Why the Orlando massacre is more likely to divide than unite America’s politicians
WASHINGTON » Unlike other recent tragedies in U.S. history, the mass shooting in Orlando is unlikely to bring America politicians together for solutions.
The attack touched on a pair of hot-button issues — restricting guns, and the targeting of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans — that is expected to continue to divide an already divided nation in the midst of a contentious election.
“As soon as something like this happens … it instantly polarizes people,” said Joseph Young, a professor at the School of Public Affairs at American University who studies political violence. “It’s the nature of these gun attacks that sparks these real divisive responses.”
Even as television screens were showing lines of people waiting their turn to donate blood for the injured and Sunday’s broadcast of the Tony Awards was dedicated to the victims, partisan fault lines hardened.
Both sides reacted predictably Sunday after news broke that a shooter who professed ties to the Islamic State terrorist group killed 50 people at an Orlando nightclub.
Democrats called for more restrictions on guns and protections for gays and lesbians.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
“This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub,” President Barack Obama said at the White House. “And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”
“The American public is beseeching us to act on common-sense, sensible gun violence prevention measures, and we must heed that call,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
Republicans mostly focused on terrorism and the need to combat the Islamic State.
“Confronting the threat of violent homegrown radicalization is one of the greatest counterterrorism challenges our law enforcement and intelligence community faces,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. said in statement. “We must do more at every level of government and within our own communities to identify and mitigate this cancer on our free society and prevent further loss of innocent life.” But standing in Orlando Sunday, Rubio decried the rampage as an attack on all Americans, including gays and lesbians.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called on Democrats, starting with Obama and the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, to be honest about what needed to be done. “For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians,” he said.
By late Sunday, it began to appear as if the worst mass shooting in United States history was unlikely to lead to any specific changes.
“Instead of good coming out of this it is polarizing an already polarizing electorate during a hyper-polarized election,” said John Hudak, a fellow in governance studies at the left-of-center Brookings Institution.
Democrats and Republicans largely put aside their differences in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, with members of both parties working with the White House to give then-President George W. Bush the authority to use force against those responsible.
“These are different times, and we must act decisively. The American people expect it, and they will accept nothing less,” then Senate Republican leader Trent Lott said at the time. “The world has changed, and we are acting appropriately.”
Americans, too, largely came together after the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, though conservatives criticized Obama for not immediately calling it terrorism.
“After 9/11 the US rallied together,” tweeted Ian Bremmer, a political scientist and president and founder of Eurasia Group, a global political risk research and consulting firm. “After Orlando the country feels more politically divided than any time I’ve been alive.”
After a shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., left 26 people, including 20 young children, dead in 2012, little changed around gun ownership laws.
After that attack — which Obama describes as the worst day of his presidency — he implored Congress to act. But after lawmakers failed to expand background checks, an angry Obama blasted them, calling it “a pretty shameful day for Washington.” Instead, Obama acted unilaterally to force background checks of more gun buyers.
Some are promising to push again for changes.
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., immediately announced that he would introduce new legislation to ban those convicted of hate crimes from purchasing firearms.
Hudak said so far politicians were turning to their “go-to-issues.” But, he said, the only people who could change the conversation in the country are Obama, Clinton and the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, and only if they have an honest discussion about all the issues involved in massacre.
The presumptive nominees, however, focused on different tactics: Trump seized on the shooting to call for a more muscular response to Islamic terrorism and asked for Obama to “step down” because he did not use the words “radical Islam” to condemn the attack; Clinton called for more curbs on guns and protections for gays as well as enhanced efforts to fight terrorism.
——
©2016 McClatchy Washington Bureau
5 responses to “Why the Orlando massacre is more likely to divide than unite America’s politicians”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hard to believe the Clintons will do anything after 30 years in politics except more rhetoric.
Any President can only do so much. Whatever policy direction is set, Congress needs to follow. That’s why the assault weapon ban was never extended.
If the article above is correct, then ISIL and other extremist groups win. We lose.
Remember to old adage — A nation divided against itself cannot stand? When it comes to guns, we cannot win. It began with the landmark Supreme Court decision by Scalia, and the NRA will not let us change direction. Too much money at stake.
Cruz and Rubio have been the leaders in the Republican Party, and have been vehemently gainst Gay civil rights during their campaigns. I cannot believe the pronoucements of hypocrites regarding the Orlando massacre
From a New Yorker article:
All that a U.S. citizen who wants to kill a lot of people has to do is drive to a local gun store, ask to purchase a couple of AR-15 rifles and some ammunition, pass a background check, get the weapons, and select a site. It is easier than hijacking a plane or assembling a truck bomb.
Very true.
Same New Yorker article stated:
Obama called on Congress to “make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun,” and added, “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”
The Republican-controlled Congress ignored these words, just as it had frustrated the Obama Administration’s efforts to strengthen gun laws after the Sandy Hook massacre, which took place in December, 2012. “Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, tweeted in June of last year. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”
If Hodges was right and the United States will never take action on gun control, then it is heading toward a future where much of the country is a fortified camp, with stricter rules governing who is allowed in, heavily armed police permanently patrolling urban hubs, more public buildings adopting airport-style security, and many more millions of guns sold, as alarmed citizens seek to protect themselves and their families against a perceived threat.
So, what happened as a result of Orlando? The gun stocks went up in value. That happens every time an incident like this happens and talk of stricter restrictions pops up.
Face it. Too much money at stake to do anything that makes sense. The argument that the 2nd Amendment is hallowed ground that protects an individual’s right to self-defense, logically, means we should all carry in public. Not concealed, but in the open. Do we really want that?