Nixon on Guns

I have often argued that Richard Nixon would be too liberal for the Democratic party today. He was for universal healthcare, started the EPA, wanted a minimum income and, though he attacked LBJ's Great Society and was clearly a racist and anti-semite, opened the doors for meaningful dialogue with China and more meaningful dialogue with Russia. Yes he kept us mired in Vietnam and cheated to win the Presidency, but he was a brilliant man whose paranoia destroyed him. The key point, however, is not about Nixon but about the rightward shift in the country which has followed the Reagan-led conservative revolution of the 1980s. Bill Clinton and the DLC argued that the only way to regain power was to support what has since been labeled neoliberal economic policy while remaining more liberal on social issues. And he presided that way, overseeing an economic boom largely driven by the dot com explosion. The shift from value created by production and consumption to the promise of future profits was successful, until the ground collapsed from under it and the failure to regulate the economy slowly led us on a path to the 2007 financial meltdown. Since then, Obama has tact left rhetorically, but rarely in policy (except for Obamacare and a stimulus package that probably saved the economy). However, on too many issues, Obama continues to disappoint the left and even many liberals. One of those issues is gun control. And ironically, Nixon again comes out to the left of the New Democrats (Yahoo News).

Nixon was one of the most active Presidential voices ever on the issue of gun control and even considered banning handguns altogether. It is a sensible policy, though one that is clearly unpopular with too many Americans, supported by one of the strongest lobbies in DC. Yet can we really continue to cowtow to the arms industry and those on the right that still dream of armed insurrection against the government? Mass shootings are becoming an almost weekly occurrence and too many innocent victims, young and old, are being sacrificed before the shrine of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms might be written into the constitution, though there is certainly arguments to be made on the intent of the founding fathers, but this doesn't mean that all guns must be allowed into our citizens hands or that we shouldn't ask serious questions about who is gaining access to them and for what purposes. 

The murder rate in the U.S. is really all the evidence we need to make the argument for sensible gun policy. Beyond this, is the question we should always ask when considering policy changes -- who benefits from reform and who benefits from keeping things the same. In general, debates about guns revolve around money; particularly the incredible amounts of profits made by the main gun manufacturers, and by the smaller salesman who sell their fare at shows without proper regulation or oversight. Who else benefits? Politicians who use the issue as a wedge (like abortion, marriage equity and immigration) to keep support for policies that often do little to benefit their constituents. Who benefits from gun reform? Not the criminals, as is often argued. People are more likely to die when they have a gun in their possession, even as David Mamet makes the felonious argument that this is not the case. Not the teachers, who South Dakota now argues can bring guns into the classroom (NY Times). And not the future victims of gun violence, who will merely go to the mall, a movie, school or work on the wrong day. 

The old adage that violence only begets more violence has stood the test of time. So many lost lives could have been saved if we simply outlawed assault rifles, as nebulous as the term may be (let's just say automatic and semi-automatic guns, which hunters never really need) and improved background checks. Maybe people simply need to abandon their romantic dreams of the Wild West and their complete lack of trust in the ability of authorities to protect them. Sure people will still die needlessly, but many less than do at present; either from intended or accidental gun-related violence. And while we are at it, maybe Hollywood should start to ask more serious questions about their endless celebration of violence (what bell hooks so aptly called Pugilistic Eroticism). Sex and violence sell, but does the sex or violence have to be so explicit and unredemptive? Do we really need to celebrate criminals with such glamour and unapologetic glee? Do we really need to sexual tweens and teens to the extent that we find in popular culture today? Gangsta Rap is always held up as the worst propagator of both, but what of mainstream Hollywood films, what of videogames that push the boundaries of taste and celebrated, often ideologically-driven, violence? It appears that America must finally confront our bloody past and present and begin the process of creating a more safe and healthy world for the many. Ironically, listening to Nixon's  clarion call for change might be just the start we need.