3 Reasons I Disagree with Mike Huckabee

Circulating through the blogosphere and social media is Mike Huckabee’s response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He did not blame the shooting on guns, or attribute it to a crazed individual, but instead, blamed it on a lack of “God” in our society. An honest explication of his position is he feels America has gradually shifted away from a religious nation and into a more secular one. And as the teachings of God become less prevalent in our culture, our culture has become more violent.

A lot on the right have taken a liking to this line of thinking. It skirts the issue of gun control and advances the Evangelical agenda – one where religion has a larger role in the public sphere. But quite honestly, it is illogical and misguided.

First, it assumes religion, and particularly western religion, is the sole arbiter of what’s right and wrong. It assumes only God knows what’s moral, and without him, we are left with an amoral society. In his monologue, Huckabee cites the 10 Commandments, specifically the 6^th; “thou shall not kill” as evidence that if only we followed Christianity more closely we would not have nearly as many murders. Do we really believe we need religion or God to know killing is wrong? Are we as a society reliant on God to tell us where our moral compasses should point? Or is it more plausible that religion just reiterates what we already know to be right or wrong. The 10 Commandments are pretty much commonsense (except for the 2^nd – not sure why an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing being deals with problems of jealousy, but that’s a separate issue). Removing religion from public facets of society isn’t depriving or dismantling our moral beliefs. We can have morals without religion.

Second, his argument assumes the more widespread God is in our society the more peaceful it will become. Let’s not forget, people have been killing in the name of God for centuries. Religion doesn’t promote peace, if anything it has caused senseless and unnecessary death. The teachings of religion may not promote killing, but the practice of religion has without a doubt prompted murder. 9/11 was killing in the name of God. Those who blow up abortion clinics are killing in the name of God. Hate crimes against gay and lesbians are violence in the name of God. Religion has the unique ability to instill hatred in people without any rational backing for that hate.

Third, Huckabee’s position is so American centric, it becomes illogical upon actual analysis. 15 of the 25 most deadly mass shootings occurred in America. (Finland came in a not-so-close second with 2 entries to that list.) Yet, America is by no means the most secular nation. Many European countries are far more secular with much greater populations of atheists, but they do not have anywhere near as many violent acts as we do. They do have stricter gun control laws though. It’s worth noting, the most violent region in the United States is the South, also referred to as the ‘Bible Belt.’

Instead of blaming too little religion, or not enough God as the problem;  let’s look at solutions that actually make sense e.g. banning assault weapons or increasing funding for mental health diseases.  I’m not condemning religion, or those who practice religion, but what Mike Huckabee is purporting is disconnected with reality. It is comments like his that slow the process of actual and meaningful legislation concerning gun control. By making gun control a non-issue, he is dismissing the actual issue at hand in order to appease the gun-wielding portion of his base and advance his agenda of making us a more Christian nation.

Yes, Let’s Talk About Gun Control

It seems the only time the issue of guns and gun control is at the forefront of the national conversation is after a tragedy like that of Sandy Hook Elementary School.  At the same time though, as the nation ponders the issue, there are also societal murmurings and whispers that we must not politicize this event, or use it to advance political agendas. Here lies the crux of the problem of gun violence in our country. The only time we as a society think about reforming gun laws occurs simultaneously with an understanding that we must not use one event – one tragedy – to determine the laws of our nation.

So we are stuck with the status quo. We are stuck with a system where attaining a gun comes with relative ease, including guns meant for killing. Assault rifles, semi-automatics, and high-capacity magazines can all be legally obtained. These are weapons not for sport, not for hunting, and not for personal protection; they are weapons designed to kill.

Advocates of guns will give their usual objections about gun control laws after tragedies like the one that occurred last week, saying people like the shooter are insane, mentally disturbed individuals; gun control laws will not prevent people from shooting up schools, malls or movie theatres. This may be true. It may be impossible to create gun control laws to stop disturbed individuals intent on killing indiscriminately from doing precisely that.

But, let’s remember, the vast majority of victims of gun violence are not the victims of mass shootings. Gun violence happens daily. There were close to 9,000 gun related homicides in 2011 accounting for 67 percent of all homicides, and the frequency of gun violence in the United States is much greater than that of other OECD countries; however, it takes a national tragedy for us to talk about gun control. This is problematic because the dialogue around reforming gun laws centers on trying to prevent the next Sandy Hook, or the next Aurora movie theatre, which is without a doubt, a difficult task.

A not as difficult task is creating laws that will help curb all the other forms of gun violence. Restricting access to guns, and banning guns solely meant for killing is a good start. A Harvard Study discovered that where there are more guns there are more homicides – a not-so-groundbreaking revelation. This coupled with the fact that the majority of guns are obtained legally leads us to conclude that if guns were harder to obtain, gun violence would be reduced.

