Submission to Party Lines
First and foremost — I will self-identify as and Independent, having pointedly not registering with either the Republican or Democratic Party (or any other). Putting aside the angst of this robbing me of a voice in the Primaries (as my home state has Closed Primaries), one of the most irksome aspects of modern party politics is the “party line” — an all-or-none on a list of issues, with individualized politicians rare to non-existent. I fully understand the logic gathering strength in numbers on prevailing issues, but doing so on everything is absurd and honestly can only ultimately be disingenuous.
(Related: Weaponized Words in Partisan Rhetoric: A Quick Reference — on the need to know the actual meaning of words used to divide and distract our minds.)
Cognitive Dissonance
I am sympathetic to others who lack representation because their views do not perfectly match one side or the other on what appear to be passionately polarizing issues of: { abortion, access to healthcare, climate change, financial regulation, gun controls, immigration, national debt, LGBT rights, military intervention, social security. trade agreements and welfare }.
Consider many from the agricultural “Heartland” — socially conservative but dependent on migrant workers and increasingly aware of the impact of climate change (pro-life + pro-conventional marriage + pro-immigration + pro-environment protection). Alternately, cosmopolitan urban fiscal conservatives (pro-choice + pro-LGBT rights + pro-immigration + pro-reduced government spending). Many obvious conflicts arise as wholly rational but inconsistent with the all-or-nothing party positions, for example — relative to one’s position on abortion:
- Pro-life + Pro-gun controls
- Pro-life + Pro-environmental protection
- Pro-choice + Pro-NRA
- Pro-choice + Pro-conventional marriage
I must assume people have resolved themselves (perhaps subconsciously resigning) to overlook all but a few prioritized issues. The consequence is the amplification of less-supported issues, and partisan cognitive dissonance.
Example of Irrational Inconsistency
Perhaps one of the most curious anomalies in modern politics is the expansive protection of the right to bear arms. The NRA influences both parties, of course, but generally aligns with the Republican agenda (see Senate ratings), where the 2016 election has placed significant control of the U.S. government. Of the various gun rights/controls issues, the American public sentiment (both Republican and Democrat) consistently and broadly supports { background checks for purchase, preventing the mentally ill from purchase and a federal tracking database }. Yet passing such legislation appears infeasible and indeed becomes itself a stark example of cognitive dissonance.
Darkly, the impossibility of such controls despite repeated tragedies is likened to a religious belief (“Our Moloch”). On the lighter side (NSFW), an Australian comedian pointing out disingenuous rationalization of ownership, when a perfectly understandable reason why someone may want to own a gun is “ I like guns.” Rather than delving deeply into the nuance and deep emotions surrounding the topic on both sides, the reason this comes to mind as an example of the conflicted nature of today’s politics is how opposition to what most would consider benign and common-sense controls results in irrational inconsistencies.
Baseline Precedents
- More information on potentially dangerous people improves public safety.
Examples: car owners, terror suspects, (and per Trump credo: Muslims) - The public good benefits from studying causes of injury and developing proven methods to reduce injuries by requiring their use.
Examples: headlights, turn signals, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, air bags. - Government-issued licensing, registration, identification are required for operation of potentially dangerous devices in areas open to the public.
Examples: cars/boats/airplanes/drones/fireworks. - Insurance is required in case of injury or property damage (even if accidental).
- Laws place limits on devices used in public areas and on public infrastructure.
Examples: vehicle weight/ horsepower/ noise/ emissions/ speed/ altitude/ impact on roads, etc.
But the potential public benefit of applying these common-sense rules to firearms has not progressed with the advancement of the capabilities of such weapons, through the assiduous influence of the NRA defending their interpretation of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
To be fair, at the time of the Bill of Rights (1791) firearm technology had already achieved higher rates of fire and ammunition capacity beyond the iconic musket (examples: Belton flintlock, Girandoni air rifle and Puckle gun). But to assess their potential danger to the public, we would need to also consider factors such as: reliability, accuracy, effective range, size of the weapon, weight of the weapon, time to aim, time to reload. Further, we might consider the pragmatic access to those as a widely-available commodity, given cost of the weapon, time to manufacture the weapon, size of the manufacturers, etc.
Alternately, we could of course make the case for today’s interpretation of the second amendment by the NRA being accurate and attempt to word it appropriately, being explicit about responsibility, liability and limitations on: weapon capability (above), manufacturers and sellers/buyers/owners (including with respect to anonymity/mental fitness/criminal record).
In his book “The Second Amendment: A Biography”, Michael Waldman suggests the idea of gun rights may have surpassed its literal intent to become more of a proxy — a line in the sand in defense of conservatism against advancing Progressivism (see excerpt) making the logical debate moot anyway.
Bottom Line
The message here is not to single out gun rights/controls, but to highlight how bundled ideologies can permit irrational and detrimental policies to arise, even when the public violently and repeatedly suffers through the inaction of their elected public servants to carry out the will of the people.
© 2016 All Rights Reserved
Originally published at http://rickarthur.net on November 27, 2016.
