I have not been writing a whole lot lately. Some of it is my music recording habit, which is of little interest to anyone but is very meaningful to me (I will be posting about the meaning and value of offering one’s creative work to the world, vs. hiding it away, another time). Some of my lack of output is allowing perfection to be the enemy of the good; the unfinished drafts lurking behind this page attest to that. Some of it is just the business of life, the need to make a living, and the need to allocate very limited time to those you love. But today I hope to defy all of that to some limited extent, and, perhaps, begin a habit of writing every day and sharing whatever it happens to be. Without the editing that makes my writing palatable, the results are sure to be clunky and verbose at times. But better to have written and succumbed to mediocrity and passive voice than never to have written at all.
So this is the first in a series that I am calling Reflections on the News — more or less my take on the news of the day, opinions formed in part from my own evolving understanding of the world, and in part from synthesizing ideas borrowed from voices that I generally respect. And, yes, I am winging it — even this very article; the words are emerging from the chaos in my brain, sans plan or grand synthesis. Caveat emptor.
Why the news? Three reasons, I think. First, the news is an unending river of relevant ideas. There is never a drought, never a shortage of material. Second, it matters. We live in fraught times. Our civilization is changing rapidly, not all for the good. Important ideas and values are being trampled under an avalanche of ill-considered populist sentiment. The more voices in the wilderness, trying to get at the truth rather than further some agenda, the better off we are. And, finally, I’m weird. You might find my thoughts interesting and worth considering. Not because I am some sort of great thinker or fount of wisdom or ethicist or philosopher — I am none of those things — but because the perspectives I offer emerge from a sincere desire to get at the truth of things, to the extent that an outsider is able, vs. a thinly disguised, insider’s desire to further some agenda. You will likely be offended by some of my ideas, intrigued by others, bored by most. In each case, the question I would ask you to consider is “Why?” If you find yourself reacting in a certain way, the important question is not whether I am right or wrong, it is (1) Why do you have a strong opinion on either side of the issue? (2) Is the tenacity of that opinion justified?, and (3) Have you considered why many people disagree? If I can nudge you to ask those questions, I have succeeded.
So let’s get started. Today I’d like to look at two stories in the news, the first a ground-breaking verdict in a trial that held the mother of a school shooter guilty of manslaughter, and the second the whole immigration bill fiasco in Congress. If I may be overly dramatic, both stories have important implications for the future of our civilization.
Issue 1: The Verdict
Here is a link to the story, in case you are unfamiliar. Background: A school shooting occurred in Michigan in 2021, in which four students were killed. The parents of the 15 year-old shooter had given the gun to him as a gift. The jury found the mother guilty of manslaughter.
It is difficult to discuss guns in our culture. As with an increasing number of issues, opinions tend to be extreme, with little regard for the concerns of the other side. Gun proponents often speak of the right to bear arms as some sort of Cinderella fantasy that ensures the safety of citizens everywhere. You rarely hear about the sacred responsibility that owning a firearm actually is. Many gun owners and collectors speak about their collection with a tone of reckless pugnacity, an in-your-face flaunting of the “rights” side of a serious rights vs. responsibility issue. Similarly, gun critics speak of “gun control” in their own Cinderella fantasy terms, often arguing that eliminating gun violence is as simple as passing another law — as if violent offenders obey laws. The arguments are childish, the verbal progeny of pure political partisanship, virtue signaling and tribal groupthink.
I am happy with this week’s verdict in the Michigan case. I have long argued that the way to get a handle on the quantity and misuse of firearms in our society is to hold gun owners fully accountable for what happens with the guns they own (or, in this case, purchase for a minor). I did not expect to ever see it happen, but it seems we are now headed in the right direction. We need to adopt a cradle to grave attitude about gun ownership. If you choose to own a gun, fine, that is your right (within limits). But the minute you take possession of that firearm, you also own everything that happens with it — in the full legal sense, both criminally and civilly. You are responsible for securing every firearm that you own from access by anyone but you. And if you fail to do that, you are legally liable for whatever havoc that gun causes. Don’t like that? Fine — don’t own a gun.
Most people find this distasteful. Gun proponents will argue that assigning such responsibility is a slippery slope, an overreach, and an abasement of a core Constitutional right. Gun critics will argue that it is symbolic, indirect and beside the point. I believe both sides are mostly wrong, although there is some value in the criticisms. On one hand, some limits to this principle must exist, and, on the other, it would be foolish to assume that this simple principle is a complete answer. It is not. But it is an excellent first step, a much-needed guiding principle. It establishes the principle — now enforced by the legal system with real and sobering consequences — that gun ownership is not a silly little game or a fantasy hobby. It is a sacred responsibility. And if you want to own a gun, you better take that responsibility very, very seriously, manage your rhetoric carefully, and lock up your firearms securely.
