Choices: What the Uzi Teaches
Why the heck did I vote for Barack Obama? Twice?
Several weeks ago I received set of persistent and pointed emails
from one reader who was asking me to justify my votes for President Obama in
2008 and 2012. He was polite, and I tried
several responses, but the writer was having none of it, and finally, with no
minds changed, we managed a ceasefire.
But that didn’t stop me from thinking about it. Why the heck did I vote for Barack Obama?
Mr. O has not had the best time of it, to say the least. I
realize that in six years, my support has changed from aspirational to
defensive. I knew, going in to the 2008
election, that Obama didn’t have the depth of experience I wanted in a President. I thought (and still think) he had both the
talent and intelligence. I hoped he
would change the fetid atmosphere in Washington, dominated by small-minded
Roveian tactics enforcing the sourness of Cheney/Bush’s ever-expanding Unitary
Executive.
He didn’t, for reasons that are going to be explored by
historians and pop psychologists for decades. He has had a lot of help. If
there ever was a definition of a bipartisan failure, the last five-plus years
have been it. Rarely have so many politicians and elected officials done so
much to discredit themselves, their ideologies, and their parties.
So, with the “hopey/changey” stuff off the table and the sewer
filling up, I found myself in a defensive crouch. For a fairly long time, most of that was
directly related to the overwhelming sense that Obama got a raw deal. The Republicans just wouldn’t play with the
new kid on the block. But, even that
didn’t suffice. At the end of the day,
we were learning two things. The GOP
might be the nasties in the neighborhood, but Mr. Obama showed minimal adaptability
and growth. To quote the beloved Donald
Rumsfeld in a different context, “you
go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want.” What Republicans were demonstrating is that
they would only join an army they were in charge of. What Obama was demonstrating was that he
couldn’t, or wouldn’t, make the effort to change their minds.
“With or against us” is a stark, binary choice. Go with an Administration and a person you
agree more with on policy, but who hasn’t risen to the challenge, or dance with
the authoritarian motorcycle gang who broke down the doors to ride into the
ball?
Which leads me to the Uzi.
By now, the story is so well known that I am relieved to not have to
repeat it. There are a couple of things that appear to be clear: a) it was a
complete, tragic, accident, and b) no laws were broken. Sadly, but inevitably, it’s turned into
another one of the endless debates on the Second Amendment. In fact, it has virtually nothing to do with the
Second Amendment. What it has to do with
is choices—both how we as a group, through our elected officials, make them,
and, far more intimately, the judgment we show in governing ourselves.
No law is a substitute for common sense. A law might have stopped this particular
shooting range from offering that Uzi to that traumatized nine year old, and
because of that, one wishes there had been one in place. But Arizona is a
gun-friendly state that didn’t have one—and no law could have prevented all
nine-year olds from ever being handed an Uzi to shoot. To preclude that, you need thinking, prudent
adults that are supervising the children to all decide that an Uzi is just too
dangerous to play with.
In short, the question the Uzi poses is the essence of how we
think about government, or more accurately, how we should think about
government. We can’t be purely top down
rule-makers for every possible situation; it is both impractical and a betrayal
of the ideals on which we were founded.
What should be obvious to all is that while you can regulate and even
ban behavior, nothing can completely prevent deliberate lawlessness, foolishness,
or just bad luck. That principle applies
whether we are talking about Uzis, or drinking, or social issues like
reproductive rights or gays, or a host of other concerns. And it applies at every level of
government. Integrity, respect for the
Constitution, respect for the rights of others, and good judgment are what we
ought to be looking for, not an expansion of Justinian’s Code.
That does not mean that government should abstain from
deciding where public safety is concerned and the risks to others are
great. That is why you can’t drive at
110 MPH in a 50 MPH zone. Or (hopefully)
why you shouldn’t be permitted to dump your hazardous substance collection into
the nearest well. But it does mean that
the hand of government should be used with restraint. We cannot always protect people from
themselves, and we have no right to insist, upon pain of the law, that they
live the personal, moral, and religious life we would choose. A democracy cannot function when it
prioritizes the creation of inmates and penitents.
And that’s the rub. Because, when you scratch the surface of
both the Democratic and Republican parties, neither trusts the people. Neither ever means, “we don’t need no more
laws.” What they really mean is “we don't need no more laws that we don’t agree
with.” And that leaves the moderate voter, the non-single issue voter, whether
he is center, center left, or center right, with a conundrum. When you go into the voting booth in a system
that seems to be growing increasingly polarized and Parliamentary, you are not
only picking alleged competence, but also a political and personal lifestyle.
We shouldn’t have to.
That, oddly enough, is what we should all be getting out of the
Uzi. Arizona didn’t have a law because
it didn’t want one. Arizonans have
recoiled in horror, they will mourn, but the culture isn’t going to change, and
those of us who might disagree have no business insisting on it. We can do what we want in our own home
states.
So, to my correspondent of a few weeks ago, who pressed me
on why I supported Mr. Obama, here’s my reasoning: I am not willing to trade the personal
liberty rights I value in return for an inchoate promise of greater competence
and security. But show me a candidate who
has demonstrated thoughtfulness, and is willing to trust and respect my
judgment enough to put aside the base’s desire to create a ideological utopia, and
I am more than willing to listen.
That’s my final answer.
September 3, 2014
Michael Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Please join us on Twitter @SyncPol
