NRA’s Reaction To Parkland School Bloodbath: “More Weapons Are The Solution”
By Frank Thomas
A typical communication fallacy called ‘Argumentum Ad Hominem’ is an argument or loaded one-liner, phrase or word like “socialism or socialistic” to attack, disparage, demonize, distort or praise another in a way that obscures the real issue. Words or statements like these are used widely in the U.S. by the political right to evade the actual topic being discussed by directing an attack at a person or group they disagree with.
Wayne LaPierre, chairman of the NRA lobby syndicate, injected an ‘ad hominem’ fallacious argument related to the nationwide horror and student uprise after another school gun-slaughter of 17 children and adults. In response to public call for prompt, concrete, strict gun restrictions, LaPierre said, “Socialists, in typical European style, want to take away our God given ‘freedoms,’ the next one being the right to own a firearm.” He then warns us, “You must be afraid.”
Yes, one should be afraid of the ‘bad guy,’ Wayne LaPierre and his NRA weapon promotion cabal, despite NRA member Trump’s assurance the NRA is everyone’s friend. The NRA presented its demented position on the gun issue in its recent fear & fury ‘ad hominem’ argument that more guns are needed to protect ourselves from criminals, terrorists, and the mentally-disturbed who are everywhere! The political specialist, expert, ex-NRA member Robert Spitzer put what to do in good perspective: “Most Americans are against the NRA and for stronger gun regulations but to date that has not been a priority. This enables a minority to win on this issue against an apathetic majority.”
Thank God young students are now demanding a WALL against easy access to automatic assault guns. Their message? Reform NOW the insane, unlimited right of individual ownership to guns of ALL types propagated by the equally insane influence of the NRA – particularly regarding the right to automatic and semi-automatic battlefield gun weapons. The NRA’s 5 million membership and huge money resources have established a gigantically disproportionate political influence on gun policy pervading our society at all levels. In 2008, conservative justices in the Heller vs. District of Columbia Supreme Court case ruled 5 to 4 the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to own a weapon in common use to protect hearth and home. The 5 justices were nominated by presidents who were NRA members.
In 1791 or 227 years ago, our Founding Fathers passed the 2nd Amendment at a time New York and Philadelphia had populations of 60,000 and 30,000, respectively in 1800 …. cities the size of just small towns today. An objective analysis of the historical context in which the Founding Fathers passed the Amendment would show that it did NOT, and should NEVER have been used to, justify the absolute or unlimited right of individuals to own high-capacity-cartridge military assault rifles capable of killing and maiming dozens of people in minutes in schools, buses, trams, parks, restaurants, theatres, parks, society in general. We are enmeshed in a modern world and advanced gun technology at a the scale the Founding Fathers could not have fathomed or anticipated.
Here are a few other illustrations of typical conservative one-liner ‘socialist’ attack epithets that amount to ‘ad hominem’ demagogic rants rampantly repeated in our political-social discourse: “socialists enjoy the fruits of capitalism while at the same time denouncing it;” “most social inequality is the result of natural inequalities, i.e., I worked hard to get that money, so why should my taxes go to someone who just plain doesn't want to work;” “redistribution to low/average income earners is taking from Paul to give to Peter, discouraging self-initiative;” “any form of socialism leads to 'big-brother' government control and loss of freedoms.”
Of course, the redistribution of past huge 'tax niceties' still largely available to the rich plus recent added Republican tax plan cuts going mainly to top 10% income earners has us in the noble position of being the advance world's leading income/wealth inequality nation .... with nearly the highest poverty rates and number of citizens having zero to grossly inadequate, affordable, quality healthcare coverage. Republican conservatives and tea party right wingers tenaciously support policies that keep ‘Big’ government small and public social entitlements at a bare minimum and ultimately to help pay for exploding federal deficit/debt levels inevitably emerging from the simultaneous policies of implementing huge tax cuts AND huge government expenditures in Defense, infrastructure, education, environmental disasters, interest costs on higher debt, etc. My one liner for this societal paradigm would be ‘out-of-balance destructive capitalism.’