Do I feel bad for the mother who is going to jail? Maybe a little. You hate to see lives ruined. But those parents were reckless and irresponsible. Four young lives are gone as a result, and we need to set examples. The right to bear arms is one thing; a culture that glorifies guns as idols, teenager toys, icons of a weird projection of unearned power and authority, is something else entirely. And we have allowed the latter to blossom in our civilization. And I don’t think that is what the Founders had in mind with the term “well-regulated militia”. We can begin to get a handle on the gun problem by attaching real responsibility and real consequences to the Constitutional decision to own a firearm. And this verdict is a great start down that path.
Issue 2: The Immigration Bill
Here is a link that summarizes the legislation, in case you are unfamiliar. And here’s a link to the Senate politics. Background: We have a severe problem at our southern border, with millions of people from Mexico, Central America and elsewhere flooding into the United States. Congress has been negotiating a deal for legislation that would help to control the situation. When Senate negotiators released the text of the bill, it was deemed “dead on arrival” by partisans in the House and Senate.
So why does this matter?
The obvious, but perhaps lesser, reason is that we have a serious problem at the southern border. Whatever you might think of the risks and benefits of undocumented/illegal immigration, we can all agree that the massive influx of humanity is straining resources at best, and, at worst, posing a threat to national security. Almost everyone believes that we need to do something, and that the current situation is not sustainable. The inability of the Congress and Executive Branch to act is an abdication of responsibility.
So, yes, that is the obvious reason why this matters. But, arguably, the more important issue is what this says about our current and future politics. The word “politics” is a dirty word to an increasing percentage of Americans. And this is unfortunate. Politics is messy and frustrating. But the alternative to politics is either a police state or violence. Politics is how we avoid such things. And we are quickly losing our expertise in the art.
Politics — in fact our entire Constitutional system — is based on the assumption of compromise. We presume that we must give something to get something. It is then the job of a skilled politician to explain to constituents that this or that concession was necessary for the greater good. But this is no longer how the American system works. Congress — particularly but not exclusively the Republican majority in the House — now works on the assumption that purity conquers all. There will be no compromise. We operate under the delusion of controlling all levers of power, we make performative statements to pander to constituencies, and we whistle past graveyards until our political fantasies somehow magically come true. And because most Congressional seats are secure, and most members therefore fear primaries more than elections, this process can continue indefinitely, or at least until the system itself collapses from leadership malpractice.
In the case of the immigration bill, Senate negotiators on both sides engaged in good-faith discussions to reach some sort of reasonable compromise. They are to be commended — or at least remembered and memorialized, since this could be the last time such a sacred and necessary act of politics happens in our legislative institution, or at least the last time before some sort of political earthquake jars our system.
Why would I engage in such extreme speculation? Consider this: The bill that the Senate proposed is, in many ways, more in line with traditional Republicans political goals than the last bill that the Republicans proposed when the Republicans controlled Congress. The Democratic negotiators ceded a lot of ground, and committed a true act of politics (as did their Republican negotiating partners). They did what our system requires. When the House Republican leadership subsequently stamped the proposal as “DOA”, it effectively announced that the age of political compromise is dead. What incentive would the Democrats in the Senate ever have to strike any deal in good faith when the other side is unable to deliver the same courtesy? Answer: None. This is the end of traditional politics — the kind of politics that has sustained our system for 250 years, with one notable exception that nearly led to the end of the country.
So why would the Republican House leadership be this indignant? There is only one reason, of course, and that reason is Donald Trump. Trump-aligned Republicans will not pass any immigration bill simply because Donald Trump wants the issue for the election. In a way, this is reminiscent of something that happened early in the Clinton administration. For all his personal issues, Bill Clinton was a master politician, as well as a leader who liked to accomplish things. At one point he mused about the possibility of fixing the minimum wage issue by indexing it to inflation. It seemed like an easy fix, one that might garner enough bipartisan support to work. But the proposal was shot down immediately — not by the Republicans, but by Hillary Clinton, who realized that the issue was more important to have around for the next election. And, as a result, millions of minimum wage employees, whom one might typically view as a largely Democratic constituency, suffered. Oh the irony.
So there is precedent for this kind of thinking, as conjured by politicians whose primary concern is power rather than service. The reason why the current immigration example is so much more serious is that it upends an entire history and tradition of good faith negotiation, in favor of service to a cult of personality. Both symbolically and practically, this deeply erodes the foundation of how our system is designed to work. We are now aiming missiles at the engine of the car. not just dealing with the occasional flat tire.
Congress is broken. Despite the unfortunate rhetoric of the past fifty years, our system is not structured around three co-equal branches. That is not what the founders envisioned, and it is not how our system has worked for most of its existence. Congress is supposed to impose its will, authority and oversight. Yes, there are checks and balances. But without a strong and effective Congress, one that is able to legislate across a deep partisan divide, our system crumbles. So, while some might view the failure of the current immigration bill as another predictable misadventure of an inept legislative body, one bound to the whims of a dangerous cult leader, it really is much more than that. It is a reflection of a dead engine. The car won’t move anymore. It’s time to call the tow truck.