of the gun industry that leads to ideological statements of one sort or another. Cynically, however, it is difficult to miss the point that mass shootings and the effectual calls to limit the manufacture and sale of firearms, have resulted in the increased sales of firearms. Here, as reported by the NYT:
the business climate for gun makers has rarely been better. Firearms enthusiasts, whether they are hunters, target shooters or those concerned with their personal safety, buy more guns after mass shootings and the resulting appeals for stricter gun laws. After the call for sales restrictions after the San Bernardino attacks, more guns were sold in December than almost any other month in nearly two decades, according to federal data released this week.
The same is expected to happen (and is happening) as a result of the latest mass shooting in Orlando, Consequently, “Mr. Obama is the best gun salesman on the planet,” said Mr. Navellier, chairman of the Reno, Nev., investment firm Navellier & Associates, alluding to the notion that the White House’s push for stricter gun laws has driven sharp increases in firearm sales," and "since President Obama took office in 2009, shares of Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger have each increased more than 900 percent, far surpassing the return of the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index (up 147 percent) and even outperforming the stock of Apple (up 800 percent)." Again, I do not think the gun industry is in conspiracy with the likes of a mass shooter. I would assert, rather forcefully, however, that they resemble the cigarette industry in the 50s and 60s, fully aware that their "product" is a public health and safety hazard, but doing nothing to ameliorate those hazards. I would assert, rather forcefully, that the republican legislators, who have dog-whistled the most paranoid aspects of our society, who have voted in a block against even rational discussion of gun legislation, are complicit in a wide spread public health and safety debacle.
Perhaps, however, we have an opening. The shooting in Orlando has up-ended most of the conventional narratives. Although a muslim, and despite a phone call to 911 declaring his allegiance to ISIS, it would stretch the limits of credulity to declare him an ideologically committed terrorist, the bete noir of the right. Trump, clearly, self indulgently, with his finger on the tweet-trigger, did not call it correctly, and his retreat has been embarrassingly ignominious. Although the targets were gay, and initial testimony tended to portray him as a typical perpetrator of a hate crime against gays, the bete noir of the left, it is not clear that he perpetrated a "hate crime," at least not with the typical motives of religiously sanctified bigotry and a tribal hatred of the "other." The more they dig, the more they find that he was himself, very likely, a "closeted-gay." If there was fear and loathing, it was more likely the self loathing of being what his father and the religion of his father would have called an "abomination." In a crowded place, with people elbow to elbow, with free-flowing spirits in all senses of the word, with music blaring and nearly everyone in motion, in the lighting of a night club, how exactly would another gun firing away have done anything except increase the number of casualties among the innocent? Maybe, if the perpetrator had been a brown skinned muslim extremist shooting at white skinned christians at worship, he would have been easily identified. Maybe, if the perpetrator had been a white skinned christian extremist shooting at a room full of brown and black skinned people. But this was a brown skinned person shooting in loud, dimly lit room full to brim mostly of other brown skinned people. Although many, too many, were quick to leap on ideological bandwagons, in the end, the mass shooting will likely turn out to be exactly what it appears to be, a deeply disturbed individual with an AR-15, in an arena where most of the shibboleth's of "self-defense" turn out to be utter non-sense. Perhaps there is an opening for a rational discussion, and rational action on gun legislation that might affirm our faith that the government really does have the people's best interests at heart, and not simply the profits of the gun industry -- that might affirm its ability to take meaningful action to extend real protection, address issues of public health and safety, and not say, in effect, "every man for themselves. If you want to protect yourself, buy a gun -- better yet, buy several. "
No comments:
Post a Comment