I’ll begin with a quick aside about the whole, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” thing.
This quote shows that even 30 years ago, the most successful politicians were adept at riling up their base supporters by using ambiguous, sweeping generalizations which fail to address any particular issue with even the slightest bit of intelligence, insight or nuance. I’m sure this quote is often cited by people who strongly feel that smaller is better when it comes to government (except when it comes to military spending same-sex marriage, abortion, constructing a fence along the Mexican border, preemptive strikes, building a permanent Moon colony, etc). I also wonder whether the government-is-not-the-solution crowd realize that two bills Reagan passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime (1), and that the federal government grew by 2.8% in real terms under President Reagan (2).
Anyways, on to gun control.
In my original post, I argued that the drawbacks of making firearms easily accessible to the general population outweighed the benefits. My argument was presented as a cost-benefit analysis, in which I reasoned that although guns do save lives in some instances, society ultimately pays a much higher price in terms of lives lost, gun-related injuries, decreased security, and over $2 billion in annual medical costs. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Ronaldus’ response didn’t contest any of these conclusions; I had been worried that I had overlooked some critical flaw in my original argument.
Instead, Ronaldus simply posted a quote by Ronald Reagan, in which the Gipper contended that a society that gives up its right to bear arms is giving up its means of “protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government.”
Reagan said, “if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.”
My initial thought was that it was interesting that this quote was taken from an article published in 1975, five and a half years before Reagan and three others were shot and wounded in an assassination attempt. Although gun control laws did not change significantly during his administration, Reagan did later support the two most significant and controversial gun control measures in the last 30 years: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban (3).
Seriously though, if we’re going to identify factors that lead to evil dictatorships, we need to begin with mustaches. Gaddafi, Stalin, Castro, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Assad, and Ming the Merciless were all mustached men, so mustaches must play a crucial role in any dictator’s rise to power.
But wait! Gandhi had a mustache too. Damn. There goes that theory.
Similarly, strict gun control laws may have been enforced in some countries where dictators took control, but we would be mistaken to conclude that those gun control laws were a key factor that enabled the rise of the dictators.
What about the U.K., Japan, Australia, and scores of other countries where there are strict gun control laws in place? If gun control is such an important determining factor in regards to a nation’s liberty, why are these countries still enjoying freedom?
Is it possible that Reagan’s comments were overly-simplistic, and that while some dictators have used gun control to their advantage, other dictators have also used lack or gun control to their advantage as well? If gun control is such an essential component of a dictatorship, then how do we explain African warlords and dictators (such as Charles Taylor), who have been able to gain control of nations or parts of nations in spite of rampant firearm proliferation and absolutely no effective gun control measures?
Based on my own limited knowledge and understanding, I’d say that the following elements play a crucial role in the rise of dictatorships:
1. A persuasive, intelligent, and driven leader.
2. The ability to capitalize on the widespread fear and/or anger of a society, usually through the demonization of a minority group within the country itself or another foreign country.
3. Legal/constitutional controls designed to prevent the consolidation of political and military power are ineffective or absent.
4. The rising dictator has the ability to gain a high level of financial backing.
5. Effective use of propaganda to promote a sense of hyper-patriotism and a cult of personality.
6. The demonization of a minority group within the country and/or another foreign country
7. Powerful (and often violent) suppression of political opposition, to create an environment where nobody dares voice their dissent.
8. State control of the media.
9. The dictator is physically isolated from the general population, and surrounded by his cronies and yes-men whose success, lifestyles and safety are absolutely dependent upon the dictatorship maintaining control.
This is not an all-inclusive list, but these are the warning signs I would be worried about. The infusion of astronomical amounts of money into politics, the demonization of those who follow a “different” religion or lifestyle, saber-rattling, inflammatory rhetoric intentionally rousing people to anger, the overriding of constitutionally established separation of powers, the increasing use of labels and name-calling in place of thoughtful debate, placing a higher priority on a candidate’s personality than his/her credentials, treating politicians as celebrities, these are the red flags that have me concerned about both sides in American politics.
Sorry I’m not as concise as Ronaldus.
No comments:
Post a Comment