Gun debate: individual right versus community safety

The mass shooting in Florida and the inevitable pro-gun and gun control reactions are about much more than firearms and their use.

The issue is really about the nature of our society and government. The NRA makes sure we don't forget that. After every shooting, it opposes gun control advocates by saying that what they propose threatens personal freedom.

Among truly democratic, developed countries, people see society and government in one of two ways. On one side, people believe they have a right to the greatest possible personal freedom and that government should guarantee it. Possibly, the only democracy where that is the rule is the U.S.

On the other side are countries in which the interest of the community prevails and personal freedom is subject to limits that protect the entire society. Democracies in which this view prevails include Canada and the countries of Western Europe.

In countries where the community interest dominates, gun use is controlled, people have fewer guns, and there is little gun violence. In the U.S., gun use is subject to few controls, gun ownership is widespread, and there is much gun violence.

People under both systems enjoy natural rights. In the U.S., some of those rights are protected from being overridden by government by the Bill of Rights. Among the protected rights is the Second Amendment's right to own and use firearms.

The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment means that individual Americans have that right. But it also said that, like all guaranteed rights, this freedom is not absolute and may be subject to some reasonable limits short of denying the right itself. Some gun owners refuse to accept that government can impose any limits.

The issue boils down to the difference between how many Americans view the relationship between government and the individual and how that relationship is viewed in other free and democratic countries.

The reason for the difference may be that Americans inhabited a frontier nation in which the use of guns was essential for activities ranging from subsistence hunting to keeping the peace. The Mounties preceded settlers in the Canadian West, and there was no frontier in England or France.

The American frontier is gone, though some of its rules and practices continue. Australia, with its own frontier, was like the U.S. until a mass shooting there brought stronger gun control.

The frequency of mass shootings by people using automatic weapons has fueled more discussion than usual about guns and limits on their type and use. But there would still be quite a way to go until state and federal legislators adopt some limits and people understand that reasonable limits will not cost them their rights.

President Trump's solution is more arms, this time in the hands of teachers, but possibly no more limits. He accepts the NRA's thesis that we can stop mass shootings by finding all mentally ill persons and denying them guns. That is so impossible that it must be recognized as a tactic.

We should not forget that Trump is a Republican and his party and the NRA are firmly linked. The GOP harvests gun owner votes thanks to its loyalty to the NRA's stance.

For many years, the Republican Party has adopted positions designed to motivate and attract single issue voters. If a voter cares deeply about gun rights and fears any limits, that person may vote for the GOP for that reason alone, regardless of its positions on matters ranging from health care to warfare.

Such a voter may even come to support Republican positions on issues far removed from guns and possibly even against their own interests. For example, a person without health insurance could oppose the Affordable Care Act, because the GOP supports his or her gun rights.

Issues like gun rights and gun control can become so-called “wedge” issues. Others are opposition to abortion and same sex marriage. Wedge issue voters oppose government action on their single issue and arrive easily at the GOP view that government is too big and powerful.

Voters favoring gun control do not treat it as a wedge issue. Though a majority of Americans want tougher gun laws, most have not been willing to allow that to become the driving issue for them.

The ultimate resolution of the gun issue would signal an historic change in how Americans view society and the government. Undoubtedly, its historic importance explains why change is so slow and difficult. It may only come at the point of a gun in Parkland, Florida, or your hometown.

Trump dealt with Russians, collusion or not

“Our job is not done,” said Maine Gov. LePage told the Legislature in his State of the State address.

He stressed that he plans to be an active, if not downright aggressive, governor until the last minute of his term at the end of the year.

And he was right. We elect governors and presidents for fixed terms of office, and they owe us their active service for the full period – to the last day. Lame duck status, after a successor has been elected but has not yet taken office, should not be an excuse for fading out or, worse, allowing the successor to take charge prematurely.

The newly elected person may begin to think they already have official powers. In fact, they have no more right to govern than any unelected, private citizen.

During the campaign, Obama had held back on strong presidential action on Russian involvement in the election, because he did not want to seem overly partisan by countering attacks on Hillary Clinton, his party's candidate.

The president is not a neutral, saintly figure, who must avoid tough talk and remain above the political fray. Obama should have done a better job alerting the public to Russian attempts to influence their votes. He should have worried less about the effect on the campaign and more about the effect on the country.

After the election, Obama placed tough sanctions on Russia for its election meddling. But Trump's staff undermined this Russia policy by promising the Russians the new president would back off Obama's sanctions.

President-elect Trump seems to have thought that his victory gave him some official powers, and he and his staff began taking on presidential attributes to which they were not entitled. Like LePage, Obama should have forcefully reminded Trump that he remained in charge.

It is hardly a mystery that Trump wants to erase every trace of the Obama presidency he can. One way was to project friendship with Russia and Putin, its president, while Obama was struggling to maintain a policy opposing Russia's takeover of Crimea and meddling in American politics. Obviously, Trump intended to undermine the sitting president.

Whatever comes out of the Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation, there is ample evidence that Trump staffers made quasi-diplomatic contact with the Russian and other governments, well before he took the oath of office. They apparently believed that such contacts were allowed and appropriate.

