Primary Ranting

Lord knows I take no pleasure in writing about politics. I don't keep track of the likely contenders for mixing it up in the primaries, and if you laid out a slate of presidential hopefuls before me, I wouldn't have much to say to it. At this stage of the game, I just don't care. I'm not ashamed of that; we can't all be policy wonks, and since Darwin enjoys such stuff, I leave it to him.

However, today I saw an article about Newt Gingrich forming a committee to raise funds for his as-yet-undeclared candidacy. I don't know a great deal about Newt Gingrich. The Contract With America went down while I was still throwing aside the front page of the paper in favor of the comics and "Dear Abby", and my main memory of the political tenor of the heady days of the early '90s was the Washington Post's contest calling for the best limerick to include both "Lewinsky" and "Kaczynski".

What I do know about Gingrich is that he's been married three times, and that his second and third marriages sprung from affairs started during the previous marriage. I find that to be somewhat less than inspiring. Everyone has his own political line in the sand, some standard by which he makes decisions about the person for whom he'll vote. Here's one of my standards: If you can't be faithful to your wife, I don't particularly care to have you running the country. I know that Newt has converted to Catholicism; good for him. But I won't support his presidential bid.

While I'm getting politics off my chest, let me say that if Sarah Palin throws her hat into the primary ring, she'll hear my scoffing all the way in the Peoria Holiday Inn. No. You don't resign governorship in mid-term and then pop up and announce that now you think you might try your hand at Presidenting. And for all our sakes, cancel the reality show. And Bristol's publishing contract to write her memoirs.

That is all.

Hobbesian Gun Control

I was struck by a passage out of this recent National Review piece by Keven D. Williamson in reference to gun control:

People have a visceral reaction to guns, which is why the reactions to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago have been so emotional. One extraordinarily telling reaction came from David Ignatius of the Washington Post, whose response was headlined: “The Supreme Court Gun Decision Moves Us Toward Anarchy.” Mr. Ignatius wrote: “My biggest worry with Monday’s Supreme Court decision is that by ruling, in effect, that every American can apply for a gun license, the justices will make gun ownership much more pervasive in a society that already has too many guns. After all, if I know that my neighbor is armed and preparing for Armageddon situations where law and order break down (as so many are — just read the right-wing blogs) then I have to think about protecting my family, too. That’s the state-of-nature, everyone for himself logic that prevails in places such as Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Mr. Ignatius here is remarkably forthcoming: He is not worried about guns in the hands of criminals, but about guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, people who are willing to apply for a permit and jump through the bureaucratic hoops re­quired of gun buyers. His nightmare is not an America in which criminals run amok with Glocks, or even an America in which gun permits are handed out liberally, but an America in which “every American can apply for a gun license.” Never mind the approval of licenses, the mere application gives Mr. Ignatius the howling fantods. It is wonderfully apt that he references the “state of nature” in his criticism, imagining a Hobbesian version of life in these United States: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, permeated by the aroma of cordite. Mr. Ignatius, like Thomas Hobbes, is casting his lot with Leviathan and makes no apology for it.

That is the essence of 21st-century progressivism: In matters ranging from financial derivatives to education to gun control, the Left believes that we face a choice between a masterful state and a Hobbesian war of all against all. For all of the smart set’s vaunted and self-congratulatory nu­ance, it is this absolutist vision, this Manichean horror, that forms the foun­dation of progressivism.

This strikes me as getting rather directly at the divergence of views in regards to gun control. Conservatives, in favor of legal gun possession by citizens, are often accused of endorsing a Hobbesian worldview in which they are at war with the world and need to arm themselves in order to protect themselves. This does not, however, tie well with my experiences as a gun owner and knowing other gun owners. Far from a bunch of angry loners out for themselves against everybody, you'll seldom run into a more friendly and outgoing bunch of guys and those down at the shooting range -- eager to show you their guns, help teach beginners, offer advice, etc. Sure, there are doubtless some bozos out there who have managed to legally get hold of guns and aren't to be trusted, but generally speaking I really don't find myself worried about the legal gun owners of the world, least of all those who have gone through the lengthy and highly regulated process of applying for things like concealed carry permits. You are unlikely to find a group of people less likely to commit crimes than legal concealed carry permit holders.

And yet, the reaction among anti-gun advocates is entirely the opposite. To them, the ownership of a gun makes you more likely to turn violent, and nothing seems more terrifying to them than that someone might (after background checks, training and licensing by the state) be carrying a concealed handgun. It does seem very much as if they are convinced that if only people are given the means of violence, a weapon, then they will revert to some sort of savage natural state and become violent. That it is only the strong arm of the state making sure that no one possesses weapons that keeps us from all being at each other's throats.