A strict definition of ‘socialism’ would be that it represents state ownership of production, distribution, and exchange. On this basis, I doubt there's an economy on this planet that is pure socialist or capitalist. Just the opposite - all of them are hybrids BLENDING elements of these hypothetical extremes - with China perhaps now apparently aiming at becoming the most socialistic democracy and the U.S. the most capitalistic democracy.
We tend to confuse, misinterpret, mislabel political terminology commonly understood throughout the world, including Europe where I have lived and worked for 35 years now. This especially applies to the difference of terms like “socialism,” “democratic socialism," and “social democracy.” Socialism, seeks to nearly completely supplant the concept of private property (i.e., capitalism) and historically has been an overwhelming failure; democratic socialism, often confused with social democracy, tries to have democratic goverance but under state ownership; social democracy strives to use state institutions to counter social injustices in market economics.
The trademarks of social democracy are corrective market regulations and social programs. It's all about getting the right balance between social and capitalistic elements that fit a particular culture. Reinforcing this goal and encouraging much open thinking and interaction on a broad spectrum of ideas/policies at all governing levels are Europe's multi-party systems – where parties are classified as extreme right, center right, center left, left, and far left. This broad competitive democratic political diversity and party choice generally gives people little reason or logic to presumptuously degrade or attack policies of any ideological bent (except some far radical right or left ideas). In Europe’s multi-party systems, there’s an inherently strong, practical ‘compromise’ culture at play. As a last recourse, Party members have the option, which they do exercise, to switch to other parties if their party’s, or another party’s policies, purpose, or programs sharply change, or party member key desires/needs are ignored, or not reasonably met in a reasonable time. That is why the recent rise of political populism and conspiracy theories in some EU countries has NOT undermined mature multi-party systems nor is that expected in the foreseeable future.
Europe's multi-party political structures contrast sharply with our profoundly polarized political two-party system bought by big money and trapped in an imposed ideologically ‘purist thinking’ governing paradigm. We have thus created an endemically dysfunctional political battleground for two dominant, politically uncompromising liberal vs. conservative party combatants whose members are funded and lobbied intensely by special interests where the needs and improved well-being of common Americans come in last. After 35 years of living in Europe and comparing the two political systems, it’s clear to me that the more politically democratic a society is and uncorrupted by money, the more political power is shared and becomes transparent, the better it works in behalf of ALL citizens.
Social democracy has played a major role in the economic success of Nordic countries as well as UK, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, etc., and also in part our country with its own Medicare and Social Security systems. Like most successful mature EU economies, Scandanavian countries have been economically and quality-of-life successful by carefully integrating capitalistic elements like a high degree of economic freedom AND socialist elements like a strong well-managed safety net in a manner that suits them the best. Success has NOT been achieved by being more Right or more Left. These countries are in essence hybrid economic systems constantly being refined/improved, the management of which is capitalistic while also being the home of large public sectors, strong job protections, and labor markets directed by centralized union contracts. Given their social democracies, Nordic countries and most EU countries see no point at all in debating or clashing at length over what is or is not “socialism.”
As stated, a more relevant question is what BLENDS of policy do or do not succeed under any given set of conditions to raise the well-being of ALL citizens Those outcomes are defined by voter preferences as reflected in a diverse multi-party elections. Intelligent coalition goverance give and take is a deeply held democratic value. Loading down policy-making discussions with recurring antiquated baggage language of “socialist and capitalist” is generally considered by the public AND politicians as a waste of time that does not advance the discussion.
Calling policies or people socialist and capitalist in European nations may be used to evoke reflexive reactions, but seldom just to evoke emotional reactions that serve no constructive purpose in advancing policy discussions. Among other EU countries, the ‘blend approach’ to policy-making is alive and well in the Netherlands and its social democracy. It also has an outstanding multi-party system, social safety net, and a thriving capitalistic economy that has given rise to world companies like Royal Dutch Shell, Unilever, Philips, KLM, DSM, ABN-AMRO, etc.
