Monday, June 27, 2016

Congressional Sit In 2016


Wednesday morning House democrats started a sit in to attempt to force a vote on four gun control measures that Paul Ryan refused to allow. House Republicans responded by turning off the cameras, to which the protesters responded by live streaming via Facebook and Periscope. It was ultimately unsuccessful, as the representatives adjourned still without voting on the bills, but even before that it attracted a lot of criticism.

I am becoming less patient with those who just dump on others without bothering to do anything themselves anyway, but there can still be value in looking at the questions and in examination. That's what I want to look at today.

Now, for people who actually are trying to accomplish good things, the most common criticism is that the laws they were trying to get votes on were the wrong laws. They have some good points, but I am going to try and explore that side tomorrow.

Gun control itself has been a contentious issue for a while, but the four bills in question and the protest were fueled by the Orlando nightclub shooting, which leads to an earlier criticism that's worth addressing.

The Orlando Club Shooting is not the worst mass shooting in history; Wounded Knee was.

An estimated 300 were shot and killed at Wounded Knee. That is deadlier, and so some have amended their statement about Orlando to call it the worse mass shooting in modern history. By most definitions of the term, 1890 would be included in modern history.

My initial problem with the complaint is that it feels like an attempt to minimize what happened in Orlando. In a time when hate speech against the queer community and immigrants and people of color is on the rise, a shooting in a gay nightclub on Latin night needs attention. Distractions from that seem harmful.

I also understand why the complaint would be made. Too often we act like atrocities against Native Americans didn't happen, and that they are non-issues now. If calling Orlando the worst makes them feel disappeared again, I don't want to contribute to that.

There are still some key differences. I don't know how many soldiers were at the Wounded Knee massacre, but there were at least 25 dead and 39 wounded. In terms of havoc wrought by a single individual, there is still a proportion where Orlando stands out.

That may be splitting hairs, but another key difference is that because it was the army escorting prisoners, the Wounded Knee massacre falls under the umbrella of state-sanctioned violence, like police shootings. That is not a justification, and there are important discussions to have about that. There is also an important discussion to have about how some people feel more acceptable as targets than others, and there's a lot to correct. The comparisons to Wounded Knee may have been intended as a teachable moment, but it felt like it was in the space where we still needed to be focused on binding up wounds. There can be legitimate arguments against that, but that was how I felt.

Now let's focus on Paul Ryan.

One thing he did was call it a stunt. The internet reminded me of two things in response. One was that the Ryan family once spent fifteen minutes in an empty soup kitchen for a photo opportunity. I had known that, and not thought about it for years, but the internet never forgets.

The other thing was more to the point: as of February, the House has voted 63 times to repeal Obamacare. That does kind of feel like a stunt. I would think that after the first twenty attempts you could figure out that the votes aren't there and move on to something useful.

That actually leads to another criticism - the protest was pointless because even if the votes were allowed the bills would have failed. That might seem like a reason to just let the vote take place, except what Paul Ryan and House Republicans know is that gun control is extremely popular with voters. Support for universal background checks consistently polls from around 85 - 93%. However, Republicans get a lot of money from the gun lobby. For many representatives there would be a choice between angering their voters or their bread and butter, which may not feel that symbolic. Yes, there would be value in them having to publicly make that choice.

Ryan said that the Democrats were introducing chaos and possibly threatening democracy. I think the guy who turned the cameras off we doing more to threaten democracy, and we have been reminded how technology can help. There are multiple ways to get a message out. There are lots of people keeping track and researching and bringing things back up. Those are some good reminders.

Let's also take a moment to remember that stunts and symbols can be important. Protests were important in the Civil Rights Movement, but they also happened in conjunction with economic pressure and working with elected officials on legislation. Those parts might not be remembered as well, because it was the protest that got the attention, but that attention is important.

For people who have been waiting for Congress to act on guns, this is your reminder that House Republicans won't even hear a bill drafted by someone in their own party, let alone from the other side of the aisle. How many of those seats are up in November? It is not too early to think about that.

Protest can energize those who see it, but it can also energize those who do it. It must be very frustrating to deal with the gridlock and the obstruction, but these participants have shaken off some dust. They have joined a sit-in with John Lewis! How do you think that would feel? And when he says they must look forward to July 5th - the first day back after the break - they can do that, rested and ready to go forward in unity.

John Lewis is one of my heroes, but I am proud of Suzanne Bonamici, my representative, for her participation. I was happy to see Earl Blumenauer there. It's been a long time, but if I recall correctly the first time I saw criticism of Blumenauer, years ago, was that he was too by-the-book and boring; well he's a chaotic threat to democracy now, bow tie and all!

I have great faith in Paul Ryan's ability to obstruct, but I have faith in the sit in participants too, to keep pushing back. I hope they can be an inspiration to the Senate that refuses to hold confirmation hearings.

Capitol Hill needs a jolt sometimes. This could be one.

No comments: