Why There Can Be No Peace Between Our Peoples

When it comes to threepers and the prags, the reason peace between our peoples is not likely is because so many folks are flaming douchenozzles:

“Bitter and I are in Arlington. NRA Board Meeting are going on right now. We don’t have much of an agenda, except for discussing some details of the Second Amendment Blog Bash.”

Yeah,no agenda you say? You have a chance to do something big with the Holder Debacle while you’re THERE,and show your leadership abilities.

And all you care about is the “blog Bash” later in the year.

I would never call you a coward because I don’t know you,but man,you sure do know how to disappoint..

Personally,you showed your true colors to me when you disarmed to be in the same room with McCain at the “NRA Convention.”

Be well…..

I would never call you a coward, Sebastian, so I’ll just all but imply it, and imply you aren’t doing anything for gun rights while I’m at it.  No, that’s not weasley at all!  There are plenty of threepers that I merely disagree with, but otherwise think are decent people.  But the reason you guys have no place at the table is because it’s intolerable to even be in the same room as a lot of you, even if it’s a virtual room, such as the one we all occupy here on the blogosphere.  I would propose from this point out, we agree to adhere to dinner party rules.  What do I mean by dinner party rules?  Dave Barry has a good idea:

You know what I miss? I miss 1960. Not the part about my face turning overnight into the world’s most productive zit farm. What I miss is the way the grown-ups acted about the Kennedy-Nixon race. Like the McCain-Obama race, that was a big historic deal that aroused strong feelings in the voters. This included my parents and their friends, who were fairly evenly divided, and very passionate. They’d have these major honking arguments at their cocktail parties. But unlike today, when people wear out their upper lips sneering at those who disagree with them, the 1960s grown-ups of my memory, whoever they voted for, continued to respect each other and remain good friends.

What was their secret? Gin. On any given Saturday night they consumed enough martinis to fuel an assault helicopter. But also they were capable of understanding a concept that we seem to have lost, which is that people who disagree with you politically are not necessarily evil or stupid. My parents and their friends took it for granted that most people were fundamentally decent and wanted the best for the country. So they argued by sincerely (if loudly) trying to persuade each other. They did not argue by calling each other names, which is pointless and childish, and which constitutes I would estimate 97 percent of what passes for political debate today.

So what I’m appealing for, on both sides, is that we follow dinner party rules.  I think, for the most part, the last disagreement over NRA’s proper role, has been passionate, but civil.  No matter what has happened in the past, and it’s been on both sides, let’s treat this like a dinner party.  This is the standard I’m going to be enforcing from here on out, because I pay for this forum, and I’m not going to tolerate assholes anymore.  Disagreement is fine, but it’s a dinner party from here on out.  You can assault people’s ideas all you want, but that’s as far as it goes.

In Virginia Meeting With The Gun Folks

Bitter and I are in Arlington. NRA Board Meeting are going on right now. We don’t have much of an agenda, except for discussing some details of the Second Amendment Blog Bash with some of the staff who will be here. This is also a about the one place we can meet up with other bloggers and people we know around the country who are in the gun rights movement.

We will be attending the Public Affairs Committee meeting tommorow, then going to NRA Studios to say hi to Cam. Not sticking around for the actual Board Meeting this time. Meeting up with Countertop and Ravenwood later tonight.

Brady Christmas List to Obama

Don’t know how I missed this, but here is the laundry list of issues the Brady Campaign presented to the President Elect back before the holidays.  Just because they ask doesn’t mean they will receive, but needless to say, they have a more receptive President and Congress than they’ve had in two decades.

Thanks to reader RuffRidr

Political Capital: How It’s Spent

In the last post, we talked about what constitutes NRA’s political capital.  This post is meant to look at how NRA engaging in fights on Capitol Hill both uses and spends that power, using the factors of its capital that we outlined in the previous post.

