No Progress Without Campaign Finance Reform
Anita Heuss writes: I know we are all angry about guns today. Unfortunately I think something else needs to be said (displayed at left).
Anita has nailed this point that lies at the core of everything that’s wrong with American society. Our elected leaders couldn’t care less about the welfare of their constituents. When they happen to take an action that pleases their voters, it’s because that action accidentally coincided with what they needed to do in order to fulfill the wishes of their large campaign donors.
Whether you care about environmental stewardship, better education, consumer safety, universal healthcare, or, in this case, gun control, you’ll be waiting for it a very long time as long as our politically campaigns are financed with bribery.
Craig,
I’ve always listened and tried hard to comprehend the issues involved in electoral campaign reform.
It occur to me many (but not all)of those advocating campaign reform seem to be saying ” I can’t win and my idea’s aren’t attractive to the voters, but it can’t be me or my idea’s at fault, it must be something else, therefore the rules must be changed in my favour “.
This argument is always accompanied by the claim ” I, or my idea’s have 95% support, yet were defeated by sinister forces, conspiracies, big money etc”.
Although, There may be a grain of truth in that explanation ( calls for campaign reform are much louder when the left is defeated), issues of campaign reform can’t be simply dismissed a leftist whining.
The question is complex. Any electoral system which aims to reflect all sectors of society must be inclusive as well as practical. Highly complex the electoral systems produce weak, unstable governments with little authority or ability to govern effectively.
The real problem with the US electoral campaign reform debate is all sides have formed very rigid partisan positions. This leaves little room for discussion or compromise. As a result the electorate (those who can be bothered to vote) opt to maintain the Status Quo.
Gun control is a symptom of this problem. Both sides of the debate are so fanatically opposed and armed with so much disinformation, it becomes impossible to properly analyze the issue of gun control in the US context.
Gun control advocates cry “If the Gun lobby was banned and campaign were suppressed the voters would all vote to ban guns, and politicians would all legislate for Gun Control ” .
But how true is this claim ? In my opinion, there’s some truth, but not much. Many millions of gun advocates in the US are honest sincere people. Some of the arguments put forward by pro-gun advocates are rational (well, at least in the US context) and deeply felt.
Every politician in the US must accept the reality that a large segment of voters in his electorate are gun owners and pro-gun ownership. Campaign contributions are important, but not as much as genuine cultural convictions deeply ingrained for generations in the majority of voters.
That’s where the debate loses perspective. Each side starts to dig in and voters grow alarmed by the heat and fury of the campaign. Meanwhile the real issues get lost amid the hyperbole and extraneous political-ideological advocacy.
The world, but particularly America, seems to have reached a stage where no one is listening and everyone just yells, “hooray for my side”.
Campaign reform should be a thoughtful, non-partisan discussion where complex issues can be examined and diversity of opinion accommodated by compromise. Such a process seems impossible in the present atmosphere. Instead, the public is alienated by fierce and vicious extremists apportioning blame and behaving like a lynch mob. One side must be Evil to justify the outrage and rabid activism of the other.
So, nothing gets done…..
You write: “This argument is always accompanied by the claim ‘my ideas have 95% support, yet were defeated by sinister forces, conspiracies, big money etc.’ Although, There may be a grain of truth in that explanation…”
A *grain* of truth? Btw, 95% happens to be the *precise* fraction of Americans that favor stricter gun control at this point; it’s ~89% since Sandy Hook. Are you asserting that there is a reason other than money/corruption that 95% of Americans can’t have what they are demanding? I’d love to know what it could possibly be.
Craig,
Well, that’s sort of the point, isn’t it ? How is that 95% ascertained ? Does the polling reflect a considered opinion, an answer to a question designed to produce a certain result, or an emotional response to an event where the person polled answers what they feel obliged to answer, rather than how they would vote in secrecy ?
Here’s a couple of examples.
Quinnipiac University Polled 1,176 people by landline and cell phone asking, ” in regard to the recent shooting massacre of students in Florida school do you favour some form of background checks for gun ownership for criminals and the mentally ill”
Naturally, 94 – 5 % responded in the affirmative. Given the small size of the sample, question, and the sampling method, the statistic is not surprising.
