A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
|
|
Of Guns, Gods, and the Clinging GOP |
By David Corn April 29, 2023 |
Gov. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) speaks at the National Rifle Association convention on April 14, 2023, in Indianapolis. Darron Cummings/AP |
|
|
In April 2008, a first-term US senator named Barack Obama was leading establishment-favorite Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries and appeared cruising toward the nomination. Then at a San Francisco fundraiser, he committed what was widely depicted in the political press as a major faux pas. Asked why working-class voters in Pennsylvania continued to back Republicans who did not support measures in the economic interests of these people, Obama remarked that residents of small towns in Pennsylvania and the Midwest were frustrated that “the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them.” He added, “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” The Clinton campaign pounced, and pundits howled. Here, they claimed, was Obama acting like a liberal elitist, dismissing middle America and deriding its denizens’ beliefs and values.
Obama overcame the firestorm and went on to bag the nomination and win the presidency. But the remark haunted him. In his post-presidency memoirs, he said his comment was clumsily rendered, noting it would have been better had he said, “They look to the traditions and way of life that have been constants in their lives, whether it’s their faith, or hunting, or blue-collar work, or more traditional notions of family and community.” But Obama got it right the first time. Many Americans indeed cling to guns by invoking religion and God—at least the politicians who claim to represent these Americans do so.
Earlier this month, the National Rifle Association held its annual convention in Indianapolis. Despite the recent mass shooting at a Christian school in Nashville, this event was, once again, a celebration of gun fetishism. You might recall seeing news photos of children as young as 6 years old handling guns at this shindig, as the NRA groomed a new generation of gun fans.
The usual parade of GOP politicians, including Donald Trump, passed through the convention, with each one trying to outdo the others in professing their love of unfettered gun rights. One rhetorical point raised repeatedly that might have discomforted the victims of gun massacres and their relatives was the insistence that guns are a gift from God.
“Stop trampling on the God-given rights of the American people every time tragedy happens,” former Vice President Mike Pence exhorted. Onstage, Gov. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) signed an executive order to protect what she called “the God-given right to keep and bear arms from being infringed upon by financial institutions.” I am sure there were other references at the gun-fest to the Almighty that went unchronicled by the reporters present. And Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) recently referenced the Big Guy to advise his fellow Texans to shoot to kill if confronted by a robber: “I would encourage residents...to defend yourselves. You are given that God-given right, and that means pulling out a weapon and put two at center mass.” (He meant firing at the assailant’s chest.) He continued, “You’ll reduce recidivism, won’t you? And you won’t have a repeat offender.”
|
This God-given right stuff is curious and bogus. Jesus said (supposedly) if someone smites you on the right cheek, “turn to him the other.” There are other Bible passages that denounce retaliation, such as Romans 12:17: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” Self-defense is a slightly different matter, and there are portions of the Old Testament that can be said to positively recount acts of self-defense. Commentators and theologians have long pondered what Jesus would do about guns.
Yet the God-gave-us-guns crowd never explores the nuances of this matter. Their use of God to oppose efforts to restrict guns is flat-out ludicrous. After all, how far does this heavenly right extend? If it covers assault weapons, why not machine guns? Or nuclear bullets? When the feds searched the home of Jack Teixeira, the alleged Pentagon leaker, they found an arsenal of weapons that included an AK-style high-capacity rifle and a bazooka. Yes, a bazooka. Do Pence and Noem believe that Teixeira, who, according to federal prosecutors, expressed in social media posts and messages the desire to conduct mass killings, has the God-given right to amass a stockpile of weapons? Does God differentiate between a Glock pistol and a shoulder rocket launcher? Or an AI-guided laser gun?
To pose such questions is to show how damn stupid the guns-uber-alles gang has become. These people are merging guns and God and holding on to this interlocked duo with a fervor that defies rationality. Gun rights has literally become a theology. It is a fetishism that ought to be recognized, criticized, and mocked. Oh, might that come across as elitist? These days, when young people are shot for knocking on the wrong door, getting into the wrong car, or driving up the wrong driveway, and when mass shootings have become so commonplace that they quickly fade from the news cycle, it takes a load of chutzpah to claim God is A-okay with more guns and more bullets. But this is what clinging to guns and religion looks like. And it’s lethal.
Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
A Useful Idiot Is Gone From Fox |
Last year, I had a good scoop about Tucker Carlson. I obtained a memorandum sent out by the Kremlin instructing Russian media outlets to feature clips of the Fox host. (It was “essential” to use video of Carlson “as much as possible,” the memo advised.) As Vladimir Putin waged his horrific war against Ukraine, Moscow’s top spinners saw Carlson as a valuable mouthpiece spouting rhetoric that advanced or, at the least, jibed with Russian disinformation. The story caused a splash and helped cast Carlson as the most useful useful idiot for Putin’s murderous regime.