Instead of implementing reasonable gun control laws, we do nothing because we become ensconced with the belief that no amount of laws will prevent insane individuals from shooting up public places. We let the extreme cases of gun violence paralyze all gun-related policy. Instead of enacting reasonable laws like stricter background checks, closing the gun show loophole, banning semi-automatic and assault weapons, increasing funding for mental health problems, and banning magazines and clips that hold inexplicable amounts of ammunition, we do nothing. We hide behind the excuse that these laws will not stop all gun violence.

However, just because these laws may not have stopped Adam Lanza or James Eagan Holmes from committing such horrifying acts doesn’t mean new laws would be useless or in vain. Gun violence is so prevalent in this country that homicides simply become statistics, and it’s only until we face mass murder that we stop charting those statistics and put a face to them. It’s why only after a shooting rampage do we think about reforming gun control laws. Let’s remember, every statistic is a person, a person with a family and friends, and if stricter gun control laws can prevent just one of those cases, I say it’s worth it.

This doesn’t mean restricting individual freedoms, or eviscerating the Second Amendment. I’m not saying all guns should be banned, but gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, and therefore it should come with restrictions. The goal of gun control laws is not to make us less free – but to make us safer.

Not Makers and Takers, Just People

One theme that emerged from this most recent election (and from the comment section of this post) is that the American electorate is divided into two categories – the makers and the takers. This being embodied by Mr. Romney’s “47 percent” comment (those who pay no federal income tax) and his post-election comment about President Obama’s victory being the result of him promising gifts. Fox News agreed with this line of thinking, which prompted Bill O’Reilly to say half the country just wants “things.”

Where I disagree with Bill O’Reilly is that he believes only half the country wants “things” – the whole country does. Every single person wants some “thing.”   The nation isn’t made up of makers and takers – it’s made up of HUMANS. Take any Econ (micro) 101 class and at the core is the basic principle that people act out of self-interest. People make decisions to maximize utility, or as I had one Professor put it, “People make decisions to make them happier.”

It’s not that we have a nation of have’s and have not’s or makers and takers; we have a nation of people. People who want to maximize their wellbeing. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise when people vote in their own self-interest. Women, Hispanics, and the youth tend to vote more Democratic because Democratic ideals and principles align more closely with their self-interest. Conservatives can say Democrats are in the business of giving away gifts, but this same practice goes for Republicans as well.

The wealthy, the ones who vote Republican, are voting in their own self-interest. The Republican Party is committed to lowering taxes on corporations and top earners. They are committed to fewer environmental regulations. And they are committed to rolling back financial reform. All these are gifts to many Republican donors and voters. It’s pretty simple; both parties offer “gifts” – then the people vote accordingly.

The right doesn’t see it this way though because they believe their model is not just about helping the rich; they believe their model will benefit everyone – that wealth trickles down. It’s a convenient way of thinking, but it’s disconnected with reality. Taxes are at all time lows and have been on the decline since the 80’s, yet we’ve seen no economic boom, only an increase in income inequality. Lax environmental regulations have contributed to an increasingly warmer planet. And dismantling regulations like Dodd-Frank would get rid of the one piece of legislation attempting to prevent another financial collapse.

Republicans like to believe Democrats want people to stay reliant upon the government, which is why the left is usually more in favor of expanding the safety net. However, unlike the Republican model, the Democratic model has historically been successful. Democrats believe in the idea that wealth and prosperity do not stem from the rich or the ‘job creators’; they believe it starts with the average worker. And contrary to a lot of conservatives, this isn’t liberal dogma or some high-minded moral sentiment, it’s actually economically backed. Economies operate on simple supply and demand. As overall demand (or aggregate demand) increases the economy responds and grows.

Demand starts with the many, not the few. It starts with the average person spending their disposable income on goods and services. So in times of recession when people are out of work or their hours are cut, they have less disposable income and the economy slows. This is where government can help, it can step in and provide people with income assistance to not only ensure people can survive, but to actually help get the country out of its slump. It was government spending that got us out of the Great Depression, and although Republicans will disagree, economist are pretty much in agreement that Obama’s stimulus helped in this recovery. So it’s not that Democrats want people to stay reliant upon government, rather, Democrats realize government can help; government can do good.

The right can say Mr. Obama gave people gifts, but it’s no different than when Republicans offer gifts to their supporters. The only difference being that Democrats’ gifts have to lead prosperity in the past while the Republican gifting model has only lead to sharp income inequality, lackluster economic performance, and oh yeah, all those tax cuts that have done nothing but contribute to our debt.