Much has been made of the contacts between past presidential winners, not yet inaugurated, and foreign officials. These exchanges have been designed to allow people to become personally acquainted, not to undermine the current president. Certainly, presidents-elect should not conduct their own foreign policy before taking office.

The Trump staff contacts in the lame duck period look like violations of the Logan Act, aimed at preventing private individuals from acting like they were official government negotiators with foreign governments.

The Trump team may be more vulnerable for overstepping their legal limits than for the still unproven collusion with Russians during the campaign. It is unlikely he will suffer any adverse consequences for his lame duck period actions.

Mueller has revealed hard evidence that the Russians aimed at disrupting the American political system, including helping Trump and undermining Hillary Clinton. There is no remaining doubt that the Trump campaign knew what the Russians were trying to do and did not blow the whistle.

As Trump regularly insists, no evidence has been provided that his campaign colluded with the Russians in this effort. But Mueller's investigation goes well beyond the question of links between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Russia has tried to disrupt American democracy. His findings should be a cause of great concern.

Trump focuses on whether foreign support made his surprise victory possible, not the broader harm from Russian meddling. He is more concerned about protecting himself than protecting the sanctity of the American political system.

Trump worries about whether his presidency will lose its legitimacy if it is found that the Russians helped him. His surprise victory, until now his most important political accomplishment, seems to mean more to him than being president.

Americans have accepted the 2016 result, like the 2000 Bush-Gore election, because they want stability. Trump is in far less danger from questions about how much the Russians helped him than from his own current actions.

The country needs a president who will spearhead massive efforts to halt Russia's cyber attacks and protect American democracy from foreign influences. Trump should worry less about his own election and get on with doing his job.

Wealthy in real estate, he became president

Most of the assets of the man reputed to be the wealthiest American president were in real estate, like those of one of his successors.

Unlike that successor, he was moderate in speech and open to all views before deciding. He set a model for his country. On Monday, we celebrate George Washington’s official birthday.

Not Presidents’ Day. Washington's Birthday is the legal U.S. and Maine government designation of the day. In remembering all presidents, some outright failures, the day meant to honor Washington has become a commercial holiday. 

 

But we should recall this country’s good fortune to have been led by this exceptional man. This is my annual column to recognize and remember him. 

 

While we sometimes believe he had an easier job in simpler times than faces today’s president, he had to set up a federal government designed to last for centuries. He acted while being viewed with suspicion by some who feared he would end up as king.

Washington was an even better statesman than military leader. His strength was his unwavering commitment to the idea of the American republic. His chief personal ambition was not to rule, but to retire to Mount Vernon. He declined his pay in public service.

Drafting the Constitution, accomplished under his presidency of the Constitutional Convention, was only part of the task. How would the first president apply the Constitution?

Washington believed in what might be considered “big government.” During the Revolutionary War, he had depended on voluntary state financial and military contributions. The experience made him a supporter of a strong national government.

He aligned himself with constitutional drafters who argued that the United States could only become a great nation if powers were transferred from the states to the federal government. He advocated the expansion of the government he led. 

 

He faced strong opposition from those worried that the national government would override states’ rights and individual freedoms. Washington accepted the Bill of Rights as an essential part of the deal to make a new country. 

 

No American has ever enjoyed more prestige in his own lifetime than Washington. But he wore the mantel of power with modesty and showed great respect for the views of others.

Washington worried about the growth of political parties that he witnessed. He predicted “the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension ....” He concluded that strong partisanship could undermine the functioning of government. 

 

In proposing an accord with the British, his former enemy, Washington subscribed to a view later formulated by a British statesman: "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Jefferson and his supporters disagreed, years later launching the disastrous War of 1812 against the British.

Jefferson had attacked him openly. Though Washington would ultimately cut off contact with him, he refrained from any personal attacks on his fellow Virginian. Such values seem lost in today’s politics.

Washington, a southern slave owner, agonized over slavery. He recognized that the country might break apart over the issue. If it did, a friend reported in 1795, "he had made up his mind to remove and be of the northern."

He believed that slavery would disappear as the nation's economy developed, though he was overly optimistic about its end. He recognized that the future lay in the development of "manufactures" produced by wage labor, as was beginning to happen in the North.

 

Thus, 70 years before Lincoln's defense of the Union in the Civil War and his willingness to compromise on slavery, Washington used his national standing to hold the country together. His will freed his slaves after his death, and, against Virginia law, he left money for their education.

Washington had a deep religious belief and was a practicing Christian who often prayed. Yet he did not believe that the United States was a Christian nation, writing to a Jewish congregation, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship."

 

He resigned as general and declined to serve more than two terms as president. When Britain’s King George III, America’s old enemy, was told that Washington would walk away from high office, he said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Washington created the aura of the presidency. Despite his divisive personal style, Donald Trump benefits from the respect for his office that is Washington’s legacy.

Washington has become a symbolic figure, causing us to lose sight of him as a real person. He was a general, a president, a statesman and, above all, a great man. We should remember that man.