|
News, commentary, opinion on politics, government, books, social trends, American life, travel, cycling, books, other stuff
|
|
|
The word out of DC is the President Obama very well might withdraw his nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, because the National Rifle Association objects to his views on gun control. This might strike many people as amazing. It is amazing. What does one have to do with the other? The deal is that the Prez and his aids have decided not to force a vote on the floor of the Senate, which would cause Democrats up for reelection to take an unpopular stand in their states. In other words, voting for the nominee would provide ammunition for the NRA to help defeat them.
There is a very basic rule of nature that we have all heard through the years: what does not bend, breaks. It is true. Some of the strongest materials, like steel, are strong because they are able to bend and go back to shape. In fact, earlier versions of steel and metals like it were strong, up to a point, then they cracked apart. Cast iron is like that, so are other metals. Modern steel was created because it has both strength and flexibility.
What does this have to do with the NRA and gun control? By taking unbending, adamant stands on everything having to do with guns, the NRA is setting itself up, somewhere down the line, for a big fall. There could very well come a time when the vast majority of Americans revolt against the power of the NRA and force the issue. The NRA could make its own worst nightmares come true.
By using scare tactics against modest measures for gun control, the NRA could be setting the table for all out gun control down the road. What doesn’t bend, breaks. Society must change in a variety of ways all the time. When it doesn’t change, force builds up behind the dam, just as it would in physical phenomenon. Eventually, the flood gates could come tumbling down, taking the NRA and a major section of the American right wing with it.
How could this happen? There are many ways. Suppose 100 or more children were killed in a school shooting situation.(The increasing numbers over the years certainly point in that direction.) Suppose mass killings of a major nature were taking place almost every week. What would the public’s reaction be to those situations? Once the public fully focuses on something as a problem, and then turns to something else, like the NRA, as the nexus of that problem, watch out. The NRA could, in other words, be creating the conditions for what it says it fears the most, a near ban on guns. Right now, there is zero chance that the worst predictions of the NRA will come true, but that could change if they keep “winning” the way they have in recent years.
The other possibility would be that those who follow the NRA line might get fed up with the repeated, exaggerated warnings about “they’re coming to take my guns away”. There is a much lower chance of that, however, because those who are in love with guns and see them as some sort of symbol of freedom apparently will believe almost anything when it comes to the government. They have been fed this line by the NRA for many years and they seem to believe every word, again and again. Apparently, you can “cry wolf” and get away with it. When someone has a strongly established belief system, new information is not allowed. Anything contrary to that set of beliefs is simply rejected out of hand.
Yet, the NRA could be its own worst enemy. The election of a Democrat to the White House, and one with African heritage, created the perfect opportunity for the NRA scare tactics. There is a natural pattern of swings back and forth in the public mood and the willingness to tolerate extreme viewpoints. What happens when that swing goes against the gun lobby? What happens when the desire to do something to stop mass killings by guns exceeds the ability of the NRA to hold back the tide?
Doug Terry, 3.15.14
|
