By Marc Jampole
Is it a lack of consistency or hypocrisy that drives the
Republicans to their befuddling policies?
The Republicans have spent the better part of four years
devising and passing dozens of new state laws making it harder for millions of
people to vote, to protect society from the ostensible menace of the lone wolf
criminal who commits the non-violent act of fraudulent voting. Keep in mind
that no one has found any evidence of widespread or even occasional fraud. In
fact researchers uncovered maybe six cases of individual voting fraud among the
billions of votes cast over the past 50 years; none swung an election. But to
protect us from the miniscule number of sociopaths who could potentially shoot
holes into the great American tradition of fair elections, the Republicans
insisted on shrinking the rights of millions.
The Republicans must not think the threat of domestic
terrorism is serious, or that it is far less serious than the dangers of
fraudulent voting. Republicans voted as a bloc not to prevent people on the
Terrorist Security Administration’s (TSA) no-fly list from buying guns. Their
excuse: not everyone on the no-fly list is a terrorist, and the Republicans
would hate to prevent or impede any red-blooded American citizen from their
right to purchase a weapon. The no-fly list affects far fewer people than the
recent spate of laws making it harder to vote. There are some people on the
no-fly list who may be considering terrorist acts against the United States and
other countries, harming dozens and sometimes hundreds of people. All the imaginary
scofflaws in the pool of millions of people who are now inconvenienced or
prevented from voting would want to do is vote in the wrong district or without
prior registration.
National security be damned. The gun rights of a few are
more important than the safety of more than 300 million people, according to
the Republicans. But the voting rights of millions are not important at all.
No one is saying that increasing gun control laws and making
it illegal to own, buy and sell automatic weapons will end all acts of domestic
terrorism, mass murders and other gun violence. But every single study that has
been done on the topic and every single comparison between countries that has
ever been made come to the same conclusion: the fewer guns that are afloat in
society, the fewer incidences of gun violence there is and the lower the number
of deaths by firearms.
But national security and the safety of citizens be damned,
as long as the checks keep rolling in from the National Rifle Association.
While the Republicans are not good at addressing safety
issues, they do know how to complain about the supposedly lackluster efforts of
the Obama Administration. To a person, and almost in unison, Republican
presidential candidates and elected officials have condemned the president for
his response to the San Bernardino mass murders. Joining them have been a slew
of so-called experts who have appeared on all cable news stations. But the lot
of them have nothing concrete to suggest, except for the frightening Ted Cruz
who would carpet bomb ISIS territory (including the innocent citizens currently
being terrorized by ISIS) and send in large numbers of American troops.
Other than Cruz’s warmongering, not one critic of Obama’s
program to combat ISIS has proposed any concrete action that the Administration
and American allies are not doing already.
Some will say we should do more of one thing and less of another,
without really knowing how much of anything we’re doing, since that’s
confidential information. Others will ask for more detail on what are really
technical issues—all nitty-gritty process steps—and when they don’t get it,
assume the Administration has not worked it out or is not addressing the
details they think are important. But not one critic is asking for a real
change in the Administration’s program.
The words that dominate what the critics of Obama are saying
all convey value or spin, as opposed to defining actions: “Commitment,”
“leadership,” “focus,” “urgency” are the words I heard most frequently from
Republicans and TV pundits.
To question the commitment of Obama is an absurd ad hominem
attack, similar to the questioning of his patriotism or his commitment to
free-market capitalism—of course he is committed to fighting terrorism, as
committed, and more successful so far, than George Bush II. This language is
but another way that Republicans try to question the legitimacy of the first
non-white President in American history. To say Obama
lacks commitment is a subtle attack on his patriotism, but it’s also an attack
on his advisors, the administration and the continuing foreign policy and
defense establishment that were installed before Obama and will survive his
presidency.
The other words that Republicans frequently employ when
criticizing Obama’s actions against ISIS are all related to style. “Focus,”
“leadership” and “urgency” express a wide range of styles and attitudes. I
don’t believe that Bush II spoke with more urgency in his voice than Obama, but
even if he did, so what—his actions, in Iraq, Afghanistan and domestically—were
foolish and led us into the current quagmire.
There are those who would question the loyalty of the
Republicans who are making ad hominem attacks on the president without
suggesting any specific policy changes. It’s one thing to disagree with the
course of action the government takes. But to take pot shots at the government
while offering nothing different—that’s disloyalty of the highest order.
No one, however, will question the Republicans loyalty to
the NRA.
No comments:
Post a Comment