The Democrats’ “historic” sit- in at the House of Representatives ended yesterday. On the same day, Mitch McConnell used some arcane parliamentary procedure to prevent the Collins bill from moving forward in the senate. So, it looks like gun control is on hold until after November. Or much longer. A few thoughts:
A lot of things have happened in the last eight years that I never thought I’d see in my lifetime. A black president, gay marriage, marijuana legal. So, I can’t give up hope that someday there will be a consensus on gun control, or at least control of assault weapons. And, that when it happens, it will happen all of a sudden and the NRA will never be the same.
But, I don’t think that sit-ins in the House are the answer, though I understand the frustration of the minority Democrats. It reminded me of the time Texas state legislators fled the state to deny the Republicans a quorum to prevent their passing a redistricting bill. It worked for a few weeks, but eventually, they all had to return to the legislature. And the Republicans passed their redistricting bill.
Ways to tell you are losing? You have to flee the state to prevent a vote. Or you stay up all night in the well of the House in an act of futile symbolism. Pelosi, Lewis, Rangel . . . All well into their seventies, at the end of long and honorable careers. In which they’ve been unable to change the debate on guns.
And, it does set a precedent. Imagine Trey Gowdy and Steve King doing the same thing on some issue important to conservatives.
I’m not optimistic that any meaningful assault weapons bans will be passed. But, if it happens, it will result from a mix of the following factors:
- During the recent senate haggling over various gun control issues, Pat Toomey was shuttling between the NRA and Everytown, Bloomberg’s anti-gun organization, to work on language for legislation that he and Joe Manchin were authoring. Everytown’s potential to become a lobbying organization to counter the NRA is essential.
- Sandyhook was clearly a transformative moment for the president, and the issue of gun control is likely to become a leading issue for him during his post-presidency. Obama + Everytown could change the equation, if they target specific congressional districts. Imagine Bloomberg’s money and Obama showing up in specific congressional districts to make the moral argument.
- NRA members die. Demographics drive change. NRA members tend to be older and more rural. The number of hunters has declined precipitously in the last twenty years. At some point, guns just won’t be as potent an issue for a large enough segment of voters.
- National Security. Orlando made gun control a national security issue. That should be a game changer. If the NRA can beat a National Security argument, then I tip my hat to them and will start pricing AR-50s.
In at The End of The World 
One of the things that made this a losing (or less than successful) move is that they didn’t highlight the real issue: they weren’t or shouldn’t have been sitting in for gun control, so much as for the right to vote on it. Gun control might not be a winning issue universally, and doing aging “hippy” tactics like sit-ins (which is what it looks like when they literally sit and are all in suits, barely able to sit without falling), but protesting anti-democratic policies – like not being allowed to vote – could have had a lot more legs. It could have connected back to shut-downs, the absurd number of attempts to repeal Obamacare, and the Garland nomination.
That said, while it’s definitely a loss on a particular vote, I’m not sure it’s losing over the longer haul. Chipping away at the NRA’s intransigence, winning elections after taking on the NRA, highlighting that the opposition to gun control has an irrational root that has nothing to do with the Constitution, the possibility that someone could be punished electorally for *not* going against the NRA – these were unthinkable a couple years ago.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I agree about your point in regards what the sit-in should have been about. Gun control is the emotional issue that resonates. I can’t imagine voters rallying around issues of parliamentary procedure. And, I think it’s pretty common for speakers and majority leaders to bring bills to the floor only when they either have no choice or when they sense the moment of maximum political value. Is this instance any different?
I do agree with your point about the longer haul. A relentless chipping away at the NRA until it finally starts to lose some of these battles. I do find it interesting that Pat Toomey of PA and Joe Manchin of WVA have been working on compromise gun control legislation. Toomey was one of two Republicans to join the senate filibuster. There are two ways to look at the Manchin and Toomey efforts. One is that they are sincere in trying to achieve some progress on the issue. The other is that they are trying to protect themselves on this issue with voters, particularly Toomey who is up for re-election this year.
Either way, it’s a sign of how public opinion has already started to shift on this issue. Pennsylvania and West Virginia have always been reliably pro-gun. Traditionally, the easiest thing for Manchin and Toomey to do would be to endorse the NRA line on gun issues and be done with it. The fact that they are wading into the gun control debate at all is a clear sign that some things are changing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a little old fashioned about my civil disobedience: I feel like it makes the most sense, has the most impact, and is most right when it’s protesting unjust laws or unjust things. There was a bigger public opinion win (more widespread agreement and connecting it to a broader narrative) by protesting the refusal to let people vote – especially when you’re doing something vaguely hippy. They could have gotten a lot of news cycles: “I want to work with Republicans and find solutions to the gun problem, but we can’t do that when they shut down the government, refuse to consider nominees, and prevent us from even voting. The party that took down communism and complains about PC is cracking down on our very democracy – anything they don’t like, they won’t allow to be discussed or voted. I suppose I should be thankful that Trump isn’t in office, or I might have gotten beaten up for trying to propose legislation.” With that, you’ve got a narrative, an enemy, and you don’t have to spend time defending a piece of legislation fraught with debate ratholes (the ACLU and other groups have been lukewarm to opposed to this particular piece).
Watching Toomey and Manchin for the rest of the cycle will be really telling on where politicians perceive real political power. There is a growing body of research that TV advertising, and mass media (mail, billboards, phone auto-dialing) don’t matter much anymore. The NRA’s carrot has primarily been campaign contributions. Their stick – to keep you from driting into ideological impurity – was the threat of non-stop TV ads and a blizzard of mails. In addition to dwindling popularity, and increasing negatives, perhaps they “don’t even have that kind of muscle anymore.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A good starting place for the advertising research:
http://wiscadproject.wisc.edu/team.php
LikeLike