The CBS/New York Times poll found although 92 percent support for some form of expanded background checks, 46 percent of Americans think laws covering gun sales should be either made less strict or stay the same ! Only 51 percent said laws should be made stricter.
As Dr Adam Winkler, an eminent Law Professor at the University of California Los Angeles and author of a comprehensive study reported “People don’t seem to like the idea of ‘gun control,’ but they still want to do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill”.
Therein lies the explanation. By misinterpreting the 95% response to a very narrow question as 95% support for broader restrictions on gun ownership, you not only delude yourself, but antagonize all those whose opinions are misrepresented.
The jump you make between 95% of American agreeing to ‘background checks for the mentally ill and criminals might be a good idea’, to “95% of Americans demanding Stricter gun controls” , is a delusion of your own making.
Sadly, 95% of American’s are not “demanding ” stricter gun laws !
Quinnipiac University Polling, along with numerous polls revealed some very disturbing statistic which you should consider.
Only 37 % of Americans believe the ease of buying guns is a contributing factor in mass shootings and only 19 % of registered voters.
52 % blame the difficulty of obtaining mental health care.
87% agree stricter laws will do no good whatsoever in a country with more guns than people.
Only 34 % of voters believe Stricter gun laws may help prevent mass shootings.
62% of voters believe shooters would find a way around stricter gun laws and commit these crimes anyway !
Craig, please remember I’m on your side when it comes to restricting firearms. I’m born in a nation where police don’t carry firearms, except in special circumstances. I was a strong supporter of the Conservative Australian Prime Minister’s successful campaign to severely tighten Australian gun laws.
Being a farmer,I have a firearms license.
Although I believe in restricting gun ownership, and see no valid civilian purpose in ordinary people owning hand guns, I can appreciate the arguments advanced by many gun owners.
I have a neighbour in Australia who spent 32 year in the Australian Armed Forces, at least seven of those years on various battlefields reaching the rank of Brigadier. (USA Brigadier-General). Imagine his indignation at having to prove to a local government clerk that he’s a fit and proper person to possess the side arm he carried for so many years in defense of his nation, on retirement.
Obviously, the issue of gun control in the US is much greater. To many US citizens ownership of firearms is a symbol of freedom from an overbearing state.
You may not agree, (I don’t agree) but that’s not the point, there is huge percentage of voting Americans who passionately believe they have a fundamental right to own a gun.
There’s the issue. The gun lobby may help organize these folks, and encourage their vocal support politically, but no amount of campaign contributions would persuade a legislator to act against the wishes of 95 % of voters, election after election ! It just doesn’t make sense.
Sadly, what makes more sense is the anti-gun lobby believes it’s own delusion. Instead of listening, and gaining the trust of gun owners by seeking a series of gradual compromises and building a broad coalition, the anti-gun lobby has commenced an unrelenting crusade, leaving no room for commonsense or gradual compromise.
Inclusion, not exclusion is what makes good communities.
Craig,
It also occurs to me the American electoral cycle for Members of the House of Representatives might be a way to achieve a measure of campaign reform
Lengthening the term form two years to four, would cut the frequency of expensive campaigns, attract better candidates, allow Rep’s to concentrate on legislation etc.
Currently, no sooner has a candidate won, than they must start preparing and fundraising for the next campaign in only two years time. Some House members live in permanent campaign mode.
The savings would be vast, not just in terms of campaigns but the cost of actually conducting the election, loss of productivity etc. A Yale University revue put the savings at $ 4-7 billion.
Worth considering, don’t you think ?
The length of terms won’t change, though it’s possible that we’ll have term limits. There are pros and cons to all that discussion; it’s a waste of time.
Conversely, getting rid of Citizens United is an extremely specific action that actually can happen.
Craig,
You’re not big on compromise are you ? As I said, I think that’s the biggest element of the disastrous state of US politics.
It’s a winner takes all scenario. Americans aren’t listening or learning from each other. They simply shout propaganda at one other. Tomorrow you’ll repeat the claim “95% of Americans demand gun control”, not because you believe it accurate, but because you want it to be accurate. You hope if you repeat and repeat the claim long enough, no one will bother to correct you and you’ll delude yourself that it’s been accepted.