Oppose or propose? Which do you choose? The two words sound alike but could not be more different.
Finding solutions to complex problems is not easy. Which path is more likely to be productive? Would it be to “oppose” individuals and organizations associated with the problem, or would it be to “propose” specific measures to minimize the problem?
Recent rallies protesting gun violence have provided an opportunity to examine this question.
Make no mistake about it, reducing gun violence should be a national priority. In response to mass shootings, a number of “March For Our Lives” demonstrations sprang up around the country. It was clear that the public outrage would not go away. Seeing so many people marching to call attention to the problem was, without question, encouraging. People need to be engaged.
At the Tucson march, there were some voices proposing positive steps to address the problem. Some marchers, for example, held signs urging more stringent background checks.
Far more visible, however, was the outrage directed towards certain individuals and organizations. Those targets included Donald Trump (of course), Marco Rubio, Republicans in general, and the National Rifle Association.
To “oppose” or to “propose,” which would be more likely to address the problem and reduce gun violence? The answer is “both.”
The passionate voices of opposition will certainly gain the attention of elected officials. Those politicians have one, and only one, priority. That is to win the next election. Given the public outcry, they might finally listen and enact constructive measures instead of kicking the can down the road, as they had done after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.
Will they act this time? I have my doubts.
My skepticism is fueled by remarks such as those of New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo. He said, “Today is the day we unite to say that the NRA is not going to win. The people of the United States are going to win the day and common sense is going to win the day.”
Unfortunately, it will take more than slogans to reduce gun violence. (And, of course, my apologies to Governor Cuomo if he has undertaken specific measures. Citing his statement illustrates how politicians tend to fall back on easy slogans. It is not a definitive account of the Governor’s record on the matter.)
Bottom line? We need voices to both “oppose” and “propose.” We need the passion and the energy of the protestors, but we need to direct that energy toward practical and specific measures designed to address all aspects of this complex problem. Combine the two and we might succeed in reducing gun violence.
Also, it is important to note that we cannot rely on politicians to do this work for us. Sure, calling on our elected officials would make us feel good that we have “done something.” But, without further engagement, would that be enough? I don’t think so.
We need to follow the example of Mark Barden. He lost his son in the Sandy Hook shooting. Despite that unspeakable tragedy, he was able to overcome his grief and launch Sandy Hook Promise. Take a look at https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/. That initiative mobilizes communities to take responsibility for their own safety and does not rely on Washington. We need more of that. (See the essay “Florida Mass Shooting” posted at www.responsibilitytoday.com)
Back to Saturday’s Tucson march There was one protest that was clearly focused on a single, central, objective. It was led by three heavily-partied-out individuals sitting on the curb half way down the march route. Their chant left no doubt as to what they sought. It went like this, “What do we want? Beer! When do we want it? Now!” Unfortunately, the three sponsors of this heart-felt chant were too waisted to stand, let alone march. At least they knew what they wanted.