04
Apr
Means and Ends
In the Nation, Sasha Abramsky analyzes the evolution of gun control politics in the Democratic Party. Because the West is a rising political target for Democrats, and that region is pretty pro-gun, many Democrats (camp #1) are suggesting that the party decentralize the issue. In other words, make it a state rather than a national issue. Some Democratic political strategists think that the gun issue has been costing us voters we might get otherwise. Not the true NRA gun nuts, but those who just like being able to have firearms. So let’s get it off the table.
Other folks (camp #2) are deeply concerned by this development. They see a change on the gun issue as yet another example of the Democrats “caving.” If we compromise on this issue, what’s next, abortion? That costs us votes too. There are already people who want to move the party rightward on gay rights. When does it stop being tactical modification for a larger goal and become the undermining of that goal?
You can count me firmly in camp #1: make the gun issue a state matter. It’s not a central concern for Democrats, and it is costing us votes unnecessarily. In particular it is compromising any “New Populist” strategy for winning rural and small town votes.
I think that camp #2, the “Ultra” position, is misguided. They are confusing means and ends. A party should be flexible on how they pursue a goal – we should always be practical when considering how to accomplish our aim of furthering social and economic justice. It is in those aims that we should be firm. And here is where the analogy presented by the Ultras breaks down: gun control is a means, and abortion rights are an end. The purpose of gun control is not to control guns. It is to reduce crime. In that sense, it is just one method among others. Are the gun control advocates really claiming that restricting gun ownership is the only effective way of reducing crime? So moving on the gun control issue doesn’t represent a change in principle, just a tactical maneuver.
Abortion rights, on the other hand, are an uncompromisable end. Reproductive choice is the cornerstone of gender equality and gets to the core of personal autonomy. But again, we should be flexible as to how we defend those rights. If the “reducing abortions” strategy proposed by Hilary and others pays off, we should go for it. If all it does is reinforce the pro-life frame, it must be rejected. But the analysis is one of expedience, not principle.
A lot of us are always claiming that Democrats should “get smart” about how we handle issues. This doesn’t mean we become pseudo-Republicans. It just means that we need to recognize the difference between the essential and the inessential.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Google]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
I recently discovered that The Nation was down this road before with similar implications. I also agree. There have been various liberals that are also gun rights advocates and it has the making of libertarian/liberal unity. Finally, unlike abortion, guns are largely a states issue anyway. Putting aside interstate transport and similar issues, different states have different needs. A rule that applies to Nevada and New York equally is silly. And, the Second Amendment arguably warrants a state by state approach. Finally, various liberal friendly groups, including women and minorities, are wary about anti-gun rhetoric in certain respects. This is not an issue to allow to divide the party.
April 5th, 2005 at 2:58 pm