By Elvin Lim
The tragic shootings in Newtown, CT, have plunged the nation into the foundational debate of American politics.
Over at Fox News, the focus as been on mourning and the tragedy of what happened. As far as the search for solutions go, the focus has been on how to cope, what to say to children, and what to do about better mental health screening. It is consistent with the conservative view that when bad things happen, they happen because of errant individuals, not flawed societies. The focus on mourning indicates the view that when bad things happen, they are the inevitable costs of liberty.
At MSNBC, the focus has been on tragedy as a wake up call, not a thing in itself to simply mourn; on finding legislative and governmental solutions — gun control. This is consistent with the liberal view that when bad things happen, they happen because of flawed societies, not just the result of errant individuals or evil as an abstract entity.
The question of which side is right is an imponderable. Conservatives believe that in the end, our vigilance against tyrannical government is our first civic duty. This was the logic behind the Second Amendment. It comes from a long line of Radical Whig thinking that the Anti-Federalists inherited. That is why Second Amendment purists can reasonably argue that that citizens should continue to have access to (even) semi-automatic guns. They will say that the Second Amendment is not just for hunting; it is for liberty against national armies. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that a government duly constituted by the people need not fear government; and it is citizen-on-citizen violence that we ought to try to prevent. This line of thinking began with Hobbes, who had theorized that we lay down our arms against each other, so that one amongst us alone wields the sword. Later, we called this sovereign the state. The Federalists leaned in this tradition.
Should we fear government more or fellow citizens who have access to guns? Should government or citizens enjoy the presumption of virtue? Who knows. There is no answer on earth that would permanently satisfy both political sides in America, because conservatives believe that most citizens, most of the time, are virtuous, and there is no need to take a legislative sledgehammer to restrict the liberty of a few errant individuals at the expense of everybody else. Liberals, conversely, believe that government and regulatory activity are virtuous and necessary most of the time, and there is little practical cost to most citizens to restrict a liberty (to bear arms) that is rarely, if ever, invoked. Put another way: conservatives focus on the vertical dimension of tyranny; liberals fear most the horizontal effects of mutual self-destruction.
What is a president to do? It depends on which side of the debate he stands. Barack Obama believes that the danger we pose to ourselves exceeds the danger of tyrannical government (for which a right to bear arms was originally codified). The winds of public opinion may be swaying in his direction, and Obama appeared to be ready to mould it when he asked: “Are we really prepared to say that we are powerless in the face of such carnage?”
Here is one neo-Federalist argument that Obama can use, should he take on modern Anti-Federalists. If the Constitution truly were of the people, then it is self-contradictory to speak of vigilance against it. In other words, the Second Amendment is anachronistic. It was written in an era of monarchy, as a bulwark against Kings. To those who claim to be constitutional conservatives, Obama may reasonably ask: either the federal government is not sanctioned by We the People, and therefore we must forever be jealous of it; or, the federal government represents the People and we need not treat it as a distant potentate and overstate our fear of it.
If this is to be the age of renewed faith in government, as it appears to be Obama’s mission, then the President will be more likely to convince Americans to lay down our arms; he will persuade us that our vigilance against government by the people is counter-prouctive and anachronistic. But, to move “forward,” he must first convince the NRA and its ideological compatriots that we can trust our government. Only the greatest of American presidents have succeeded in this most herculean of tasks, for our attachment to the spirit of ’76 cannot be understated.
Elvin Lim is Associate Professor of Government at Wesleyan University and author of The Anti-Intellectual Presidency, which draws on interviews with more than 40 presidential speechwriters to investigate this relentless qualitative decline, over the course of 200 years, in our presidents’ ability to communicate with the public. He also blogs at www.elvinlim.com and his column on politics appears on the OUPblog regularly.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only politics and law articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
The post On the Second Amendment: should we fear government or ourselves? appeared first on OUPblog.
I haven't had the strength or guts to address the sorrow I feel in the aftermath of losing newsman and family man Tim Russert.
My heart broke as I watched Tom Brokaw make the annoucement on MSNBC Friday afternoon. No. Not Tim. Not NOW. As much as he loved his family and friends, clearly his passion for politics and this year’s election cycle in general was what drove him…
… and to think that he won’t be here to guide us through this insanity and see it to its conclusion this November is unfathomable.
58 years young. Man, life is not fair at all. Tim Russert exuded life. I pray he died a happy man, despite leaving way, way too early.
He told America’s story and now we will have to seek other voices to make it all make sense
Go get 'em, TR.
May your family and friends one day soon find great comfort and peace knowing how blessed they were to have known you. May I confess that I, too, feel blessed to have crossed paths with him in this lifetime?
To Maureen and Luke and Big Russ: Thank you all so very, very much for sharing Tim's life with us. I will never forget him. As I type these words, I see his smiling eyes on the television screen, aired during one of the tribute shows on MSNBC this weekend. I have watched each show over and over, not wanting to let go of his presence and not wanting to accept the pain of his loss. And it does hurt. And it is a great, great loss to our nation and to the world. But oh what a better world he made it. You should be very proud of all he was and all he meant and all he did. HE MATTERED.
