Where is the Logic? State's Rights and Gun Control

After the American Century

The Republican Party has long championed "State's Rights," once a code word for racial segregation, but more recently an all encompassing term to indicate opposition to federal meddling in state affairs. But for all but two Republicans in the United States Senate, States' Rights is clearly less important than giving individuals the freedom to carry concealed weapons. The Senate has just narrowly defeated an attachment to a military spending bill that would have permitted anyone with a valid license from one state to carry a concealed weapon (usually a handgun) in all other states as well.

Republicans claimed that this was only fair, resembling the fact that a driver's license from one state is recognized and valid in all others. However, no one is driving a car concealed under his armpit. States do not issue hunting or fishing licenses that are recognized in all other states. Indeed, even lawyers must pass the bar exam in any state they want to practice in. The right to practice law in Massachusetts does not confer the right to do so in Connecticut or California or anywhere else.

If passed, this law would be profoundly undemocratic. Two thirds of the States, 35 of them, have passed laws that prohibit gun ownership (concealed or not) to certain individuals - notably those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors. Furthermore, many states insist that gun owners must have training courses. The narrowly defeated provision would have permitted someone who had been in prison for armed robbery or murder to go to a state with lax gun laws, acquire weapons, and carry them legally anywhere in the United States. Even more frightening, it would have allowed Dick Cheney to carry a concealed weapon in Massachusetts, where all such weapons are outlawed.

This bizarre legislation was supported by almost all Senate Republicans and by most rural Republicans. However, it was vigorously opposed by the Mayor of New York, who is Republican, but for some reason does not like the idea of allowing concealed weapons in his city. And fortunately Richard Lugar, Republican Senator from Indiana, did not support this bill either.

Lugar's opposition was needed. For Republican support would not have mattered if the Democrats were opposed. But their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, was all for more concealed weapons, and several of the sponsors were Democrats as well. Indeed, all together there were 58 Senators eager to have more concealed weapons on America's streets. Only 42 voted against, but that was enough to defeat a rider to the bill. For this was not an amendment or a refinement of the bill being voted on, and it had not been vetted by a committee that heard from expert witnesses. In such cases, Senate rules require 60 votes in favor. It was a close call.

In case anyone believes the rhetoric about Democrats being the liberal party of big government, keep this near fiasco in mind. And anyone who thinks the Republicans do not want the Federal Government to meddle in the states, think again. It depends on the issues. Republicans would be happy to have Washington legislate definitively against abortion, gay marriage, or gun control. There is seldom a logical political philosophy guiding the Republicans, or, for that matter, many Democrats.

Even more troubling, majority bi-partisan support that would effectively eliminate gun control suggests that the Senate is not thickly populated with intelligent individuals with high ideals. Can we count on such people to create a new and better health care system?

Obama Takes the Center, Perhaps Florida

After the American Century

In the last few weeks Senator Obama has performed the classic manouevre required of successful presidential candidates. He has moved toward the center. During the primaries the voters are all in the same party, but to win the general election, a candidate usually shifts policy positions a bit. In 2000 George Bush managed to convince some Democrats and many Indepndents that he was a "compassionate conservative." In 1992 Bill Clinton likewise danced a bit toward the middle.

When candidates do this, ideologues become upset, because the candidate no longer seems a person of principles, but an opportunist. However, I have become somewhat more tolerant of these policy position changes, which also suggest pragmatism and flexibility. Candidates thereby suggest to the public that they listen to the popular will. Obama has recently endorsed private gun ownership, for example. Personally, I wish he had not taken that position, but if he wants to win in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and many western states, this is a good idea. In any case, the president will not likely be able to change the liberal laws on gun ownership., which have just been supported by the Supreme Court. It overturned a Washington DC law to control carrying handguns. There was little point in Obama attacking the Court, and he will focus on the battles he can win.

Obama likewise made clear his support for Israel, which is important to carry certain key states, notably Florida. This support should be balanced, however, by his repeated declaration that he would seek an open dialogue with many groups and governments that the Bush Administration has refused to talk to, including many in the Arab world.

Less predictably, and far more interestingly, Obama has made a sharp break with the hard-liners on Cuba. For fifty years the US has enforced an economic embargo against Castro's regime. Support for that policy is weakening, however, due to several factors. First, Fidel Castro is now too ill to run that country, and his more pragmatic and reform-minded brother has made many small steps in the direction Americans would like to see, giving a modicum of democracy to the country. Second, the hard-liners themselves are dying off, and the second and third generation Cuban-Americans can see the potential economic and personal benefits in re-engaging with Cuba. Third, the EU does not have an embargo against Cuba, and the US is cutting itself out of a market. When Obama spoke to Cuban-Americans in Florida last week, they applauded his call for dialogue and economic engagement. Since the Bush White House apparently has little historical memory, it is worth emphasizing that the Cold War was "won" without a shot being fired, because of constructive engagement.

In short, while Obama is moving to the center, he is not simply repeating old policy positions. His approach to Cuba seems far more sensible than McCain's, who has embraced the old hard-line view. Obama is going after the younger Cuban voters, making himself the candidate of the future and of change. Coupled with his more moderate views on immigration, this should play well with the Hispanic voters generally, who are less prone to be hard-liners on Cuba in any case.

If Obama can successfully hold Jewish voters and pull some of the Cubans away from the Republicans, he will have a much better chance to win Florida, and with it, the White House. He is being adventuresome where it can pay off, but not on gun control, an issue where the Supreme Court has spoken, and one that will drive the white working class into the arms of McCain.

Will it work? During April and May every poll on Florida put McCain ahead, often by as much as 15%. But in the middle of June, even before Obama announced his new Cuban policy and support for Israel, two polls put him ahead of McCain. Even if Obama ultimately loses the state, if he can force McCain to use time and money to defend it, he will have fewer resources to put elsewhere.