Third Way Dispatch

Scalia to NRA: Get a New Argument

2008-06-30T08:52:00-06:00

Imagine this. You’ve been invited to give the keynote address at the National Rifle Association’s annual convention. You stand throngs of thousands with the American flag behind you and the words ‘… cold dead hands’ emblazoned on a screen. You begin:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. (Wild cheers)

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. (scattered murmurs)

“Nothing in the [DC gun ban decision] should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill (audible groans), or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings (a collective gasp), or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (booing)

“[There is] another important limitation on the right to keep and bear arms. (the sound of magazine clips being loaded)

“The sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ This limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ (a warning shot is fired into the rafters)

“Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents. (Medics are called)

These are the exact words (minus the stage directions) in the Scalia decision. And if you happen to be wondering why there has been muted reaction from the NRA, why Wayne LaPierre looked so uncomfortable talking about the decision on Chris Matthews, why NRA hatchet man Chris Cox could only call it a “monumental decision” in a press statement it is because it is what it is: a stinker for the NRA.

The entire NRA argument for the past 40 years is that gun laws would lead to gun confiscation. They warned that every new restriction was a slippery slope, a potential avalanche toward the rock bottom of abandonment of gun rights. Justice Scalia just told them to get a new argument.

The Scalia decision overturns the DC gun ban and it may effect a few other local laws, but the big laws on the books and the big proposed laws are all safe – the Brady Law, assault weapons ban, gun show loophole bill, reporting of secondary sales, beefing up the background check system, and on the state level – licensing, registration, permits to purchase and limitations on concealed carry.

There is a reason the NRA never wanted this case to go to court. It wasn’t because they feared losing. They feared winning. And they won. They won the skirmish over DC and lost the war on whether gun rights and gun restrictions can coexist. The most conservative court in eons said they could and they should.

Framing Iraq: A 50-50-50 Plan

2008-06-27T10:26:00-06:00

For too long, those of us who support a drawdown in Iraq have offered a laundry list of reasons without a unifying rational. With more than 4,000 American fatalities and tens of thousands of life-altering injuries, it has cost too many lives; at $5,000 per second, it is costing too much money; with our allies looking on in disgust, it is tarnishing our image abroad; with a dizzying array of sectarian conflicts, it is a confusing and unpolice-able civil war; with its pretext long-since exposed as a fraud, it is based on a lie; and with the President’s legacy as “Worst Ever” firmly in place, it is a fruitless attempt to rescue the Bush place in history.

All of these are true, but none of them, together or separately, can convincingly beat back the cynical and preposterous claim by the Bush administration and McCain camp that we are weak, that a withdrawal is abandoning the troops, and that, as Vice President Cheney has put it, that we propose to commit “an act of betrayal and dishonor.”

We can rail all we want about the unfairness of it all, and there is no doubt that history will judge us as correct. Still, in the context of the current Iraq debate, we must have is a framework that explains why we want to end our massive commitment to Iraq in the only terms that really matter when it comes to warfare: the national security interests of the United States. And the fact is, we can now make that case, and make it persuasively. Our security requires that we drawdown in Iraq for two reasons. First, if we don’t, we risk losing the fight against our real enemies: Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our troops there need immediate and large-scale reinforcements.

Second, without a major drawdown, the US Army will come unraveled. It is on the brink of a major crisis now, and it cannot sustain this pace much longer. We have 170,000 troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan with a force that can sustain deployments there of only 100,000 at a time. Without a drawdown (or the extremely unlikely initiation of a draft), the exquisite machinery of our ground forces will seize. Plus, we simply have got to restore a “ready brigade” of troops prepared to deploy on a moment’s notice to hotspots elsewhere in the world. It is practically criminal that the Bush administration has been such a poor steward of our safety that we no longer have soldiers or Marines we can send into the breach to protect the United States if the call comes—as we’ve discovered, fancy ships and planes get you only so far on the 21st century battlefield.

In a new memo, we lay out the national security case for drawing down in Iraq, and we offer up a new 50-50-50 Plan: 50,000 for Afghanistan (about a doubling of US troops there); 50,000 for Iraq (down from the current level of around 140,000); and 50,000 for the future (expanding the Army to meet future contingencies). This plan would let the United States take on and finally destroy al Qaeda where it actually is, provide us with an achievable mission in Iraq, and restore our military to a sustainable course.

We hope you’ll take a look.

McCain and Lieberman’s Strangelove

2008-05-16T12:22:00-06:00

It’s hard for George W. Bush to find a new low, but yesterday he managed. Going to a foreign parliament and issuing a fatuous political attack is perhaps the most classless thing that he has done in the course of a breathtakingly classless presidency. And what an attack it was – standing before the Israeli Knesset, Bush summoned the ghosts of Munich in a loathsome attempt to link Barack Obama to the appeasers of old.

John McCain, of course, made matters worse, by underscoring Bush’s charge and repeating his guilt-by-association claim about how Obama is Hamas’ favorite candidates. As Jamie Rubin makes clear in a Washington Post op/ed today, the Bush attack – and John McCain’s hilariously hypocritical response – were beneath the dignity of anyone, much less the President of the United States and the presumptive Republican nominee for President.

And it didn’t end there – Joe Lieberman chimed in from the peanut gallery, saying in a statement that Bush “got it exactly right” in his Knesset statement. He went on to trash Obama without naming him in terms similar to those used both by the President and by Lieberman’s BFF John McCain.

But beyond their appalling conduct yesterday, it is now clear that both McCain and Lieberman have gone another click around the circle; they have cycled past even the neo-cons and now resemble the rightwing fringe hysterics of the Cold War era. They are starting to sound like Barry Goldwater, who called Kennedy’s successful solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis “appeasement.” And their slander against Obama echoes Curtis LeMay, the retired Air Force Chief who ran with George Wallace on his American Independent Party ticket because, he said, Nixon was too soft on the Soviets and Wallace did not fear using nuclear weapons.

They are even getting close to LeMay’s fictional counterpart, General Buck Turgidson of Dr. Strangelove:

President Merkin Muffley: You’re talking about mass murder, General, not war!

General “Buck” Turgidson: Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

Whatever the appeal of McCain’s heroic past, when it comes to defending the country, Americans are sick and tired of rigid ideology, and they certainly are in no mood for extremism. So the Bush, McCain and Lieberman attacks on Obama yesterday were completely out of step with the mood of the country. That’s why, in the end, these reprehensible comments might end up being good news. Uh, depending on the breaks.

In Memory of Adam Solomon

2008-04-03T14:33:00-06:00

(visit our Adam Solomon tribute page)

It is with deep sadness that we today remember Adam Solomon, who passed away last night.

In Judaism, the highest calling is “tikkun olam” – the healing of the world. Adam’s entire being, his very soul, strove to meet that calling, to fulfill that injunction as if it were, in fact, the greater sum of all the commandments. And I saw his unshakable commitment to that calling as both a close personal friend and as a leader of Third Way.

As a friend he was rare, and not just among the men of his generation who were, let’s say, not encouraged to show their emotions. Not so with Adam. He knew how to listen, and to listen deeply. No matter the time of day, no matter how pressed he was, he stopped and put his whole self into being there as a friend. Nothing was too trivial, nor too overwhelming. No truth too hard to face squarely. And not just his time and tone but his words conveyed how much he cared, how he saw through the illusion of the very limitations you imposed on yourself, how your concern and worry was his, how much he understood your hopes, how your healing mattered as much as his.

And when the tables were turned, and it was my time to listen, he shared deeply and generously of his life, his feelings, his insights, his joys and his struggles. He disclosed his doubts, his pain, his dreams, because he believed that to know oneself, and to be known, was the path of true integrity, of meaning, of connection. He distrusted certainty. Disdained self-importance. And always, always, displayed a unique combination of humility and conviction in exploring his own life, nurturing his family, creating his business ventures, designing his philanthropy.