I know I do not grieve alone. A friend just passed along this video footage to me. I presume it was from today's Meet The Press. I have not seen the show yet. But as always, when words fail me, Bruce Springsteen fills in the missing pieces and makes it all make sense. Like me, Russert was a Bruce fanatic. I cannot think of a more fitting final tribute to Tim's life and times than the footage in photos and music presented on Meet The Press today.
And there's that awful empty chair at the end.
Hard to express the pain and grief of knowing his presence is now always and forever just a spirit in the night.
Empty Chairs at Empty Tables... from Les Miserables:
"Phantom faces at the window.
Phantom shadows on the floor.
Empty chairs at empty tables
Where my friends will meet no more"
Crying over empty gas tanks seems so silly in the scheme of life now, doesn't it?
Chris Matthews may think he plays political HARDBALL on his news analysis show on MSNBC. He may think his condescending, arrogant attitude towards newsmaking women is entertaining and newsworthy. Alas for Chris "Tweety" Matthews, this bird mimics the corporate talking points with zero elbow room for genuine reflection or analysis. Like the Continental Congress urged that rascal chatterbox John Adams: "For G-d's sake, Chris, sit down," shut up and.. Just Go Away. Far far away. Fly, little bird, fly. Go. Breathe in, breathe deep, and revel in the aftershave of Sleepy Head Republican, Mr. Lazybones Fred Thompson and tell America what we need is a "Real Man" in the White House. Real Men smell like Fred Thompson. Scorned women become Senators. Governors. Speakers of the House, if you really play your mahjong cards right.
Somebody grab a bullhorn and welcome Chris Matthews to 2008. You know, the world where Nancy Pelosi, Jennifer Granholm, Angela Merkel, Valerie Plame, Claire McCaskill, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, et al exist. Sorry to break it to you, buddy. We're not all devotees of the Anita Bryant and Phyllis Schlafly backwards-thinking, backwards-thrusting theology. Thank g-d.
Sample this Matthews ditty as posted on the MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA media watchdog website:
"After Clinton won the New Hampshire Democratic primary, Matthews asserted: "[T]he reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." He described her performance at a debate last Saturday as apparently "good enough to seem good enough here for women who wanted to root for her anyway."
The insult to mankind is self-evident.
Matthews Likes His News to come in one size: pretty. In August 2007, Matthews asked CNBC business analyst Erin Burnett to come closer to the camera while engaging in television commentary with her so he could.. well, I'm not sure what he wanted to do with her but any conclusion is inevitably sickening. (Television Sex?) He begs her to bring her face closer to the screen, using these romantic and cable-ready come-ons: "[Y]ou're beautiful" and "[y]ou're a knockout," before closing the interview by saying, "It's all right getting bad news from you."
There's too much more where this comes from.
I've had enough and, apparently, I am not alone.
There's a firestorm of revulsion streaming his way and we're not going to take it. MEDIA MATTERS lays out the skeletal issues and provides online e-contacts to express your opinion to the corporate cable channel. You can engage in a lively discussion with fellow repulsed members of the thinking world over at Plutonium's Page diary at Daily Kos, your one-stop-shopping progressive blog. My favorite anti-Matthews invective can be found at the aptly-named Sweet Jesus I Hate Chris Matthews blog. Imagine that! A tidal wave of bloggers angry enough to build websites simply based on their revulsion towards a news hack. It's all happening, kids. The Revolution is here and we're using words to fire shots heard 'round the world!
Here's a portion of the letter I snarked off to MSNBC TV @ [email protected] and HARDBALL with CHRIS MATTHEWS @ [email protected] :
I’ve long complained of the way Chris Matthews treats his audience and his guests. You never respond. Not the Hardball staff. Not MSNBC. It’s time you “found your voice,” MSNBC, and do something about the horrific, misogynist Matthews. He does not deserve an altar to spew his idiocy. Bring in the educated and wise David Shuster. Why would you waste your corporate dollars on Matthews? Shame on you for shaming the airwaves with this cruel and tactless barking head. Send him to FOX where he belongs.
As a long-time viewer of MSNBC, I deserve better. I deserve a response—not just to this note but to this call for action. It sickens me to think that I have wasted my loyalty if you do not treat your audience with the respect I have too long dedicated to you.
I know there are greater things to worry about in life but you've got to fight the windmills where they spin.
There's a good reason they call him "Tweety"
Watch Chris Matthews lose his kishkas on national television after the New Hampshire primary; Air America radio host and occasional MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow delivers the delicately-articulated smackdown message at the end of the clip: Matthews, I don't know if you know this, but women think you're an imbecile!
Evan Schnittman wrote an article for Publishing News last week entitled “Facing The Digital Reality.” Schnittman writes in his article that,
“…at the 500-year-old publishing house where I am employed book sales still make up the lion’s share of our income. Yet, as print-oriented as we may be, we have successfully launched many digital products - all into institutional and library markets. Until recently, however, the boundaries of e-content success seem to have stopped at journals, reference, and STM content in institutional and library markets.” (more…)
Share This
.jpg?picon=512)