On the Democratic Party's Peculiar Obsession with "Gun Control"

A couple of years ago and on another blog, I wrote a series of posts enumerating the many reasons why the democratic party, in its current form, has no worthwhile future. Some reasons, such as shrinking of their core support base and institutional inertia, are systemic in nature. Others, such as their unpopular obsession with promotion of certain "social causes", are a cover for the neo-liberal policies promoted by them. But a few do not neatly fall into either category. The very peculiar obsession of democratic party establishment with implementing “gun control” is one of those.

As readers of my previous blog might remember, I wrote many posts on why attempts at gun control in this country are unworkable, futile and likely to backfire in more ways than at the ballot box. The very short version of those posts was that deaths due to guns in USA are largely the result of deep-seated socio-economic factors (financial problems, lack of job security, suicide) and explicit government policies (war on drugs, abandoning poorer areas). To make a long story short, attempts at stricter gun control do not address the much larger underlying issues which drive the superficial problem.

However, time after time, we have seen the democratic party desperately try to use every newsworthy mass shooting to push for stricter gun regulations. Of course, we have also seen the democrats lose election after election in many areas of the country during that period. As it stands now, they barely controls the federal government and will almost certainly lose 2 /3 branches after Nov 2022 elections. The democratic party of today is so weak and impotent at national level that they could not even properly exploit the train-wreck of Trump presidency and win with a decent majority in 2020, which would otherwise be a god-send to a marginally competent opposition party.

There are many reasons why the democratic party has been on a downward path since the mid-1990s. Firstly, their embrace of neo-liberalism and its animating policies such as "free trade" and laissez-faire regulation of corporations, which started during the Clinton era, antagonized a significant part of their previous voter-base , especially in non-coastal states. Secondly, the leadership (and top cadre) of democratic party is full of people who either got in during the 1960s-1980s or are ivy-league credentialed C-grade actors who look ridiculous and sound phony in 2022.

But none of this provides a satisfactory answer for why establishment democrats are anti-2nd amendment. I mean.. wouldn't a political party in semi-permanent political wilderness prefer its supporters to be armed, than not? Also, it is fairly well-known that taking an anti-gun stand was a factor in them losing the 2000, 20004 and 2016 presidential election- in addition to many more at the states level. So why persist in pushing a cause which does not make sense from the viewpoint of winning elections? And let us clear about something- politicians, regardless of their party affiliations and stated ideologies, are in to win power. Some are more corrupt and easily bought than others, but basically all politicians will compromise on their beliefs.

How can you account for establishment democrats repeatedly pushing an electorally disastrous ideology? One theory I have seen being floated is that democrats think that a decrease in overall rates of gun ownership will translate into future success of their campaign to criminalize all civilian ownership of firearms. While this might sound like a nice story, the ground reality as measured by sales of guns and relaxation of rules and regulations surrounding gun ownership since 1994 shows otherwise. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was the high point of democratic success in legislating for greater gun control. It has been downhill for them since then.

Another theory suggests that the establishment democrat obsession with gun control is linked to institutional stagnation within the party. There is some truth to the idea that political parties whose establishment is led by people who are still living in the 1980s and 1990s might try to maintain what they believe to be the status quo and keep pressing for more bad policies, especially if their positions within those organizations are secure from competition. But that does not explain why the younger establishment types (Corey Booker, Kamala Harris etc) in it are still pushing such disastrous ideas.

Well.. I have a theory which can explain the obsession of democrats with gun control. It comes down to that issue appealing to their core base of supporters and volunteers- to be more specific, the credentialed professional managerial class. As I have wrote in some older posts, a lot of the odd behavior displayed by democratic party makes sense once you realize that its most important non-corporate supporters are those who owe their well-compensated livelihood to worthless credentials and licenses obtained from educational institutions. It is also no secret that most of those who work, or volunteer ,at higher levels in that party almost exclusively come from such a background.

But why would that translate into support for gun control? Why would such a socio-economic group, or class, be interested in gun control? Let me try to explain it in the nicest possible language. The professional managerial class (PMC) derives its income, livelihood and status from thievery and extortion perpetrated through the façade of rules and “laws”. That is why also why the PMC in this country usually make much more money than their equivalents in other developed countries while not being more competent than them. And this also extends to less obvious PMC-type professions such as working at schools, colleges and universities.

The degree of parasitism displayed by the PMC in USA is second only to the outright legalized theft and extortion practiced by corporate entities. But why are corporations not that interested in gun control? The answer for that is quite simple- corporations already have the full might of the state behind them. PMC-types, on the other hand, exist in a peculiar zone where they are visibly doing better than others in a rapidly impoverishing society but lack any special protection from the state. In other words, they feel (if only on a subconscious level) that they will become targets for popular rage if the proverbial shit hits the fan.

And that is why the PMC, which is 2nd most important constituency for democrats as well as the source of majority of party cadre are so enthusiastic about disarming "less deserving" poorer people. Parasites, you see, prefer hosts who are unable to stop them. PMCs perceive the widespread ownership of guns as a threat to their cushy livelihoods which depend on theft and extortion via “laws” and regulations. Trying to ban widespread ownership of guns, then, appears to be the second best option.

And that is why the democratic establishment keeps on pursuing a stupid policy which has brought it repeated electoral failure in parts of the country that are not New York or California. I also do not think that their obsession with “gun control” is going to change even if they perform poorly in 2022 elections. As long as they can still win a few coastal states, democrats will keep shooting themselves in the foot.

What do you think? Comments?