An interesting thing occurred when the article came out: Carlson and Fox said nothing in response. Carlson often strikes a combative stance when he is publicly challenged or criticized. This time, he sidestepped the controversy. I took that as a sign that he understood the potential damage of the story and was adopting the age-old PR tactic of not fueling a controversy with more oxygen. And perhaps that strategy worked. Though the piece was widely read, it did not appear to cause Carlson too much discomfort at the time.
But, it turns out, Carlson’s Putin-boosting jabbering on the Ukraine war was one of several factors in Rupert Murdoch’s decision to boot Carlson. Here’s what the Washington Post reported: [Murdoch] was disturbed by Carlson’s stance on Ukraine. A graphic on Carlson’s show had referred to Volodymyr Zelensky, president of the besieged nation, as a “Ukrainian pimp,” and the host had repeatedly excoriated the U.S. government for providing aid to its defense against Russian attacks.
These stances had made Carlson a star on Russian state-controlled TV. But they had drawn furious blowback from powerful Republicans who see U.S. support for Ukraine as a bulwark in a fight for freedom and democracy — some of whom had Murdoch’s ear. After one such on-air segment in mid-March, Murdoch joined a Fox newsroom meeting to loudly challenge Carlson’s message.
I don’t know why it took so long for Murdoch to realize he had a Putin ally on the payroll and remove him. But eventually even the emperor of Fox couldn’t overlook this.
After Carlson was dumped, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov demonstrated how much the Kremlin adored him. He decried Carlson’s ouster, commenting, "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution apparently means nothing in practice.” Perhaps the top official of a tyrannical and murderous government can be forgiven for not understanding that there is no constitutional right that prevents Fox from firing a racist and Putin-friendly promoter of conspiracy theories who makes misogynistic statements about his colleagues.
Moreover, Vladimir Solovyov, the despicable, warmongering Russian propagandist, sent Carlson an email: You have our admiration and support in any endeavor you choose for yourself next, be it running for president of the United States (which you should totally do, by the way) or making an independent media project. We'll happily offer you a job if you wish to carry on as a presenter and host! A job offer from a genocidal, racist, and anti-American maniac and conspiracy theorist—that’s a fitting farewell for Carlson. |
|
|
Dumbass Comment of the Week |
Of course, failed TV broadcaster Megyn Kelly had to weigh in on the pink-slipping of Carlson. The former Fox host and former NBC host declared that after his shit-canning Carlson will have “more success, more money and more influence.” |
That’s a possibility. But if you look at recent examples—say, Kelly herself, as well as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly (remember them?)—that’s hardly a guarantee. Each of these right-wingers was bounced off the air. It’s true they’ve gone on to other lucrative enterprises. Kelly has a SiriusXM radio show. Beck has his own media operation. O’Reilly has a podcast and writes bestselling pop-history books. But influence? Not so much. When was the last time you caught someone say, “Did you hear what Megyn Kelly said on her satellite radio show?” Without a big platform it is hard to have big influence. It might be tough for Kelly to accept that.
Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who is running for the GOP presidential nomination, has become a regular contender for DCotW. This week, she delivered what was promised to be a major speech on abortion and...she did not articulate a clear position on abortion. Yes, she proclaimed she is opposed to it. But her big idea was this: “The next president must find national consensus” on this contentious issue.
Talk about mealy-mouthedness. She said, "I do believe there is a federal role on abortion. Whether we can save more lives nationally depends entirely on doing what no one has done to date: finding consensus. That’s what I will strive to do." With many Republicans these days calling for a federal ban on abortion, Haley did not specify what federal action she would push for as president. As governor, she did sign into law legislation that prohibited abortion after 19 weeks of pregnancy unless the mother's life is at risk. This bill was stripped of exceptions for pregnancies that result from incest or rape. Yet in this speech she did not say whether federal law should impose the same restriction.
Nor did Haley point out that there is already a consensus in this country: According to exit polling in the midterm elections, 59 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Only 36 percent say it should be illegal in all or most instances. We have a strong national sentiment in favor of reproductive rights. Yet for some reason, Haley neglected to mention that.
