In his 2009 book Moyers in America, former aide to President Johnson, Bill Moyers, wrote about the night LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come,” he said.
It took personal courage for Johnson to press ahead with the Civil Rights bill. His predecessor who began the legislative process had his head blown into pieces in Dallas. It took political courage, as Johnson would go on to lose the Deep South in the 1964 election, a hitherto unthinkable outcome for a Democratic presidential contender. It also took ideological courage, because he knew he was damaging his party in its largest stronghold and inviting a massive counterreaction that could threaten the New Deal coalition. Johnson pressed ahead anyway.
Donald Trump faces similar risks if he pushes ahead with anti-gun violence legislation. And I don’t begrudge him at all for polling his supporters. Any responsible political leader would do the same. On August 9th, I wrote “Trump’s Reelection Strategy Makes a Gun Bill Unlikely” to make the point that Trump can’t really pick a fight with his base on guns given that he’s relying on them rather than undecided moderates to win a second term. Unfortunately, his survey showed that his base won’t endure strong gun legislation.
President Trump assured Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, on Thursday that he was still considering legislation that could include background checks for gun buyers. But White House aides said they had polling data showing that gun control was politically problematic for the president, according to two people briefed on the meeting…
…the polling data, White House aides said, indicated that the issue does not help the president with his core base of supporters, according to the people briefed on the meeting.
It’s asking a lot for a political leader to put his physical safety or his political career at risk. It’s also a major decision anytime a political leader contemplates taking action that could do real long-term harm to his party’s cohesiveness and future success, because doing the right thing in one area might count for a lot but if it is accompanied by widespread legislative, policy and electoral defeats it will come at a very high price. LBJ did not have an easy to decision and the Democratic Party fractured and suffered decades of losses as a result of his choice.
Donald Trump is not known for his courage, and he certainly doesn’t put any interests ahead of his own, which is why this internal polling data is decisive. He will seek a fig leaf rather than putting his neck on the line:
But those familiar with the meeting said the president’s likeliest course of action was a menu of smaller items, like a slimmer version of a background checked bill and “red flag” laws, which allow the authorities to temporarily confiscate firearms from those who are found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or to others.
The mass shootings will continue without any large federal response because President Trump isn’t the kind of person to take risks and sacrifices that stand to benefit anyone other than himself. He’s certainly not alone in that as a politician but he’s also an extreme case. It’s hard to conceive of anyone less likely to show the courage of an LBJ.
5
I would be surprised if he even does that
like a slimmer version of a background checked bill and “red flag” laws, which allow the authorities to temporarily confiscate firearms from those who are found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or to others.
Just taking the temperature in my own local Trumpistan, I don’t think there is an appetite here among his base for anything concerning gun safety, not even some toothless, symbolic gesture. These people are all-in for the total destruction of anything supported which is to the left of their NRA sanctioned position.
I will be surprised if Mike Dewine maintains his push here in Ohio for the improved background checks once things really begin to heat up and the Trumper gun folks get rolling. Already, there is much dissatisfaction with Dewine’s willingness to even talk about it.
It’s a zero-sum world over here in gun crazy-town.
Celebration of murder and mayhem is the order of the day in an uncivilized, barbaric society like America, because obviously the most cherished personal “right” of all is the right to a home arsenal that could annihilate one of Napoleon’s divisions in 10 minutes. And I have to wonder just how strong all these “majorities” are for even the toothless remedies tepidly proposed—which are of course nothing more than nibbling around the edges of the assault weapons insanity.
The nation went wild with fear and revenge fantasies after the 2,000 Islamic terror deaths of 9/11, but obviously the mounting gun mayhem of 21st Century TrumpAmerica doesn’t instill the same level of urgency or terror, despite the fact that there is a fair chance a deranged (likely right wing) gun-nut will be spraying lead around the movie theater, concert or street festival you might be thinking of attending this weekend. Or church, particularly if your congregation is made up of those on the Alt-Right’s “Enemies of the People” list.
Again, more irrefutable evidence of our Failed State status. But that’s “Conservatism”!
No he won’t and Ds run the risk of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by going all in on mandatory buybacks as both Beto and now Harris have done. I admire Beto’s passion around he issue and even get why he has changed his mind but mandatory buybacks are a both a political and policy loser which is probably why Biden, nor Warren, nor Sanders support it. That said there is something to be said for moving the overton window so that voluntary buybacks become more palatable.
Along these lines, how far can Democrats rhetorically go in order to demand real action on guns and get suburban and urban voters for whom this is seen as a life or death issue, while not triggering rural voters? I think it isn’t very far, and (in fact) any movement on gun control is seen as the beginning of rounding up gun owners by those fanatical folks who have driven political (in)action on this so to date. Because of that, I don’t know if there is any benefit to holding back, because once in office they can say they campaigned on real changes to laws and even if it is only background checks, mandatory waiting periods, etc. then it will be easier to pass.
And, most importantly, Democrats need to be seen fighting for these things or turnout is going to take a hit. And, at the end of the day, Republicans will be fired up no matter what and we need to make sure our base responds in kind.
4.5