If that were the only way I knew Adam, it would be one of the greatest gifts I’ve ever had in my life. But beyond his friendship – or perhaps inextricably woven into our friendship – was his commitment to Third Way. He was present at the founding, in fact he was our very first founding supporter and Trustee. Amidst a full and busy life, he devoted a huge portion of it in the past four years to conceptualizing and creating Third Way – and saw it as an absolutely vital part of the American political landscape. He owned it as much as anyone who works here and was intent upon making it a permanent part of progressive politics, not out of a sense of pride – though he was proud of what he helped build – but out of a sense of purpose. His father, who passed away only recently, had made a major mark in public service, and Adam was now carving out – through Third Way, the Progressive Book Club, and other political passions – a public service path of his own.

He knew that at times the work at Third Way could be controversial, but he believed that we were entering a period where progressives truly had to re-think, re-imagine, re-create an entirely new set of ideas (what he liked to call our “intellectual capital”) for a new era. This was not just high-sounding rhetoric to Adam, but a purpose worth devoting decades of his life – a mission big enough that it could change the very trajectory of the country. And through it all he shared – along with our Board Chairman Bernard Schwartz – an unwavering belief in America and a bottomless optimism about our nation’s destiny.

It feels impossible now to imagine the future without him – his friendship, his sage advice, his mentoring, his creative and brilliant mind, his faith in what was and is possible, his vision for what we could all do to change our country.

If our world is to be healed, it will be because our God – in this and future generations – sees fit to give us more Adam Solomons. For that, for our own grief and loss, and for Adam’s wife, children and family, we offer our prayers.

(visit our Adam Solomon tribute page)

Yoo-thenizing the Constitution

2008-04-03T11:36:00-06:00

NOTE:This Dispatch is by Third Way Senior Fellow Jonathan Morgenstein:

While I was living in Mexico City in February 1995, the newly elected Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo arrested Raul Salinas, the brother of Zedillo’s powerful and wealthy predecessor, Carlos Salinas. Raul was arrested for a high profile assassination among other suspicions. It was a glorious moment in Mexican history.

As a friend told me the story at the time, Carlos, despite having completed his Presidency a few months prior, sent security forces loyal to him and his allies, to intervene in the arrest. In response, Zedillo sent the military to ensure the arrest took place. Additionally, Zedillo made a grand declaration that would fundamentally alter the future of Mexico and begin its transformation from a corrupt third-world banana republic into a free, liberal democracy. Zedillo asserted that “Today, nobody… absolutely nobody, is above the law. We are no longer a country of powerful men, but a country of powerful laws!” Because, in essence, THAT is the difference between democracy and dictatorship, the difference between freedom and authoritarianism. The rule of laws and equal justice under the law for all, rather than the rule of the whims of men regardless of how they arrived at their position.

This is why the memo revealed this week, written by the then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John Yoo, for the Department of Justice (how ironic is that?) is so terrifying. Yoo seemed to feel that by fiat, authorized by no written law and certainly by nothing written in the Constitution, the President could suspend the Constitution. Yoo wrote that, “Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.” Since Yoo felt no official declaration of war by Congress was even needed to conduct “military operations” within the U.S., it effectively gives the President unlimited powers to unilaterally end Constitutional rule (if the 4th amendment, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure, is arbitrarily dispensable, what part of the Constitution isn’t?).

Yoo asserts that because the President holds the title of “Commander-in-Chief” that this “sweeping grant vests in the President the ‘executive power’,” and allows him to usurp “specific enumeration of the powers-those ‘herein’-granted to Congress in Article I.” Yoo claims that this unlimited power is a simple pragmatic reading of the Constitution, because of, “the functional consideration that national security decisions require a unity in purpose and energy that characterizes the Presidency alone.”

Particularly in the midst of the “War on Terror,” a war without foreseeable end, what limits on presidential power would this view of government recognize? How would we be different than a dictatorship, with Congress allowed to write laws only when the President sees fit, and the President allowed to declare anything he wants to be law? Officers of the military, cabinet members and the President himself have sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” But Yoo’s take would turn this pledge on its head. The President cannot both abrogate the Constitution and preserve, protect and defend it as well.

In fact, I argue that John Yoo himself is an enemy of the Constitution, one from whom it needs protection and defense. But if we kick him out, where is he to go? He can’t go to Mexico, since it has become a more democratic country than Yoo wants. Maybe he would feel more comfortable in Russia with Vladimir Putin or in Iran with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Then he can fully appreciate what it means to live in a country where limits on Presidential power reside in the desires and mind of, “the Presidency alone.”

