

Print   Email   Font Resize

Quillen: Never declare victory when complaining will do

By Ed Quillen

In 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill told his constituents that "We shall never surrender." A modern leader might augment that by adding "Also, we shall never proclaim victory."

Consider how much simpler modern public discourse would be if various sides would just admit they'd won.

For instance, American lakes, rivers and skies are cleaner now than at any time I can remember. That's a great accomplishment for the environmental movement. But does anybody savor this victory?

No. I get scores of impassioned pleas about saving old-growth forests, preventing potential pipeline leaks, protecting endangered species and reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. An apocalypse looms unless I send money. And I'm sure that things will keep getting worse, for no matter how much money they get, they'll always need more.

But right-thinkers are just as likely to avoid victory. To them, the republic is always under attack by sinister forces. When I was in college, marriage was rather unpopular among liberal sorts and often criticized as a form of oppression. And back then, hardly anybody, especially a liberal, wanted to join the military.

But when gay and lesbian groups began agitating for equal rights to marriage and military service, did the right-thinkers celebrate? Have they shouted "Hallelujah, praise the Lord. Even America's homosexuals have seen the light"? Of course not.

Or consider the National Rifle Association, which convened recently in St. Louis. There, Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, called Barack Obama "the most anti-gun, anti-freedom president we've ever seen." Wayne LaPierre, NRA vice president, said "all across the country people are worried" that Obama will take their guns.

As for anti-freedom, Richard Nixon took away our dynamite in 1970. Before that, a teenager could walk into any good hardware store and buy a few sticks of 40 percent Gelex No. 2, a dozen blasting caps and 100 feet of Bickford fuse. I know, because I made such purchases without even showing an ID. So I must wonder why no powerful lobby has never tried to protect my traditional rights.

That Nixon restriction was far more repressive (after all, explosives were the traditional miner's weapon during the Colorado Labor Wars a century ago) than anything Obama's done.

Gun rights have actually expanded since Obama took office. That was partly on account of a 2010 Supreme Court decision which affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms, and Obama didn't have anything to do with that. But he did sign a bill that allowed for concealed carry in national parks and monuments, providing the gun bearer was allowed to do so by relevant state law.

So why is the NRA fuming about a president who has done it no harm? Like most advocacy groups, be they environmental or political, it needs to keep its members terrified so that they'll keep sending money to protect what they hold dear, be that wolves or pistols.

And so, even though Obama has presided over an expansion of gun rights, the NRA insists on casting him as leading an anti-gun conspiracy. According to LaPierre: "The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he's actually been good for the Second Amendment. But it's a big fat stinking lie. ... It's all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country."

That's an interesting argument, claiming that Obama's failure to promote gun regulations actually means he favors more regulations. But there's no point in declaring victory if prolonging the struggle, by any means necessary, keeps those dollars flowing in.


Subscribe! Get this column by e-mail.


Denver Post Twitter Facebook Icon

Article Comments

Is your comment not appearing on the article? Read this.




Denver & the West