Marianne Williamson, the one-time New Age guru, is running (again) for president. She won’t win. Her goal seems to be attracting attention for herself and her progressive message. That means elbowing her way to a debate stage with President Joe Biden, who days ago announced his reelection bid. This week, Williamson argued:
With the fascists at the door, the last thing we should do is limit the conversation about how to defeat them. The assumption that Joe Biden is necessarily our best bet in 2024 should be vigorously challenged. He should face his primary challengers in a meaningful debate. |
That sounds good. But it doesn’t track with history. In recent decades, primary challenges of incumbent presidents have not worked out well for those presidents and their parties. See Eugene McCarthy and Lyndon Johnson in 1968, Teddy Kennedy and Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Pat Buchanan and George H.W. Bush in 1992. In fact, “with the fascists at the door” right now, there is even more reason for Democrats to worry about internal party challenges to Biden, especially from marginal candidates, such as Williamson and Robert Kennedy Jr., who have little or no chance of knocking out Biden and can only serve as distractions from the Democrats’ efforts to keep Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, or some other GOP autocrat-wannabe from gaining power. Williamson picks up a Don’t-Know-Much-About-History honorable mention this week.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre usually does a good job of sidestepping the incoming. But she had an oops moment this week. She was asked, "Does the president plan to serve all eight years?" That query presumed Biden wins reelection. And she replied, “That's something for him to decide." |
Her response raised the possibility that Biden, if he wins in 2024, might decide to skedaddle before finishing up his second term. Certainly, he might have to resign if a health issue strikes. But given the unending (and justified) questions about his age, there was no reason for her to call attention to that potential scenario. A simple answer would have been better: “If elected, he would expect to serve the entire term.” She erred. The judges were not sure if a candid remark made by GOP billionaire donor John Catsimatidis was dumb, but they thought it deserved notice. In explaining why he is down on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, he quipped, “Why would I support somebody to become president of the United States that doesn’t return phone calls?” |
Is it smart for a member of the US power elite to reveal how things really work? In any event, I wouldn’t be surprised if Catsimatidis received a call from a particular Florida man in recent days.
On to the winner: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). At a congressional hearing, he proclaimed that climate change is a positive development because his state of Wisconsin will be less cold: "In terms of excess deaths, a warming globe is actually beneficial...Why wouldn't we take comfort in that?...You’re concerned if you're in the really hot region of Africa...but we're in pretty good shape." |
I don’t believe we need to provide much explanation for why this is profoundly stupid. But at the hearing, Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at the University of Chicago who heads up the Energy Policy Institute there, gave it a shot. He acknowledged that a warmer Wisconsin would indeed lead to a drop in deaths due to cold weather that would exceed any increased mortality due to heat. But, Greenstone added, that’s not the end of the debate: “Wisconsin will benefit in terms of mortality. There are 49 other states in the United States. Many of them will suffer. Many of them will suffer more than Wisconsin will gain. That is the nature of climate change. It is very unequal.” And the effects of climate change—flooding, severe weather, rising seas, melting glaciers, the spread of disease, species endangerment, and many other disruptions—extend far beyond the temperature shifts. For a noxious combination of parochialism and ignorance, Johnson is this week’s victor.
|
Not surprisingly, Our Land readers celebrated the demise of Tucker Carlson at Fox and appreciated my summation of his career as a hypocrite and con man. Gloria Rangott wrote, “I love your final paragraph. He finally did something good, albeit unwittingly.” That is, Carlson, with the release of his private messages during the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit, unintentionally helped expose Fox as a for-profit propaganda outfit. Good work, Tucker.
David Roy emailed:
Tucker Carlson is amazingly consistent. He aims to strike an appealing pose to his imagined audience. What changes for Carlson is the audience that he chooses, but his approach is exactly the same. And since the size of the audience and size of the paycheck are the primary measures of his appeal, those two factors determine the reason for his changes. Step by step.
There was a fierce reaction to the recent issue covering the announcement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that he was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. It was a response of repulsion. A former colleague of Kennedy, Richard Knabel, emailed his personal recollection, which augments what I wrote. It’s a poignant and informative account. Though it is long, I am publishing the whole email:
Your sentiment—Bobby, we wish we hardly knew ye—echoes my own, but I do know him, or I did. Unfortunately, I hardly know him now after almost 40 years. He and I worked together for about 17 years starting in the mid-1980s at the Riverkeeper, a Hudson River environmental organization that he greatly helped shape into a powerhouse advocate for both the river and the NYC water supply system. Plus, he turned the idea of local “keeper” organizations dedicated to the health and cleanup of specific water bodies and streams into a national and international effort. I’ve lost track of exactly how many “keepers” there are now, but they number probably a hundred or more. It all happened because of his efforts. That was then.
Also his legal work with the Pace University Law School Environmental Litigation Clinic, which he helped found, brought developers, corporations, and local governments to heel when they were held accountable for violating existing anti-pollution statutes. That was the “brand” he made of himself.
Working with him wasn’t always easy, but his name alone worked magic sometimes in cutting through red tape and bureaucracy. That was the Bobby Kennedy I knew and respected. But right around 2000, as you point out, when I became Hudson River Riverkeeper President (Bobby by choice became vice-president), he had remarried, and he was in the process of having four more children with Mary. He already had two from Emily (also a lawyer), his first wife. In the ensuing five years, he started his anti-vaccine crusade, and became quite reckless in his rhetoric. He was always a very dynamic speaker, spoke extemporaneously, and I began to cringe as I listened to some of his speeches. He just had some details very wrong, and he didn’t seem to care.
