Democrats' strategic fiasco on gun control
Why are they staging such a fierce protest for bad policy?
On Wednesday night, Democrats ditched their signature cringing timidity and mounted an actual protest on the floor of the House of Representatives, demanding a vote on several gun control bills. The rules of the House are much more favorable to the majority party, so having no filibuster or similar mechanism as the Senate does, House Democrats staged a sit-in. They occupied the floor of the chamber, refusing to leave and delivering impassioned addresses about the horror of gun violence.
It was marvelous political theater, particularly the part where they heckled and sang over Speaker Paul Ryan as he tried to blitz a rule that would make it harder for financial advisers to swindle their clients. But the actual substance of the key Democratic proposal — namely, enabling the government to deny gun purchases for people on various secret terrorism watch lists — is extremely bad. It's a case study in strategic political failure from the Democratic leadership.
Now, there were two other bills the Democrats were pushing. One was an absolutely vital expansion of government funding for gun research; the other an expansion of background checks. But inexplicably, the Democrats dropped the research bill partway through their sit-in, and with the background check bill being a bit dull, that left the watch list approach (sloganized as "No Fly, No Buy") as the major rallying point of the protest. The problem with the watch list approach is well captured by Alex Pareene:
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
A snarling fight immediately broke out on the left, with centrist liberals and loyal Democratic partisans on one side, and civil liberties-focused groups and leftists on the other. The ACLU came out against the bill, and so did the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's biggest Muslim advocacy group, while practically every big-shot Democrat went the other way.
Yet again, Democrats split their own base with conservative policy, and for what? Apparently so they can accuse Republicans of being weak on terrorism during the upcoming election — or even supporting the sale of weapons to ISIS.
This is grotesque political malpractice. Aside from the straight-up violation of due process that is inherent in the very idea of a secret list which can strip away people's constitutional rights, this further entrenches the political legitimacy of Bush-era authoritarian terror politics. We will unquestionably hear about this the next time there is a terrorist attack done by a Muslim and conservatives start shrieking for more dragnet surveillance and torture and secret prisons.
And make no mistake, the no-fly list is almost exclusively directed at Muslims. In American politics, terrorism can only be done by Muslims, by definition. Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is running on a campaign of overt anti-Muslim bigotry, including but not limited to a literal ban on Muslim immigration. It is morally hideous for Democrats to use a structurally bigoted instrument aimed directly at America's most besieged minority for symbolic grandstanding.
Furthermore, as Dylan Matthews points out, even on the most generous of estimates "No Fly, No Buy" will accomplish approximately nothing on gun violence writ large. At best, it will stop a few hundred gun purchases per year — in a country with something like 360 million guns.
I am sharply reminded of the war on crime, when the howling emergency of a deluge of murder, assault, and robbery overwhelmed people's reason and caution. The political lizard brain took over, and both parties competed to pass punitive measures that satisfied the thirst for vigorous action, potential side effects be hanged.
The result was the greatest system of mass incarceration seen outside the Soviet gulags. It locked up an incomprehensible fraction of the American poor, especially African-Americans. All the while, a probable real driver of the crime wave was bracketed as a minor environmental and public health concern.
"No Fly, No Buy" would not be as devastating as the 1994 crime bill, of course. But it does not bode well. American law enforcement, vast and unwieldy at the best of times, must be wielded with precision to avoid terrible side effects.
Symbolism is important, and it is nice to see Democrats finally growing a spine on gun issues (or anything at all for that matter). But when political leaders are attaching that symbolism to substantive policy and ideological narratives, it is vitally important for them to choose those policies and narratives wisely. A proposal that was actually defensible — an assault weapons ban, say, or a massive gun buyback program — would be superior both morally and on political strategy. Instead instinctive partisanship has Democrats, once again, inventing excuses for abysmal policy.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
-
Magazine printables - December 27, 2024 / January 3, 2025
Puzzles and Quizzes Issue - December 27, 2024 / January 3, 2025
By The Week US Published
-
Why ghost guns are so easy to make — and so dangerous
The Explainer Untraceable, DIY firearms are a growing public health and safety hazard
By David Faris Published
-
The Week contest: Swift stimulus
Puzzles and Quizzes
By The Week US Published
-
US election: who the billionaires are backing
The Explainer More have endorsed Kamala Harris than Donald Trump, but among the 'ultra-rich' the split is more even
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Biden, Trump urge calm after assassination attempt
Speed Reads A 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear and fatally shot a rally attendee on Saturday
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published