The Dutch don't need to ask or know whether, for example, single-payer healthcare in the U.S. would be “socialist” and “big government at your door.” They would need and want to know what the costs and benefits would be relative to any other actual or proposed system. With few exceptions, the Dutch public, unlike the U.S. public, has developed a deep social trust in their political parties and social democratic, coalition governing processes ... a social trust that they will always receive professional, reliable, independently analyzed information on important national and local programs and issues. After over 30 years in the Netherlands, I can only say that that trust has created one of the finest managed capitalistic, social, and quality-of-life countries in the world.
SUMMARY
NRA’s leader, Wayne Lapierre, in effect has called young people “socialists” who want to take away our freedoms to own a gun. This is a wild irresponsible assertion as is Trump’s suggestion to train and arm up to 20% of all teachers in our nation’s high schools.” But the real gun issue is not about ALL guns, but about automatic and semi-automatic high-capacity-cartridge, LETHAL assault rifles/pistols that can be bought at will by individuals 18 or older. The Las Vegas killer of 59 people was nearly 60 years old.
The young people of Parkland’s high school and of high schools throughout the U.S. are teaching us a lesson that if serious restrictions on lethal assault weapons are to be won in court, they must first be won in the court of public opinion and the ballot box. (See: “The 2nd Amendment: A Biography,” by Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, published by Simon & Shuste, 2014; another interesting analysis of the intent and origin of the 2nd Amendment is that of Prof. Carl Bogus, “The Hidden History of the 2nd Amendment,” Sept. 2015) http://www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114) ).
Waldman concludes there’s no substitute for political organizing. Social movements like the student movement to refashion and update the constitutional doctrine of the 2nd Amendment must first be won in the ballot box. Abraham Lincoln indirectly thought similarly that “molding public opinion is the most important factor.” He learned this first hand in the long battle against slavery. In his words, “Public sentiment is everything. Without it, nothing can succeed.” I hope the students ‘WAKE UP’ the apathetic public to help achieve common sense change and control in gun ownership and use laws.
Unlike the U.S., in most European political systems identifying what is “socialistic” or “capitalistic” is irrelevant. ‘Ad hominem’ labelling of policies, programs or people as “socialistic” or “capitalistic” only ends up stimulating emotional reactions serving no constructive purpose. It's clear to most researchers there's not ONE purely “socialistic” or “capitalistic” developed economy on our planet, including China! All developed economies are ‘hybrids’ in common and different ways suitable for their own culture and institutions. EU nations learn from each other, and on occasion share their ideas, differences, weaknesses, strengths. EU countries are individually unique but together they represent a rich, diverse reservoir of innovative ideas and capabilities. For them, socialistic or capitalistic terms are archaic, pointless generalizations that simply get in the way of meaningful discussion of problems and policy.
Mature countries like Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and others are NOT centers of socialism. They are social democracies – seeking to insure economic fairness, to incentivize opportunities, to provide protections, to restrain corruption and destructive excesses of capitalism. They are essentially vibrant capitalistic economies with aggressive social welfare nets. The political outcomes as well as economic and social outcomes in Scandinavian countries and most mature European countries are defined by the political center of gravity and the voting public’s preferences– and can change under Europe’s multi-party, coalition governing systems.
European nations show us that free markets, lower consumption levels, high societal investments and quality safety nets can co-exist rather well and even complement each other. They are not perfect and have some very serious problems on their tables, e.g., massive immigration pressures from unstable countries – on a scale that makes the U.S. experience look truly trivial .... but countries here are in the main united around the value, “We are all in this life together .... and must unite around the new world realities without undermining that value.”
FrankThomas The Netherlands February 28, 2018
