Even Good Ideas Can Be Dangerous
Curbing the Desire to Balance an Unbalanced Equation
Let’s Not Beat Around the Bush.
Here 4 the Kids, a grassroots post-pandemic group born out of a Zoom call, plans to hold a sit-in protest on the grounds of the Capitol in Denver on June 5th. Their stated goals; gather 25,000 people and have Jared Polis sign an executive order banning all guns and initiating a state-wide buy back.
While I admire the willingness to advocate for what you really, really want in the end, I simultaneously think this is a seriously misguided and dangerous idea.
Cards on the Table
I deplore gun violence. I have plotted ways to leave this country and relocate to one where there is less gun violence. I would happily turn over all my guns to be destroyed if I were going to live, say in the United Kingdom permanently, never to return to the US except on holiday. Until that happens, I’ve settled on moving to a more secluded part of the country in an attempt to distance myself and my family from the free wheeling Wild West attitude which seems to permeate America these days. But I suffer no illusion that it’s any less America where I’m going, so I’m taking my guns with me. I am all for gun legislation. I would happily support an assault weapons ban and any number of other pieces of legislation which make it increasingly difficult for everyone and anyone to purchase any and all guns and even make it easier to take guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. What I will never support is an idea as stupid as this one.
Waste of Time
First and foremost, let’s be honest. This sit-in has a less than zero percent chance of success. There is no universe in which Jared Polis signs an executive action on June 5th, 6th, 7th. . . .on and on until the end of his term, banning all guns. To think otherwise demonstrates a questionable relationship with reality. This makes the objective of this action a huge waste of time. It’s a waste of time for the people who turn up to participate. It’s a waste of time for the people who will spend numerous hours in the logistical preparations. It’s a waste of time for the people who will be forced to go report on the event. It’s a waste of time for the people who will show up in counter protest to the initial protest. To spend energy on something which cannot and will not objectively happen is energy you could, and probably should, have spent on better goals. And while this waste of time is regrettable, it is by far the least significant of reasons to view this idea with circumspection.
Waste of Resources
Sure. If you are wasting time, then by the capitalist credo, you can deduce you are wasting money. And yeah, Here 4 the Kids will waste some capital in organizing this event, which given that their main online presence is Instagram and a stripped down website with some anti-gun merchandise, I’m guessing they don’t have a lot to squander. Although, with Julia Louis Dreyfus in your corner, maybe you don’t have to worry. Regardless, this is not the resource I am most concerned about.
People are, after all, free to spend their time, energy, and money however they see fit, as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others in significant ways. Unfortunately, Here 4 the Kids mission violates this principle as well, since their advocacy effectively wastes one of, if not the most, important political resources, the Middle; and that affects all of us.
In today’s polarized political landscape you can be forgiven for forgetting that there is a substantially huge swath of the population who has not lost their minds, and still believes in things like reason and compromise. You can also be forgiven for forgetting that appeal to and persuasion of the Middle is the only way to demonstrably achieve progress. This forgetting is one of the consequences of polarization. Although feel free to check in with your friends on the Right in Michigan, Kentucky, or Kansas, assuming you have any, about the importance of the Middle on abortion for a brief refresher.
Within the context of our polarized milieu, the arrival of Here 4 the Kid’s makes sense. Polarization requires balance. Polar opposites need each other. As one side pulls one way, the other pulls the opposite way in order to counteract the imbalance created. The farther one side pulls, the farther the other side needs to pull and so on and so on. As the Right doubles down on “thoughts and prayers” in the face of mass shooting after mass shooting, themselves rejecting common sense compromise in addressing the issue of gun violence, it was only a matter of time before the Left responded in a similarly untethered fashion.
However, acknowledging the context does not justify the potential damage. The Middle always has, and hopefully will remain, the only path to success in politics. Despite the fact that this reality doesn’t play well into the 24 hour, social media driven, news cycle where sex, violence, and extremism lead the headline; leaving us feeling as though it is “us vs. them” in a fight for our very survival; the reality is that the Middle doesn’t go to the extremes, it gently sways back and forth on the waves created by extremes.
