By Larry Durstin
Many of the gun-safety advocates who were in a state of gloom following the Senate’s rejection last month of a “background check” bill have found solace in a recent poll indicating that a handful of Senators who voted against the checks have seen their poll numbers dipping.
Among those who found their popularity slipping is Ohio Senator Rob Portman. In the survey conducted by Public Policy Polling (a Democrat-leaning group), Portman’s popularity has dropped a net 18 points from plus 10 to minus 8 in the past six months. Interestingly enough, his numbers have dropped 16 points (62-46) among Republicans, which may indicate that this GOP drop is primarily in response to his March announcement supporting gay marriage.
Specifically, in terms of his background check vote, 36% of Ohioans say they are “less likely” to vote for Portman because of his position. A statistic like this can be a bit deceiving in terms of shifting an election, since a large number of the “less likely” may not have voted for him in the first place or have so many other issues that are of more importance to them that they won’t flip against him on guns.
Though these striking numbers probably won’t show up as dramatically at the ballot box in 2016 (when Portman is up for re-election) as they do now on paper, the public’s reaction in Ohio and around the country to the gun-safety issue is tremendously encouraging. However, no one should be naïve enough to think that the NRA’s power will be diminished by poll numbers. The winning of elections on the issue of gun-safety is the only thing that will begin to chip away at the gun lobby and its monstrous influence – and that is easier said than done.
Gun safety advocates should not be so foolish as to think that their sweet mantra about “90% of Americans support background checks” means anything at all at this point in the election cycle. Nor do a few supporters showing up at town hall meetings to question NRA-backed candidates constitute a tsunami of change in the gun debate. It’s a step in the right direction, but there remains a tidal wave of opposition to any and all restrictions on guns – a primitive force that will never go away.
The reason for that is the marrow-deep role of guns in American culture since the country’s inception and is coupled with the intense – and understandable – fear of government repression that has always been part of the American psyche. As a faux revolutionary in the early ‘70s, I felt paranoia running deep when it came to government surveillance, selective incarceration, beaten-in heads and four dead in Ohio. Clearly, African Americans have long rightfully felt as if the police (aka the government) were an occupying army in their communities ready to shoot first and cover-up later. And there’s no need going into what the “feds” did to Native Americans. So the idea of arming oneself for defensive purposes is as right as rain – and must be fiercely safeguarded.
Of course, the problems arise with how far this “right-to-bear-arms” is taken by the zealots and the gun manufacturers who gin up apprehension over a reasonable proposal like background checks by transforming this modest measure into the horror of a Big Brother kind of Universal Registry designed to locate innocent gun owners for the sole purpose of unleashing jack-booted government thugs into their living rooms.
A little crazy? Of course, but another aspect of the American psyche is an obsession with conspiracy theories (people love stories, especially ones that simplify complexity), many of which are based on the well-grounded assumption that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t necessarily mean that someone’s not out to get you.
It’s this mindset – and hundreds of millions of dollars from the gun merchants – that gives the NRA the ammunition it needs to keep winning legislative battles. So while gun-safety advocates are twisting themselves into pretzels looking for evidence that the NRA is a “paper tiger” on its way to oblivion, they should enjoy – but not be fooled by – this apparent shift in momentum.
However, until these well-meaning folks actually defeat a few NRA-backed candidates, any progress on this issue will remain illusionary. Only 4% of Americans list guns as their absolute top priority and 3. 9% of those are NRA supporters. In 2016, when Portman is up for re-election, this well-oiled army will have already spent three years of sleepless nights readying to die before giving an inch.
But, it remains to be seen if those who oppose the gun lobby have the grueling, day-after-day endurance to go toe-to-toe with the death merchants and actually bring home a few scalps of “gun rights” elected officials. Or if these progressives will be content to simply exhibit bemused bewilderment as to why – despite the righteousness of their position and the statistics showing that the majority of Americans support “sensible” gun restrictions – they keep losing and the NRA keeps winning and winning and winning.
Larry Durstin is an independent journalist who has covered politics and sports for a variety of publications and websites over the past 20 years. He was the founding editor of the Cleveland Tab and an associate editor at the Cleveland Free Times. Durstin has won 12 Ohio Excellence in Journalism awards, including six first places in six different writing categories. LarryDurstinATyahoo.com
One Response to “Will Portman’s ‘No’ on Background Checks Come Back to Haunt Him?”
IndyCA35
The reason the NRA, which at 5,000,000 members is the largest civil rights organization in America (NOW and NAACP, by contrast, have about 250,000) is because ultra-libs like you keep calling us nasty names like “merchants of death.”
We don’t think you have any interest at all in actually stopping gun crimes.
For instance, Adam Lanza’s mother passed a state background check at least as “severe” as the one in the Senate bill. That had no effect on the Newtown school massacre. So why pimp a “background check.”
The Obama administration only prosecuted a handful of those who lied on the current background checks. What a liar he is!
You might also want to know that, in 2011, the total people murdered by rifles–not all of which were assault rifles–were 332. This is less than half as many murdered by hammers and fists.
So what are you doing about sensible hammer and fist control?
If you were interested in “sensible” controls, you would join the NRA in changing the law to more readily identify mentally ill people who are the common denominator in all the “mass” shootings. Both the Virginia tech murderer and Gabby Giffords assailant passed background checks because nobody put their names in the database!
If you people would stop resisting common sense criminal and mental illness controls, the NRA could gert some sensible laws passed.
“Don’t bother me with facts. I’m a Liberal.”