This is why we have a president. The question is whether the president we have will rise to the challenge.
Barack Obama gave an eloquent, heartfelt address at Sunday’s memorial service in Newtown, Conn. He said privately that the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School made Friday “the worst day” of his tenure. The pain showed on his face.
But sharing the suffering of the 26 families who lost loved ones and calming a traumatized nation won’t be enough. As Mayor Bloomberg put it bluntly, “Being the consoler in chief is part of his job. His main job is being commander in chief, and I endorsed him, and I endorsed him because he said he believes in rational use of guns in this country, and I expect him to do exactly that.”
Leaving aside his inexact reference to commander in chief, Bloomberg is right to put the ball in the president’s court. It belongs there precisely because there are no easy and obvious answers to where America goes from here.
For sure, there are some straightforward steps that will mark a good start. A ban on automatic and semi-automatic rifles, along with outsized ammunition clips that have no rational civilian use, likely will find wide support now.
The goal is clear: Take the “mass” out of “mass murder,” as one observer put it.
Yet it is striking that parts of that ban were in effect for 10 years until 2004, and Democrats did nothing to revive it when they had full control of Washington in the first two years of Obama’s term. The inaction offers an insight not only into the tricky politics of gun control, which divides both parties, but how Obama picked his priorities.
He did not believe he was elected to refight the prosaic battles of past presidents. He made it clear he wanted to “transform” America, not merely reform it. Splitting his party over gun control would have cost political capital he wanted to save for other fights, such as ObamaCare and re-election.
So, as Bloomberg not so delicately put it, “The president spoke out visibly on gun violence after the mass shooting in Tucson two years ago. Yet since those shootings happened, more than 24,100 Americans have been murdered with guns.
“Had we done something then, a vast number of those would be alive today and their families wouldn’t have been torn asunder.”
There is truth in that claim, but it also unfairly mixes apples and oranges. The slaughter of 20 children is horrific beyond description, but the vast majority of murders happens alone. They are carried out primarily with handguns that didn’t fall under a federal ban then and won’t now.
That critical distinction helps focus the two-part challenge Obama faces and makes it more manageable. First, he must move quickly to build a bipartisan consensus against the guns and ammunition used in mass, random killings. The nation demands fast action, and, if he tailors legislation tightly, Obama can deliver it.
The hitch is that he must not overreach, a concern because that is his habit. Pushing a bill that threatens the essence of the Second Amendment would lead to paralysis, not action.
More polarization, even if he wins Part One, would hobble Obama’s efforts to meet Part Two of his challenge. For beyond the weapons, other aspects of mass killings also must be examined if Sandy Hook is to have greater meaning.
Most critical is better identification and treatment of severely disturbed individuals. Consider that the gunmen in four recent massacres — Virginia Tech, Arizona, Colorado and Connecticut — all showed clear signs of mental illness. Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Lee Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza are the Four Horsemen of a modern apocalypse that would not have happened in almost any other age.
Addressing issues of privacy and freedom won’t be easy or sufficient. The culture of violence that permeates video games, television and Hollywood also must be examined. It is telling that some stores suddenly stopped selling rifles and Hollywood delayed releasing bloody films in the aftermath of Sandy Hook.
Digging into those cultural issues will be time-consuming and does not lend itself to quick action or the usual give-and-take of Congress and the blinkered ways of Washington.
But getting that effort under way, preferably through a broad national commission, is Obama’s responsibility, too. We will know soon if he understands the urgent duty that mass murder has imposed on his presidency.
Lieberman hope vs. violence
Joe Lieberman might have given himself a new job. The senator from Connecticut chose not to seek re-election, but his call for a commission to study violence in America is striking a chord.
Lieberman first raised the idea over the weekend, saying it should have a broad portfolio and not be limited to gun-control issues or be a substitute for congressional action.
“I’m always reluctant about commissions, but I really believe we ought to have a national commission on violence,” Lieberman told reporters. “These events are happening more frequently, and I worry that if we don’t take a thoughtful look at them, we’re going to lose the hurt and the anger that we have now.”
Among others, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa echoed the idea, saying a commission would be the best way to “look at the much bigger issues associated with tragic events such as this.” After
citing mental-health issues, he added that “you have to look at the culture of the United States, which tends to be less civil now than it has been for a long period of time.”
Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent who supported GOP nominee John McCain in 2008, is the perfect choice to head such a panel. His reputation for integrity and bipartisanship, and knowledge of how Washington works, could help guide a large, complex expedition into a national consensus for action.
Say it’s so, Joe.
Can’t ‘control’ appetite for guns
If you want a lesson on why gun control is never a slam dunk, do an Internet search on “gun sales.” The word “surge” best describes what is happening around the nation. One writer called the sharp jump in sales “the Sandy Hook effect.”
Thousands of buyers wanted the AR-15 rifle, the model used by Adam Lanza and legally owned by his mother. That’s not really a surprise. As Foxnews.com reported, “Despite often being called a fringe gun by critics, the AR-15 is the most popular gun sold in the US today, according to gun dealers. Roughly 220,000 were sold in 2010.”
Legislation that would ban the gun and its ammunition would not be retroactive, one of its sponsors promised.
Have mercy on the living
“Death is a problem only for the living.” It’s been 25 years since I first read those words, yet they never fail to emerge from memory at times like these. From the deepest darkness, they are summoned by grief.
They are both cold and comforting. Cold in their finality, and comforting in the assurance that the dead are no longer suffering.
Only the living must endure.