Gun control: common good vs. individual rights

 

NOTE TO READERS. THIS COLUMN IS AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE ON SUBSTACK.  PLEASE SUBSCRIBE THERE.  IF YOU CANNOT SUBSCRIBE, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT.

Gordon L. Weil

“What are we doing?”

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, repeatedly and emotionally asked a nearly empty Senate chamber.

His impassioned speech expressed his sorrowful and angry reaction to the usual lack of government action on gun control after mass shootings like the one in Uvalde, Texas.

But the message of his speech asked questions that go far beyond gun control and reach the inability of the government to function.

The gun debate raises the broader question now dividing American politics. What is the proper role of government?

“The best government is that which governs least.” These words, written by political activist and editor John O’Sullivan, appeared in 1837.

O’Sullivan asserted: “A strong and active democratic government, in the common sense of the term, is an evil, differing only in degree and mode of operation, and not in nature, from a strong despotism.” However, he admitted that the despot and the democrat had far different goals.

Fighting measures from Social Security to Medicare to gun control is part of the GOP’s hallmark opposition to “big government” and its advocacy of the government which governs least.

To strike a contrast with their opponents, GOP leaders label Democrats as “socialists,” a word readily bringing to mind the Communists who call themselves Socialists.

The core issue is government’s role in meeting common needs that cannot be achieved through individual action, which is hardly socialism. Government by the people means that individuals cede some of their individual freedom to undertake joint action to meet agreed common purposes.

The Second Amendment has been interpreted to mean that individuals have the right to own and use guns. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that conditions could be placed on that right. Protecting the right to armed self-defense from government action could still allow the government to limit the use of that right.

But the decision did not settle the question, because some people accepted the affirmation of their right, while rejecting any conditions on it. Unlike any other right protected from government action, gun rights are unconditional, they maintain. Government should not merely “govern least,” but not govern at all.

Every crisis, whether it is the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Uvalde shootings, grabs congressional attention. The question instantly arises if the American government should take any action to meet the crisis, perhaps by adopting policies to prevent or control similar situations. Congress considers how to respond to public concerns.

No matter the views of a majority of Americans, nothing happens on gun issues. Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, says that if he supported gun control, “most [voters] would probably throw me out of office.”

Cramer’s admission raises the second major question arising from the Uvalde shootings. Murphy asked his fellow senators, “Why are you here if not to solve a problem as existential as this?”

Congress is now populated by members like Cramer and what they are “there for” is less about public service than about political survival. They might quote the verse: “He who fights and runs away may live to fight another day; but he who is battle slain can never rise to fight again.” Murphy demands to know why this is not that day, when you stand and fight.

What’s missing is leadership. Elected public officials are unwilling to risk losing an election by leading instead of following public opinion, which is often shaped by interest groups or outdated prejudices.

Gun control has become one of the leading wedge issues. Republicans have found that supporting an unconditional reading of the Second Amendment gains them millions of voters and millions of dollars from the National Rifle Association.

Senators can dodge making tough choices without seeming to run away. The filibuster requires an unconstitutional supermajority vote to even proceed to the constitutional simple majority vote. It amplifies the ability of small states whose senators represent less than 20 percent of the population to control all decisions.

The Republicans like the filibuster because without it, they risk becoming a permanent minority unable to pursue the politics of “no.” The Democrats like the filibuster because they are fearful of becoming the minority and losing the power to prevent the unraveling of government.

Result? Nothing much happens except on rare occasions when cooperation serves the political advantage of both parties. Pouring money into a Covid-damaged economy made them both look like they were responsive. Pouring money into Ukraine testified to their historic opposition to Russia.

There are no good answers to Murphy’s questions. Maybe a token firearms bill will pass, because it would serve both parties’ interest to show concern in an election year.

But little will change. There will be more mass shootings and incumbents will hold onto their seats in Congress.