Clinton's Gun Control Warning

By Rick Ungar

Reprinted from Forbes Magazine.  Link here to original article

 

Speaking at a private gathering of top Democratic contributors on Saturday, President Bill Clinton delivered a warning to anti-gun advocates as they once again embark on the perilous journey towards gun control.

The message?

Guns hold a particular, emotional place of importance in many American rural states and, for that reason, simply dismissing those who support the pro-gun argument is counterproductive to making any strides in solving the problem of gun violence.

“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” said Clinton. “A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things. I know because I come from this world.”

As is so often the case these days, Clinton has it exactly right.

By placing the perils of cultural disrespect and the evil of supposed moral superiority on the table, President Clinton has not only cut right to the heart of why we cannot have rational discussion of gun violence in America but identifies a polluting factor that exceeds even the damaging tactics and narratives furthered by the NRA.

Nobody takes kindly to being disrespected.

For that reason, Clinton’ s warning, while directly addressing the inherent danger in being dismissive of cultural differences between Americans who come from different regions and backgrounds, highlights the profound difficulties that attach to our current President’s ability to lead the charge towards achieving legislative success for his proposals designed to control gun violence in American.

People of good intent—and yes, there are millions of gun owners who are people of good intent—can listen to an opposing point of view and contemplate the value of a rational argument when the perspective is presented with respect. Conversely, when even a sensible suggestion is offered by one who assumes a position of moral superiority and cultural disdain, it is a pretty good bet that any useful point that might be proposed will fall on exceedingly deaf ears.

And that is why there is simply no forgetting that it was Candidate Barack Obama, during the 2008 presidential campaign, who engaged in precisely that which Clinton now warns against. Of course, I’m referring to the speech given before a gathering of Democratic contributors in San Francisco where then Senator Barack Obama insulted millions of gun owners—and rural gun owners at that—when noting that rural voters “get bitter” and “they cling to their guns or religion.”

If you’ve forgotten the speech, you can listen to it here.

While one can make a case that President Obama’s intent was neither to offend nor show cultural disrespect for rural gun owners when his words are placed in the full context of his speech, it really doesn’t matter when considering that the President now seeks to lead on the topic of gun control.

There are generations of sensitivities and defensive walls that have been constructed and nurtured by the cultural disrespect exhibited by those who do not understand nor appreciate the importance of guns in various parts of the country. Unfortunately, Obama’s words played right into these sensitivities. Indeed, the President’s ‘off the cuff’ remark to a group of supporters who, in all likelihood, shared a disrespect for rural gun owners, may have permanently waived Obama’s opportunity to take on the leadership role in any effort to engage a meaningful discussion on guns.

One simply cannot disrespect an entire culture and then seek to be the one to convince these very same people of the righteousness of making large changes to that culture in the name of the public good.

Words matter—which it is why it is profoundly unfortunate that the words uttered by President Obama may be decisive in this latest effort to find a rational gun policy that works for Americans of all cultural backgrounds, unless the President takes steps to make this right.

While it may completely elude the President as to why it is so important to millions of Americans that they possess a military style weapon—I know that it eludes me—one’s own lack of appreciation cannot, and should not, be the basis for dismissing, or looking down on, the interests of those who view gun ownership as a right of citizenship and an important part of the culture that so many Americans cherish.

This is not to say that I do not appreciate the President’s difficulty on the subject.

My own background is such that I simply cannot grasp why so many people want these high-powered weapons in their home. However, just because the President doesn’t get it…or I don’t get it…or you don’t get it…doesn’t make it wrong. Millions of Americans who are continuing a tradition that is important to them cannot be deemed “wrong” when they are breaking no laws nor harming any individual in the pursuit of what matters to them—no matter why it matters to them.

If President Obama—or anyone else—wants to make the case that certain weapons have no place in society or that high capacity magazines present more risk than reward, such an advocate must come to the discussion respecting the cultural imperatives of those who are inclined to disagree or they must expect to face total defeat in the effort to persuade those who disagree to come to another conclusion.

President Obama should listen closely to the words of his predecessor and very seriously consider directly addressing his 2008 statement. He should be willing to show up before a group of pro-gun Americans in the heart of rural America and make his case with respect for the traditions of those who would disagree with him and a strong argument as to why his ideas are important to the nation.

To simply pretend that he never said what he said or imagine that millions of good Americans are not harboring the memories of the insult as they react to the latest effort to accomplish gun control, is, to say the least, counterproductive.

I want the President to succeed in his effort to rid society of weapons and accessories that are causing so much pain and suffering. But I recognize that this can only happen when a large number of those who see it differently are convinced that it is worth parting with an important piece of their own personal history and culture in order to make the nation better.

As President Clinton has made clear, this cannot happen without showing the traditions and viewpoints of so many Americans the respect they deserve.

The simple reality is that the President has but one avenue to success in his effort to make a dent in gun violence. With a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans, and no shortage of elected Democrats uncomfortable with stirring the hornet’s nest of discontent that comes with challenging the gun culture, Obama’s only hope rests with his ability to take his case directly to the people—and that includes the millions of Americans he once insulted.

That conversation will never be possible until the President directly confronts his 2008 remarks and attempts to convince all Americans that he has learned a few things about cultural respect. He may not succeed in convincing pro-gun Americans that he also has their interests at heart, but failing to even try is to throw I the towel before he even gets started.