Beacause of the election results, NRA is starting out this new political season with considerably diminished capital.  They staked quite a lot of their political reputation on McCain, and when he lost, their reputation was damaged.  You can see that in all the media stories that talk about NRA being dead.  We might understand that this election wasn’t much about guns, but driving perception is what these media article are about, and perception matters just about as much as reality.

Any time NRA engages politically, and sending an alert to its membership that they need to contact their representatives, is engaging politically.  When you do this, you are spending political reputation, and political alliances.  You are spending reputation, because if you alert, and switchboards don’t get lit up, political actors start wondering whether your membership is credible.  You have to make sure the issue is one that will generate widespread concern.  You spend political alliances because getting pressure from constituents means something.  It is a form of arm twisting.  When you ask a politician to do something for you, or you ask your membership to ask politicians to do something for you, you’re asking a favor.   Politicians have a lot of interests they have to consider, and if you’re constantly asking for favors, you better be able to deliver a lot of support in return at election time.  NRA can deliver more support at election time than most, but it can’t work miracles.  Not enough of its members are willing to do much to support politicians who support us other than vote.

Ultimately, if you try to spend more political capital than you have, you will lose both credibility and alliances.  Politicians who pay attention to you because it’s good politics, which is most of them, might just decide you’re not worth the trouble, essentially daring you to challenge their seat.  If they do that, you better be able to hand them their electoral head on a silver platter next election.   The reason NRA has high political reputation is because they actually can do this to a lot of politicians, because their membership and influence among gun owners to vote a certain way is high.  But in many instances, and under many circumstances (competiting interests, again) NRA does not actually have the power to cause a politician to lose his seat.  That was the case in my district this past election, where we failed to defeat Patrick Murphy.  I can promise you that Patrick Murphy is now less frightened of the gun issue than he was.  If a politician thinks you’re bluffing, and calls you on it, that’s highly damaging to your reputation if you can’t defeat him.

This is the reason the National Rifle Association has to choose its battle carefully.  If it had more members, or more money, it would have enhanced political capital, and could fight more often, which is why NRA is always recruiting members and asking for money.  Don’t get me wrong, NRA is a powerful interest organization in D.C., some regard it as the most powerful, but in a country with a lot of competing interests, its power is limited.  It does not have the resources to fight everything, everywhere, regardless of what the chances of a positive outcome are.   That is why NRA won’t fight every battle.  Some argue that fighting itself is made of win, but it’s not.  Fighting and losing has severe consequences in politics, and should not be undertaken lightly.  Sometimes you will have to.  But the reason NRA probably won’t go after Holder is because there’s no path forward that doesn’t involve an anti-gun Attorney General, and defeating Holder will consume resources and capital that would be best used fighting new gun control.

Concealed Carry Permit Holder Saves Clerk

This story is remarkable:

The customer, who was only identified as Chris to protect his identity, said he walked into a Kangaroo convenience store on Franklin Street and noticed at least two suspicious men.

The customer said he walked out to his car to get his phone and heard the clerk inside screaming for help. He said he grabbed his gun and went back inside and saw the suspected robber beating a female clerk with a beer bottle.

The customer said he told the assailant he had a gun, but the man turned toward him and the customer fired two shots, killing the suspect.

Sounds like a clean shoot to me.  One wonders whether any Brady folks here want to come advocate he should have called 911 and waited for police to arrive.  This is one of those situations that if I found myself in, having to listen to a woman scream while I waited for police to arrive, because I did not have my pistol on me, I would have a difficult time forgiving myself.  I suspect most of us would feel that way.

Drove Over President Bush

Bitter and I are on our way down to Washington D.C.  On the way out of Philadelphia, President Bush was on his way in to celebrate the 7th anniversary of what he considers to be one of his greatest achievements: a massive federal intervention into education that the federal government has no business being involved with in the first place.

Either way, Bush’s motorcade was heading up northbound on I-95, as we were heading southbound.  While we were going over the upper deck of the Girard Point Bridge, his motorcade was passing under on the lower deck.  So guess you could say Bitter and I drove over Bush on the way to DC.  Sadly, we didn’t have the opportunity to back up, and drive over him again, just to be sure.

