American life is thoroughly politicized, to the point where there seems to be a talking points template to discuss anything that occurs.
Thus, in the aftermath of the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, the same script can be replayed in the media which was replayed from the shooting in Buffalo , which was replayed from the shooting in …
Each political tribe has its own script, with the assumption being that because these dreadful events are being politicized, a political solution exists (along with a political cause). For example , in Texas, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke crashed a press conference over the Uvalde shooting led by Republican governor of Tx Greg Abbott, for example.
At one degree, we can dismiss the actions of both men, as each was trying to score politics points. However , we can not dismiss the accusation O’Rourke levied at Abbott: “ This one’s on you. ” He added:
The time to stop the following shooting is right now and you are doing nothing. You said this is not predictable. This is totally predictable. This will continue to occur. Somebody needs to stand up for that children of this state or even they will continue to be killed, the same as they were killed in Uvalde yesterday.
O’Rourke’s self-style “ solution” is to ban the AR-15, the semiautomatic rifle that has been used in mass killings, such as Uvalde, Buffalo, and the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012, with the assumption, one particular supposes, that once that one semiautomatic rifle no longer is usually commercially available, no bulk shootings will occur, a heroic assumption at best.
During his short run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, O’Rourke, that ran on a platform associated with taking away tax exemptions through churches and religious organizations whose theology does not go with the Democratic Party’s current position on the Sexual Trend, told an audience when asked about gun control:
Hell indeed, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our many other Americans anymore.
Progressive Christian university professor John Fea, while praising O’Rourke, also echoed the standard progressive line that stopping mass shooting is a relatively simple political matter in which legislators ban certain kinds of weapons and place other restrictions upon gun owners. Christian writer David French, while agreeing with conservatives that gun limitations likely will not prevent mass shootings, has placed their faith in so-called red light laws, which attempt to identify people who might commit this kind of shootings. One does not have to be an old-line American City Liberties Union advocate to see the legal and moral pitfalls of such a policy, no matter how well intended it might be. Furthermore, the authorities will be quite effective at enforcing the “ red flag” provisions against people who most likely are not real threats to the public.
Addititionally there is another aspect of mass shootings that will not be mentioned in the mass media or in the newest political response: mass shootings provide progressive politicians along with opportunities not only to promote their anti– gun ownership proposals, but also to take a swipe at political opponents. Every shooting provides these groupings the opportunity to demonstrate both their own moral outrage and their own moral superiority to the Great Unwashed who are not ready to turn in their legally owned firearms, along with the politicians that support gun ownership.
In short, bulk shootings, although truly dreadful events, are good for intensifying politicians and their mass media advocates. First, they give progressives the opportunity to engage in cost-free virtue signaling. The particular mainstream press universally facilitates gun control measures— the greater draconian, the better— and also an obviously grandstanding Beto O’Rourke is going to get the best press possible and be taken care of as the righteous, outraged personal citizen just being an suggest for little kids place in mortal danger by weapon owners. Second, it is important to maintain the progressive political goals in your mind, and that means understanding exactly what progressive politicians and the mass media want to achieve. Announcing one supports draconian gun control measures sends the transmission to others that not just is one horrified and angered, but also is determined to do something to stop the particular killing . That the proposed measures won’t stop just one shooting is irrelevant; this the show of virtue that matters.
Get President Joe Biden’s response to the Uvalde shooting, in which he presented himself as fed up with these killings and stated his determination to “ do something. ” Reported Zeke Miller and Chris Megerian of the Associated Press:
It was very early to tell if the newest violent outbreak could crack the political logjam close to tightening the nation’s gun laws and regulations, after so many others— such as the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School within Newtown, Connecticut that murdered 26, including 20 children— have failed.
“ The idea that an 18-year-old kid can walk into that gun store and buy two strike weapons is just wrong, ” Biden said. He has earlier called for a ban on assault-style weapons, as well as tougher government background check requirements plus “ red flag” laws and regulations that are meant to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental health problems.
Late Tuesday, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer put in place possible action on 2 House-passed bills to expand federally required background checks meant for gun purchases, but no votes have been scheduled.
Biden, Schumer, and most likely the media that wrote this accounts all know that the legislative procedures mentioned here most likely would not prevent someone from focusing on children at a school. Yet all of them present this materials as though readers automatically would understand that if this proposed legislation were put into law, then mass shootings would go away.
No one in Our elected representatives, the White House, or the media overtly makes those people causal connections, but these legislative measures are presented as the correct response to a mass shooting, which implies that they actually would work as advertised. But whether or not these measures would certainly stop a single shooting will be unimportant. What is politically relevant is exactly what the mainstream media decide to present to the reading plus listening public and how it really is presented. Furthermore, anyone who queries the effectiveness of these measures is portrayed in the progressive media since someone who wants people to pass away in mass shootings.
That is why politicians that will support private ownership of guns never will receive good press following a mass shooting unless they do the John McCain and play the role of the “ maverick” Republican calling for new gun control measures. (One doubts that the “ mavericks” actually believe their newfound rhetoric, but they do know ways to get at least temporary favorable press. ) Progressives hold to some core belief that no one yet state-approved agents should own guns, with every new gun control measure being a positive step forward, toward the last goal of gun confiscation.
One has to remember that in the age of politicized progressive media, all that issues are the optical technologies of some thing. Facts don’t matter; however, truth doesn’t matter, just staged appearances. Paul Krugman recently took details a step further in a recent Ny Times line, claiming that the ultimate upshot of the 1981 tax cuts authored by the Ronald Reagan administration was the mass capturing in Buffalo. (One has to read the article to pick through Krugman logic, but it reveals the mentality of modern progressives. )
The politicized world looks like this particular, a world of the big are lying, and the bigger the lie, the more effective it is. It is a world that provides no options, only more problems.