Democracy: A Journal of Ideas - Deepen Gun Ownership

2008-03-20T12:26:00-06:00

I am a big fan of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas and so I was especially pleased to be asked by them to submit a piece in their special “What’s Next?” edition. My submission is about guns and about the fact that there are 280 million of them in private hands while there are also 300,000 gun crimes. That means that 279,700,000 guns did nothing wrong last year. It also means that we need a new strategy to go after gun crime and target the 300,000 problem guns as expertly as possible, while leaving the rest alone as practically as possible. Here is the link to the article – Deepen Gun Ownership.

In recent election cycles, the greatest feat of liberal tight-rope walking has occurred not over abortion, but gun safety. Candidates talk about renewing the assault weapons ban, then mumble something about the rights of hunters. But there is a better way to take on this issue–one that would yield real reductions in violence without adversely impacting law-abiding gun owners.

There are 280 million firearms in private hands in America, and last year there were about 300,000 gun crimes. That means that at least 279,700,000 guns did nothing wrong. We also know that in 89 percent of crimes, the person using the gun was not the person who originally bought it. In 34 percent of crimes, the firearm was bought in one state and used in a crime in another. And in 32 percent of crimes, the firearm was less than three years old.

This indicates that the root of America’s gun crime problem is not the number of guns in the hands of Americans, but an extensive web of gun trafficking operations that funnel firearms to criminals. In some cases, the trafficking operations cover long distances. Nearly 40 percent of all crime guns recovered in New Jersey and New York came from Virginia, Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas. Nine out of 10 crime guns changed hands between the first purchase (which was likely legal) to the last purchase (which was certainly illegal). What we need, then, is a new national strategy to reduce gun violence: Don’t restrict gun rights, but instead deepen the sense of gun ownership.

The first step is to make gun trafficking a federal crime, not a term of art. There is only one statute on the federal books that deals even indirectly with gun trafficking–a vague, loophole-ridden law that allows only federally licensed gun stores “to engage in the business” of dealing in firearms. Since federal law allows any individual to sell his or her own firearms to anyone else, the “engaged in the business” bar is virtually insurmountable. And since any individual may also sell firearms without performing a background check, asking for identification, or keeping any sort of record, the requirement that individuals not knowingly sell to criminals is merely a suggestion. That is why federal prosecutors in 29 states filed five or fewer cases related to trafficking behavior over a recent three-year period.

Trafficking should be redefined as selling multiple guns out of a home, car, street, or park that have two or more of the following characteristics: obliterated serial numbers, are stolen, are new in the box, or are sold to underage buyers or people with felony records. This would still allow individuals to privately sell firearms to people they know or trust, and it would put the onus on sellers to demand a background check for those they don’t.

Beyond the new law, finding traffickers isn’t that hard. Investigators can readily aggregate the crime gun trace data that we now have–data that identifies the original buyers and sellers of hundreds of thousands of guns later used in crime. They will discover that about 1 percent of the nation’s gun stores are the source of more than half of the nation’s crime guns. And they will discover that a select group of individuals repeatedly turn up as the original purchasers of guns later linked to crimes. This is not a quirk of fate; these people are gun traffickers.

Moreover, investigators can easily check every gun recovered in a crime against the National Stolen Firearms Registry, which contains the serial numbers of two million stolen guns. Under federal law, possession of a stolen firearm adds five years to a prison sentence. True, the criminal apprehended with a stolen gun is usually not the person who lifted it. But those five years are a great bargaining chip–one state and federal prosecutors consistently leave on the table–to determine the person who actually sold the criminal the gun. Play the same game with obliterated serial numbers–another five-year penalty under federal law. An obliterated serial number hides the trafficker and provides no benefit to the person using the gun in a violent crime.

Finally, we need to close the gun-show loophole. It is no coincidence that 13 of the top 14 crime-gun-exporting states do not require background checks for sales at shows. This loophole is exploited by buyers who obtain used guns to resell on the streets.

What ultimately matters isn’t the number of guns. It’s the number of bad people who have them. With a national firearms trafficking strategy, we can pull the roots out of the illegal operations that kill and destroy people and communities.