Country First Coalition

John McCain e-mailed today looking for some help:

The road was a difficult one from the outset. Yet, your faith, your support and friendship never wavered. Just as I have proudly served my country for more than half a century I am as committed as ever to helping see our mission through.

So to continue the movement, I have decided to launch a new grassroots organization called Country First.

Today, I’m asking you as a friend and supporter to renew your commitment to our common goals by becoming a Charter Member of Country First with an online contribution.

Johnny Johnny — I don’t know what you thought this was, but it basically came down to you not being Barack Obama.  You never really meant anything to me John.  Sorry, but that’s just what it was.  I never really liked ya very much, you know?

In all seriousness though, John McCain has rendered a great service to his country in his military career, and later in his political carreer, and I’ve always been impressed by his ability to come back and win when everyone else had left him for dead.  But in the big contest, when everything was on the line, he ran an awful campaign that utterly failed.  It is time for him to go gently into that good night and serve the remainder of his career as the Senior Senator from Arizona.  The GOP needs to march under fresh leadership if it’s going to move forward.

Political Capital: What Is it?

No one has a hard and fixed definition of what Political Capital means.  Wikipedia has one, but it’s pretty bad.  There’s some argument as to whether it exists at all, but intuitively, we know it exists in some form, or we’d never lose at politics.  It is certainly not like capital in the financial sense, in that you can measure it concretely, buy it, sell it, invest it, or stuff it under your mattress.  But it is a way to articulate that there are limits to influencing decision making in human affairs.

So what is NRA’s political capital?  What does it have, and how does it build it?  And when does it spend it?  It’s not cut and dry, and my assessment of it would be just one of many opinions.  But I will describe briefly the sources of NRA’s political capital in order of importance:

  1. Membership – The people who belong to the organization, or are perceived as belonging to the organization.
  2. Money – You won’t get very far in Washington without this, and you won’t get this without members.
  3. Political credibility – Reputation for getting what you want, being able to help friends and punish enemies.
  4. Political alliances – Relationships with elected officials, decision makers, staffers and bureaucrats.
  5. Issue expertise – Ability to answer questions reliably and honestly about your issue when people come to you with questions.
  6. Media relationships – Ability to influence debate through media

Membership is first, because it is from membership that all other things flow.  It is the NRA’s lifeblood, because it is the source of money and votes.  The more members NRA has, the more political capital it has.  If NRA had 20 million active members, it could walk onto Capitol Hill, or the White House, and dictate terms.  No politician would dare cross NRA, because it would be guaranteed political suicide for all but a few.

Money is the second most important thing in politics, and flows from membership.  Money buys political ads, funds campaigns, pays for lobbying, and provides resources and infrastructure for political activity.

Political credibility is almost as important as money.  When a politician doesn’t do what you want, you have to be able to hurt him.  The opposite is also true, in that you have to be able to help your friends.  A sure way to do that is to deny or provide money and votes.  But credibility and reputation go hand in hand.  If you have a reputation for helping friends and hurting enemies, you will be feared, even if you might not actually be able to threaten an enemy’s position, or provide that much help to a friend.  As long as the perception is there, you have credibility, but perception has to meet reality sometimes, or you lose reputation.

Political credibility is what brings political alliances.  Politicians have to deal with near infinite interests, competing for their attention.  If you have credibility, eventually you will build relationships and will earn attention.  You will have a handful of good friends you can always rely on, and a lot of people who deal with you because it’s smart politics.  The latter will usually outnumber the former.  Keeping these relationships good is key to preserving political credibility.

Issue expertise helps build both credibility and alliances.  When you come to politicians with information, if it’s good information, and accurate information, they will view you as a resource and keep coming to you with questions.

Media relationships helps support all elements of political capital.  For some organizations, this would be right behind money in terms of importance, but NRA lives in a hostile media environment, so they can’t take advantage of this as much as other groups.  I will also say that I think NRA’s overall media game could be better than it is.