If you forget this, neglect this, or even worse, actively undermine the energy of the Middle, you can very easily turn it off your issue, and create a situation where it is more likely to employ its superpower: the “backlash.” Even if you are able to avoid the backlash, it’s still a very real possibility that you will waste its attention and willingness to compromise thereby effectively wasting an opportunity where you might have utilized it in your service. So, say for instance, you call for the complete ban of guns. You will never get enough people from the Middle to make this a reality, dooming it to failure. And, in turn, you will most likely waste a good proportion of the Middle’s influence and willingness to back say an assault weapon’s ban, or a ban on high capacity magazines, or longer pre-purchase waiting periods, or improved background checks, or stronger red flag laws because you have shown yourself to be too extreme, too ungrounded, and/or too out of touch with reality.
Waste of Collateral
I’m obviously not talking about the security on a loan, but I am talking about a kind of security. The kind of security I have in mind is the kind that comes from being up front and honest. Now, to their credit, Here 4 the Kids are laying all their cards on the table. My concern about wasted collateral pertains to how their position will reflect on those in pursuit of sensible, albeit perhaps imperfect and far from ideal gun legislation, which could potentially save numerous lives. Or, put another way, how Here 4 the Kids position will make the work of other gun violence advocacy groups in pursuit of these goals, especially in light of the growing momentum in the American populace for just these things, that much harder.
Let’s do a little thought experiment. Take a moment and think about the most extreme Right-wing talking point on guns you can imagine. What do you hear in your little ear? Personally, I hear something along the lines of “THEY ARE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!” (And yes, it is that loud in my head. All nut jobs tend to scream. It’s in fact one of the ways to recognize a nut job.) And now, think about a Left-centrist’s much more calm, reasoned reply to the above scream. “No one is coming to take your guns. This is fear mongering. All we want is some common sense legislation. I’ll say it again, ‘No one is coming to your guns.’”
But, it turns out. . .someone is in fact coming to take your guns, and they are called Here 4 the Kids, or Jared Polis if the latter have their way. This does two things. First, and foremost, it lends credibility to the Right-wing extremist position making it possible for them to say, “Look. We told you that the Left was not being honest. Sure, they said they just wanted legislation, but now you see that this was just a way to get their foot in the door to taking all your guns away.” Granted, this message will be conveyed in all caps of 280 characters, or 4000 if you are a bot who pays for Twitter, in a far less measured way, but the effect will be the same. Because not only will the Right be able to say it, but in this case it will be true. The success of this PR victory should not be underestimated. And the bad news does not stop there.
The further impact of Here 4 the Kids’ position potentially goes beyond the issue of guns to any and all liberal, Left leaning positions. The raising of suspicion resulting from the loss of collateral in this instance will make it easier and more likely that the Right will be successful in planting seeds of doubt within the mainstream regarding the plausibility of ulterior motives being realistic possibilities. The importance of this too should not be underestimated. We currently live in a very superficial world, where echo chambers predominate the social and media landscape. Far more extreme and untethered positions have easily gained traction and influence within disturbingly large swaths of the population. The last thing reasoned, rational, and liberal positions need is for Left extremism to gifts seeds of doubt to the Right, which they can turn around and plant into the fertile soils of suspicion which animate our culture.
In the End
“But wait,” I can hear the objections now, (assuming you read past your trigger at my use of the word “stupid”), “there is no such thing as bad press.” Wrong. This line of thought only makes sense in The Lord of the Flies world we inhabit where the popularity contest of “Likes” and “Shares” matters more than things like reality, truth, and reason. It’s true many, many people make a living by trafficking in half-baked, ill conceived notions and schemes, but I’ve always thought it better to remain silent and appear stupid than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. (There’s that pesky notion again.) It just so happens in this particular example that one’s reputation and/or popularity is perhaps not the most precious thing at risk. Because if I’m right, then voicing this idea may in fact lead to more, not fewer, preventable deaths.
I don’t think words or thoughts are violence. But this doesn’t mean that words, thoughts, or in this case, ideas aren’t dangerous. Honestly, I can’t think of anything more dangerous than a good, or bad, idea. Either way they have the capacity to change our minds and thereby create the world(s) we live in. Thus, they must be constructed carefully. They must be thought out. They must be assayed in order that we can employ them wisely and judiciously in the event they’re valuable or rejected otherwise. In this particular case, the danger lies not in the quality of the idea per se, but in how it only makes sense within the resonance of its very own echo chamber and how it ends up in taking the bait laid by the Right instead of thinking for itself.
Agree with the three main thrusts of the article. If I might paraphrase the core principles:
1) Limited activist resources (time, money) should be spent effectively
2) The energy/attention of the Middle is also a limited resource that, if wasted, can starve the core effort and similar related efforts or, as you say, result in a backlash, where that energy is spent to oppose the core and related efforts.
3) Trust is a resource that once squandered tarnishes all related groups and makes it difficult or impossible for related groups to get Middle energy in the future.
These are important insights for anyone with political or social objectives! I can see how I have both experienced violations of these principles and perpetrated them in discussions I have had with others. After a few decades of adulthood, I would classify myself as liberal member of the Middle who, because of violations of these principles, now view all Leftist assertions or proposals with skepticism until I can do my own research. (Lest anyone attempt to paint me with too broad a brush, my skepticism of the Right rose to great heights in my teenage years and stayed there.)
The reason I am writing this comment (aside from delivering praise) is that you write as though the mere push to ban all guns is the violation of these three principles, but I think it would be better to view the entire gun control project writ large as a violation. Here’s why:
- All gun control proposals by the anti-gun folks will be at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive. They would all violate principle 1 because there is actually very little that can be done to reduce gun crime by targeting guns.
- Given that these proposals are ineffective, the Middle will inevitably be frustrated that the last gun control effort didn’t have the promised effect. Each time the anti-gun folks come back and ask for more restrictions, promising that they’ll work this time, the Middle will have spent limited energy on what they increasingly perceive as ineffective and pointless “progress”, violating principle 2.
- Eventually, after dozens of restrictions have failed to affect gun violence at all, the Middle will realize that the anti-gun folks will never stop asking for more restrictions and will see that the end goal (or inevitable end state) is to ban all guns (or to make gun ownership theoretically legal but practically impossible). The Middle will realize they have been lied to about the intentions or obvious inevitable impact of the gun control efforts, violating principle 3 and tarnishing every other proposal from anyone who proposed or supported gun control efforts.
Many gun owners are already at this point and recent gun purchase statistics and polling suggests that more and more of the Middle are getting there.
Some additional thoughts as I read your piece:
Some aspects of your personal narrative puzzle me. You focus heavily on gun violence rather than violence generally? Why? Surely a place with no gun violence but twice as much violence overall would not be preferable?
You mention wanting to live in a secluded part of the country but that truly is not necessary. Gun violence is not randomly distributed. If one avoids certain activities (drug dealing), certain people (those with a history of violence), and certain areas (places where violence is already high), then one is unlikely to experience any gun violence at all. If gun suicide is a concern, seeking treatment and finding a safe place for one’s guns will greatly reduce the risk of suicide by gun.
Why the focus on assault weapons? Only a few hundred people each year are killed by rifles of any kind so the number of those killed by assault weapons is certainly lower. If assault weapons could magically be disappeared, other weapons could easily be used as substitutes. Even if no substitution occurred, in reality, the amount of money, blood, and tears that would have to be spent to confiscate assault weapons from the 20+ million people that own them would dwarf (by orders of magnitude) the harm associated with them. Assault weapon bans are an obvious example of how the three principles above are violated. It does not take much to realize that an assault weapon ban would be ineffective and waste Middle energy. Every time it is proposed, a member of the Middle who knows this feels lied to.
I think you get the sequence of polarization entirely wrong. Gun owners were not a politically relevant group until later in the 20th century after various laws were passed to reduce the gun rights of the public. The anti-gun folks pulled hard and won some big (but pointless) victories before gun owners organized well enough to be able to effectively pull back. In the decades since, gun owners have rightly learned that “compromise” is no such thing. Actual compromise would require that if the anti-gun folks are going to take something, they need to give something back. I have never seen legislation offered by the anti-gun folks that would eliminate silly, ineffective restrictions in exchange for the new restrictions that surely will work this time. The word you are looking for is not “compromise”, it is “capitulation”.