I stepped down as president in 2005 (by choice and not because of Bobby) and departed the board in 2006. I left on a high note. The organization was in good financial shape. We had good people working for us, and we had a good reputation. Bobby was distracted by the needs of his family, the demands of creating the national Riverkeeper organization, and his growing anti-vaccine fixation. I was worried. I had tried several times to talk with him about his anti-vaccine obsession, but he has implacable. Rigid, convinced of his own certitude, and uninterested in the science contradicting his views.
It all only got worse. Mary, his wife committed suicide. At least one of his younger children has severe allergies, perhaps autism, which he connects to vaccines, and his relationship to Riverkeeper deteriorated to the point where there was need for a separation agreement. The details of which I don’t know.
His schmoozing with Trump was the last straw for me. I had defended him loudly when a hit book was written about him by Jerry Oppenheimer, who specialized in such diatribes, and to my friends who knew I had a longstanding relationship with Bobby. No longer. He’s someone else now. Not someone I would support for anything, let alone president. It all makes me very sad.
Mary Wujcik sent in this note:
I just read your column this morning and agree with you. I listened to one of Kennedy’s recorded speeches about vaccines and was appalled and astounded that he said the chicken pox vaccine caused shingles. Really? Then why did my grandfather, my aunt, and my husband all develop shingles when that particular vaccine didn't even exist when they were children? Most everything in his speech was wrong.
I was a senior in high school when JFK was murdered, and a senior in college when his father was killed. I was so heartbroken each time, but he is not fulfilling his legacy. It seems to me that he's being manipulated by Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson. He craves the relevance and the aura of the Kennedy name but is so far from that standard. What a pity. Lynn Caporale took issue with one particular line in my RFK Jr. piece:
Thank you for this article. One disagreement: "Only then [after Sen. Eugene McCarthy roughed up LBJ in the 1968 New Hampshire primary] did RFK jump into the fray—no profile in courage—and challenge President Lyndon Johnson.” The problem was that the press was saying that an RFK run would be the result of arrogance and bitterness because he and LBJ never got along. Once McCarthy did so well, the press line on the primaries changed, and RFK’s challenge (I volunteered for the campaign) could be treated more like another anti-war challenge, rather than simply a grudge campaign (or at least by some). When I was going door-to-door in Oakland for Kennedy, one African American mother said to me: I know that McCarthy thinks it’s wrong if my children don’t have enough to eat, but for Bobby Kennedy, it’s as if it’s his children.
Mary Bristow wanted to vent about Gov. DeSantis:
As time passes, I am becoming more and more dubious about DeSantis' staying power in this race. The former guy has a lot of appeal in some circles with his "I'm an uncouth bully who says outrageous things and you can be too" approach. DeSantis is more of an “I'm a bully, do as I say or else.” That is a whole lot less likely to draw the adoration of the masses. It's the difference between being told you now have permission to lose your manners and being told what to do.
That’s an interesting distinction in bullying styles. |
“Moxie, why did you get so anxious when you went to the dog groomer?”
“I don’t see why they have to cut off so much of my hair.” “Now that it’s getting warmer, don’t you feel better?” “But what if I want to let my freak flag fly?” |
Read Recent Issues of Our Land |
April 25, 2023: Tucker Carlson’s long con; Blacktop Wasteland and a helluva ride; and more. April 22, 2023: Robert Kennedy Jr., we wish we hardly knew ye; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Fox News); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. April 18, 2023: Go take a walk; comparing the Murdochs and the Roys; The Big Door Prize puzzles; and more. April 15, 2023: Donald Trump’s inanity goes nuclear—literally; more on that disappearing Columbia Journalism Review town hall; a great endorsement of Our Land; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Sen. Tim Scott); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
April 11, 2023: The Trump-Russia town hall that disappeared; Matt Taibbi on the run; the Milk Carton Kids reappear; Adam Sandler’s slam-dunk in the Hustle; and more. April 8, 2023: Clarence and Ginni Thomas, enough already!; the Trump circus in NYC; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Special Arraignment Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
April 4, 2023: Why Fox can survive its mega-scandal; Bruce Springsteen’s rock ‘n’ roll revival; a new rock-chick-lit novel from Susanna Hoffs of the Bangles; and more. April 1, 2023: Trump’s indictment is yet another stress-test for America; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
March 28, 2023: A Reagan bombshell reminds us of the GOP’s reliance on dirty tricks; elite bonding; Shrinking respects and breaks the sitcom formula; and more. March 25, 2023: The real perversion in Trump’s porn-star-hush-money caper; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Possible Trump Indictment Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. |
|
|
Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
|