Next post on the topic, I will talk about how political capital gets built up and spent, and why it’s a limited resource.

The Holder Battle and the NRA

I would probably be remiss as a so called pragmatist if I didn’t explain my take on the political situation surrounding the Holder confirmation.  I should note that it is very important that folks contact their Senators and express their concerns about Holder, and ask them to oppose his nomination.  The reason it’s important is because it lets our representatives know we’re out here, and that we have a lot of concerns about the upcoming administration.  I also don’t think there’s any harm in NRA members calling NRA to tell them what they think.  I would welcome the NRA getting involved in trying to defeat the confirmation of Eric Holder for Attorney General, but I believe that involvement unlikely.  What I will try to explain is why this is unlikely, and why it’s not unreasonable, lazy, or cowardly for NRA to decide the upside to opposition might not be worth the downside.

It’s not unheard of for a nominee to be rejected by the Senate, but it’s rare.  Even rarer from The President’s own party.  If you look at how large the Democratic majority in The Senate is, it is extremely unlikely that Eric Holder will not be the next Attorney General, short of him being caught with a dead girl, or a live boy.  You can call me defeatist all you want, but that’s reality.  Republicans and the braver blue dogs can ask tough questions, hew and haw, and rake Holder over the coals, but they are not likely to have the votes to outright defeat his nomination.  Late in 2007, we had a similar issue with the Sullivan nomination, and I would note that the Bush Administration is now ending with Michael Sullivan still director of ATF.  He was never confirmed, because allies in the Senate put his nomination on hold, but he remains Acting Director of BATFE to this day.

The NRA is probably in the most precarious political situation it’s seen itself in since 1994.  We have the mother of all battles coming.  If you look at things from their point of view, you would look at the risk/reward equation in the following manner:

Rewards

  1. Getting the grass roots fired up over Holder, who appropriately makes a good villian.
  2. Letting politicians know NRA’s membership is not happy with Holder.
  3. Letting Holder know NRA and their membership are unhappy with his record, and are skeptical of his appointment.
  4. Pleasing membership who expects NRA to fight everything.
  5. Very remote chance of defeating the confirmation.

Risks

  1. Holder will try to get back at NRA for their public opposition to his confirmation.  NRA will be shut out from working with anyone, even friendly people who might be holdovers, in the Department of Justice for the next four years.
  2. NRA throws its political weight behind defeating Holder, is ultimately unsuccessful, and signals the Obama Administration that NRA can’t oppose it.
  3. Distracting membership from bigger fights looming on the horizon, like a new Assault Weapons Ban, Gun Show Loophole, and other gun control wish items, which might be winnable.
  4. By not getting involved, upsetting membership who wants Holder defeated.
  5. If against all odds, Holder is actually defeated, the strong likelihood Obama will nominate someone just as bad.

It’s perfectly reasonable to believe NRA should get involved with the fight against Holder, but it’s also perfectly reasonable for NRA to see a lot of risk for not much chance of benefit too.  When you and I act against Holder independently, it has no downside, because we are not creatures of DC, and don’t have to worry about perceptions of our political capital. The National Rifle Association does not have the same luxury.  They have to very carefully weigh which fights they need to wage.  There will be times when it is necessary to fight with no hope of victory, but members should ask themselves whether they’d rather have NRA go down swinging trying unsuccessfully to defeat Holder, enhancing the paper tiger meme, or whether they’d prefer NRA preserve its political capital to defeat gun control bills?

Before someone suggests, “But all we’re asking for is a membership alert,” the other things NRA doesn’t have the luxury of is half measures.  It will become known that NRA alerted its members, and NRA will incur many of the risks outlined above.  They either need to poop, or get off the pot.  This is actually an area where GOA, JPFO, Firearms Coalition, blogs, and forums can be of tremendous help, because they can speak on issues, like this, that are very risky for NRA.  Like I said, I would welcome NRA’s involvement, if they decide the risk is worth the reward, but I won’t blame them if they don’t see it that way.