By David Harsanyi
Friday, January 08, 2016
A few days ago, Barack Obama choked up pitching his
recent executive actions aimed at gun owners. Here’s what “The Daily Show’s”
Trevor Noah had to say about the episode (Esquire
says it was “possibly the greatest monologue of his career so far”):
See that thing you’re feeling right now, that pain in your chest that
comes from watching someone weep on national television, because he knows that
society can do better than to file the shooting of children under ‘shit
happens.’ That feeling is how you know that you’re human. No matter how opposed
to Obama’s policies some people may be, or how cynical their politics, they
have to at least acknowledge and respect the raw authenticity of that emotion.
Or so you would think.
Nothing suggests to me that the president’s tears weren’t
genuine — though arguing that it was inconceivable
Obama would manipulate public opinion with a bit of feigned emotion is either
naïve or, more likely, blinding bias. What’s more unfortunate is that the Esquire writer (and many others) were
actually impressed by this vacuous lecturing.
Does raw emotion necessarily deserve “respect?” Tears
have been shed for the worst tyrants, and “raw emotion” has fueled some of the
most nefarious causes in history. It’s more likely this particular display of
emotion has impressed people because it’s a rebuke of those “cynical” gun nuts.
After all, if you’re not acting as liberals prescribe on the issue, you are at
best apathetic and at worst, willfully evil. The president, for example, pulled
out this well-worn canard for use last week: “If there’s even one thing we can
do, if there’s just one life we can save — we’ve got an obligation to try.”
No we don’t. Because, yes, shit happens. It happens all
the time, and it can be terrible. Sometimes these terrible things involve
children and, tragically, there’s often nothing we can do. A free society can’t
function if its overriding purpose is to ensure that every single person enjoys
a risk-free existence. If Obama legitimately believes government has an
obligation to try and save every single life, he would be calling for a
20-mile-per-hour speed limit on highways and a ban on trampolines, bathtubs,
and skateboards.
The world gives us plenty to cry about, but free people
innately (or otherwise) understand trade-offs. We weigh rights, utility, and
many other factors before coming to a consensus on policy decisions, even if
lives are at risk. Naturally, this doesn’t exclude us from balancing those
concerns and making life safer for children — we do it all the time. But
progressive utopianism doesn’t offer that balance; it can be perpetual mission
creep. This reality fuels some of the conservative skepticism of even modest
liberal proposals. There will always be another life to save from an “assault
rifle,” always another tragedy to politicize.
When Anderson Cooper (who did an admirable job last night
on CNN) challenged the president on the supposed modesty of the Left’s
ambitions on guns, Obama laughed it off as conspiracy theorizing, an “imaginary
fiction.” But he has yet to explain why he’s brought up Australia’s
confiscatory policy as a model numerous times in the past or what, conceptually
speaking, gun control looks like in its final, liberal form.
Liberals like to portray themselves as purveyors of
common-sense reform who have absolutely no intention of incrementally making
sure guns are incredibly difficult to own. That’s weird, since it’s exactly
what every jurisdiction run by liberal Democrats tries to do. It’s not
self-restraint, but the democratic process and constitutional restriction on
state power that stop them from doing the same on a federal level.
Now to be fair, this discussion only really works if we
pretend Obama’s gun proposals have the potential to save lives in the first
place. At the CNN town hall on guns, Obama struck a more conciliatory tone —
walking back his “if one life can be saved” contention — but offered nothing
that would mitigate the problem. The “loopholes” he focused on are either
things that are illegal already or not really loopholes. None of the recent
mass shootings would have been prevented by his proposals.
So, as Obama’s impotent executive actions demonstrate,
there’s little substantive change liberals can institute on guns via executive
power (perhaps when they take back the Supreme Court this will change), and
there’s no chance to achieve anything legislatively in the near future. So be
prepared for more amped-up appeals to emotion meant to tenderize the electorate
for the long haul. That’s what all the theater is about. The debate now is
about what the debate will look like moving forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment