Two debacles in 12 hours

National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre gave no ground to gun-control advocates when he detailed the NRA's plan for securing the nation's schools. LaPierre is calling on Congress to put armed police officers in every school. / Alex Wong

This post originally appeared on Slate.

The National Rifle Association's president David Keene ended Friday's news conference--the gun lobby's first public comments since the massacre in Newtown, Conn.--with these words: "This is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won't be taking questions today." That was the essential thrust of the organization's combative political response: Shoot first; ask questions later. The NRA's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, who delivered the bulk of the remarks, was characteristically defiant, calling for security officers to be stationed at every school. He spoke with an edge, his voice straining as if he were being shouted down by hippies. (Presumably, that's what they expected would happen if they let the reporters in the audience ask questions; in the end, Code Pink provided the shouting.)

Play Video

Protesters disrupt NRA press conference

It was the second defiant act by conservatives in 12 hours. The night before, a committed band of Republicans defeated House Speaker John Boehner. The Republican leader had offered legislation designed to give his party political cover in the fiscal cliff negotiations and increase his leverage in talks with the president. The gambit failed because enough Republicans refused to bend on their anti-tax principles. Boehner wound up looking foolish, and the House Republicans looked unable to perform the most basic functions.

The Republican Party is in a rebuilding mode after its 2012 election loss. These two events--a defiant NRA and an incompetent leadership--cannot be the face of confrontation the GOP wants to show the public on high-profile issues. Tea party activists and gun owners are a key part of the party base. But these public acts are out of sync with the moment and completely at odds with party's need to widen its membership.

The NRA and tea party conservatives would simply say that they are sticking to their principles. That presents two questions: whether their principles are wrong at this time in history and whether the way in which they stick to their principles damages the party.

Play Video

NRA: Congress should put armed police in every school

Let's focus on the second question. The message of both of these acts is more than "we're sticking to our principles." The message is: We don't care about the wider audience. That cannot be the message that the Republican Party wants. It particularly can't be the message after Mitt Romney's losing presidential campaign, which was defined by his secretly taped conversation with donors in which he said he didn't care about 47 percent of the population. We know it's not the message that its putative leaders want to send. Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan are all trying to send various messages of inclusion.

In the case of House Republicans, they are clearly defying broad public sentiment, which is that Congress should work out a deal with the president. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows the public in favor of compromise and supporting the president's view. (Seventy-six percent say the Republicans have not been willing to compromise enough.) The members who blocked Boehner have a different political calculus, however. Their voters reward them for their opposition to policies that don't cut spending enough. Plus, ideological groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth, and FreedomWorks can penalize them if they vote the wrong way because their districts hold read-to-run conservatives who will stay pure--just add money.

But consider how this hurts the party. Let's say you're a principled conservative who disagrees with John Boehner. You'd like more people in the country to sign on to your way of thinking. To do this, you must persuade those people. You want to persuade them so they'll vote for more Republicans who will give you a majority to enact conservative policies. But these persuadable people are sensitive. You can't persuade them when they think you're incompetent. The House Republicans' performance on Thursday night qualifies for that description.

• Newtown parents react to brazen NRA response
• NRA: Guns in schools would protect students

The NRA response is a different matter. The NRA has been far more successful at working the system than House Republicans. So, as Dave Weigel points out, Wayne LaPierre was backing a position on Friday that at least has the popularity of the assault weapons ban the president is pushing. This Gallup poll asked Americans how to prevent the next massacre. Sixty-four percent wanted "at least one person" at every school to be armed, and 87 percent were open to more "police presence" at schools.

But the question at hand is whether the defiant tone of the NRA event will be as popular as those policies. For most people, the post-Newtown public conversation has had some element of self-reflection. The president, NRA-supporting politicians, and Hollywood have all taken a step back and examined their views. Most have recognizing that they need to at least modify their positions in some ways. Even if no one changes their tune ultimately, the participants have at least nodded to the possibility that a decent respect for the opinions of others requires sensitivity to opposing positions.

The NRA did not go this route. It was calling for a conversation but it was starting an argument. LaPierre blamed culture--movies, video games, and music--for a mass shooting but wasn't willing to even brush up against considering what role guns might play.

Play Video

Gun control advocate speaks out on defiant NRA

That is where the interests of the NRA and the GOP separate. A full-throated argument with President Obama helps the NRA by riling up its members who write big checks. This, in turn, provides money to keep lawmakers in line.

For a national party so closely aligned with the NRA, this poses a challenge. Right now its leaders are trying to send the message of inclusiveness in all forms. The Republican Party has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections. Something has to change. The precise road back to the majority is not clear. But as a matter of basic math, it's pretty clear that the party must show that it is open: open to ideas, new people (i.e., minorities who are growing as a larger share of the voting population), and the new challenges of our daily lives.

Holding more firmly to your views despite new circumstances can offer stability, but it also opens you up to looking remote, unconcerned, and out of touch. To those who might think you hail from another planet, it helps to speak to them in their language. That language requires a conversation, not an argument.

It is a virtue to stay true to your principles. But the great patron saint of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, knew that you had to do it in a way that didn't offend people. Reagan had plenty of critics, to be sure. Clark Clifford famously called him an amiable dunce, but even that cheap shot allowed for the fact that he was amiable. There is nothing amiable in these recent public stands by conservatives. It can't be true that a party returns to national greatness on an anti-amiable platform.

[tvwatcher5345]

the democrats will crush the republicans and the NRA, drive them before them, and hear the lamentations of their women

[stevehamilton858]

Vigilante justice as espoused by the NRA is a terrible idea, offered as a "solution" by some guy who has seen too many spaghetti westerns in his younger years. I believe that the administration is going to figure out a way to force SCOTUS to review the limiting language of the Second Amendment, and that the Court, led by the Chief Justice is going to issue an interpretation consistent with the intent of the drafters of the Constitution, who had just finished a war where arming the colonial (now state) militias had been a major problem. Remember, there was no standing army at that time. Today, the country doesn't have to worry about arming militias. I believe John Roberts is very concerned about his place in America's History books, as shown by his maneuvers on Obambacare, and that he will twist whatever arms he has to in order to get guns out of the hands of American Citizens.

[omnibus66]

The Republican Party represents 2% of the people, the very rich. And yet they got 47% of the votes. Simple math tells you that for some strange reason 45% of the people voted for someone who would not represent their interests.

It can be debated as to whether or not the USA is the best country in the world (not), but without question we are the dumbest.

[luadda22]

In all reality, the same could be said about the other 50% also.

Remember less that 3% difference can not be considered a "landslide".

[prohb]

Well said, OMNIBUS

As to the 45 percent who voted against their interest, plug that to the, admittingly, brilliant (but wicked) way the Republican Messaging Machine works. It is made up of numerous 24/7 right-wing talk radio hosts, well-financed ad groups, FOX "News", think tanks with money, Super PACs with money, and behind-the scenes money-men fronting their own groups and cases like Koch, Adelman, and Murdoch. All with the same two agenda points - to take down Obama and the Democrats and to make government unworkable.

Now couple that with an American public that is confused (I mean who can tell you what a credit default swap is???), scared and anxious ....so are easily susceptible to demagoguery and jingoism and a media willing to help generate this because it's good for publicity. These people can be motivated to anger and to vote. And,as psychological studies show - anger and hate actually decrease a persons IQ. So you have a significant portion of the public more easily steered to your position IF you can work quick enough.... which the Republican Messaging Machine did barely a month after Obama's inauguration with the formation of the "Tea Party" starting with Santelli's orchestrated "rant" at the Chicago Board of Trade. This rant help take this growing fear and anger and misdirect it against the government, Obama, and the party in majority - the democrats. Even supposedly intelligent people were fooled.

THATS where you get the 45 percent who voted for Romney.

[PourpaixPourpaix]

There are very few conservatives in Congress. There are no conservative in the NRA. Anyone who thinks Boehner and his rat pack is conservative, including the NRA, sorely needs to look up Dwight Eisenhower on the Internet. A conservative would never start a war unless all other avenues were pursued. Only Bush, Sr. came close to this since WWII. No conservative would bankrupt the nation by cutting taxes, starting a war, then not worry about paying for it. No conservative would allow dangerous weapons to proliferate in America when frequently used to kill civilians. Look to examples in history of blood-thirsty regimes to compare with today's GOP and NRA, and you will find far more similarities than with Dwight Eisenhower.

[stevehamilton858]

Thank you. what we have in the GOP is a "no new taxes" obsession, not an interest in fiscally prudent ways of operating the government. When Ike Eisenhower was president the Republican Party comprised right-leaning centrists, who were interested in running the country in a fiscally prudent manner and in passing legislation to accomplish what needed to be done. If today's GOP doesn't pick someone of CEO caliber to manage the party and change its constituency - which would include disavowing the Tea Party - the GOP will be a "Rump Party" by the beginning of next year.

[FormerUSMCSergeant]

In the case of House Republicans, they are clearly defying broad public sentiment, which is that Congress should work out a deal with the president.
---
House repubs don't care about what America wants, they only care about what the top 2% wants, obviously.

[logictoo]

Hate to tell you this but the House Republicans were not elected to represent the broad American Public sentiment. They are in Washington to represent the people of their districts, the districts in which they were elected.

[bobw101]

Gortex20 replies:

There are no studies proving what you claim.

Why is it Tbaggers can't post anything here without totally making crap up?

--------------------------------------------------

It's not what I claim, but many in the psychiatric profession. They have been asking for the federal government to investigate for year now.

Despite 22 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, and dozens of high profile shootings/killings tied to psychiatric drug use, there has yet to be a task force set up by the President to see if there is a link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.

At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 109 wounded and 58 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs.)

Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA's MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. The FDA has said only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.

The correlation between psychiatric drugs and acts of violence and homicide is well documented both by international drug regulatory warnings and studies, as well as by hundreds of cases where high profile acts of violence/mass murder were committed by individuals under the influence of psychiatric drugs.

[stevehamilton858]

What you claim may be true, but the real problem is that weapons of mass destruction can be too easily obtained in America. do a little research and you'll find that there have been no mass murders in Canada for at least the past 10 years. Why? Because ordinary Canadians cannot own weapons of mass destruction. I am an Industrial Engineer by training, and there's famous story that I.E. professors love to tell - about the junior I.E. who was told that water was rising on the floor of the machine shop, so he studied the problem and constructed a channel to carry the water away very efficiently. Then a senior engineer looked up and had the leak in the roof repaired. Your comments on psychiatric drugs are akin to the junior engineer's "solution". No-one in this country except law enforcement officials or the military needs weapons of mass destruction that were designed for use in wars between nations.

[bobw101]

Whenever one of these tragedies happens, resulting in many terrible deaths by a crazy person with a gun, all we hear is screams for gun control or outright bans on guns. Even though studies show as gun ownership and carry permits have increased, violent crime with guns has decreased.

On the other hand researchers have linked the use of psychiatric drugs in many of these mass shootings. Many have warned that severe acts of violence has been shown to be a side effect of anti psychotic and antidepressant drugs. These violent side effects have been largely unreported in the MSM. At least 14 mass shootings have been linked to psychiatric drugs. But the MSM, congress and the president continue to ignore the facts. Many are now calling for someone to investigate. With the pharmaceutical industry's deep pockets and army of lobbyists don't hold your breath.

[Gortex20]

There are no studies proving what you claim.

Why is it Tbaggers can't post anything here without totally making crap up?

.

[PersonalViews]

It didn't? In that case may be we ought to ask for a recount.

[Middle_American_Man]

Republicans have shot themselves in both feet and are now trying to blow off their legs. Your party is finished, America hates you.

[spacengin]

Unfortunately MIDDLE_AMERICAN_MAN, many Americans will always support the GOP including:
1) NRA members who can never get enough guns
2) Anti-gay Christians because of Old Testament passages made by the stupid ignorant of millenia ago
3) Racist white people who resent an African American President
4) Religious zealots who think rape & incest are legitimate
5) Anti-science religious folks who want to live in bygone times
6) The 2% with millions to spend on spin and lies to get their tax breaks
7) Millions of Mormon sheep who blindly vote GOP

Yes, there will always be these GOP supporters and so the GOP is not going to go away.

[stevehamilton858]

SPACEENGIN: You may be right, but that's not going to be enough voters to win national elections. Think about all the groups who won't vote republican: Blacks, Hispanics, intelligent women, gays of both sexes, middle class workers who pay tax rates above 30%, anyone who receives a Social Security pension or uses Medicare, anyone who remembers when the GOP stood for fiscal prudence, as opposed to being obsessed about not raising taxes, which is what the party is now. These dopes even acted in a way that caused a drop in America's credit rating, and they are getting poised to do it again when they return from their Christmas holiday.

[stoplobbyistsnow]

It boils down to this: right wing Republicans are selfish. They won't give up a cent of their multimillion dollar incomes to help support the society that sustains them, and they won't give up a single iota of their "right" to stockpile weapons that give them the sense of superiority to every other person on the planet, no matter how many children are killed in senseless crimes.

Selfish. So odd that many of them claim to be Christian.