The Disenfranchised Delegation

The election analysis (below) is interesting, though, as Mr. Big Food says, "certainly not conclusive." 

What's more interesting to me is this:

When Ron Paul went to the Republican National Convention in August, he brought with him the youngest delegation in the history of the Republican Party.

How were they welcomed? When they arrived, their signs were confiscated and torn up before their eyes. The Maine delegation was summarily unseated and sent home because they contained too many Paul supporters. At the last minute, the Rules Committee changed the ballot access requirement from five states to eight states to prevent Ron Paul’s name from being entered into nomination. They even prevented his name from being mentioned from the podium!

That's worth remembering.

Take a minute to read the short article sent to Mr. Big Food by Young Americans for Liberty. No matter what your opinion of Paul, citizens elected delegates for Paul. Very few (none?) thought Paul could win the nomination, but what they did think is that they would have some input at the convention. They were denied the opportunity.

~~

The Ron Paul Effect: How the GOP Threw the Election By Disenfranchising Ron Paul Supporters

"The Power of the Media"

was a speech Lyndon B. Johnson delivered in Chicago to the National Association of Broadcasters the morning after after he withdrew from the 1968 Presidential race. According to Richard D. Heffner, editor of A Documentary History of the United States, 7th ed.,

[Johnson's] speech on the role of new electronic media in American life and politics, ... significantly pointed to broadcasting as an instrument of political activism, an interpretation not previously shared by most Americans who considered the medium essentially as an entertainment.

(Tip of the Cowboy hat to David Axelrod whose recent requests prompted me to look back at more  crappy old stuff.) 

Heffner's Documentary provides truncated versions of almost all of the documents. The full text of Johnson's remarks to the National Association of Broadcasters is here. And it is from that site I've cobbled together what, to me, are the most telling passages.  

But the real problem of informing the people is still with us. ...

How does a public leader find just the right word or the right way to say no more or no less than he means to say--bearing in mind that anything he says may topple governments and may involve the lives of innocent men?

How does that leader speak the right phrase, in the right way, under the right conditions, to suit the accuracies and contingencies of the moment when he is discussing questions of policy, so that he does not stir a thousand misinterpretations and leave the wrong connotation or impression?

How does he reach the immediate audience and how does he communicate with the millions of others who are out there listening from afar?

The President, who must call his people and summon them to meet their responsibilities as citizens in a hard and an enduring war, often ponders these questions and searches for the right course.

You men and women who are masters of the broadcast media surely must know what I am talking about. It was a long time ago when a President once said, "The printing press is the most powerful weapon with which man has ever armed himself." In our age, the electronic media have added immeasurably to man's power. You have within your hands the means to make our Nation as intimate and as informed as a New England town meeting.

Yet the use of broadcasting has not cleared away all of the problems that we still have of communications. In some ways, I think, sometimes it has complicated them, because it tends to put the leader in a time capsule. It requires him often to abbreviate what he has to say. Too often, it may catch a random phrase from his rather lengthy discourse and project it as the whole story.

How many men, I wonder, Mayor Daley, in public life have watched themselves on a TV newscast and then been tempted to exclaim, "Can that really be me?"

Well, there is no denying it: You of the broadcast industry have enormous power in your hands.

America: 1987, 2012, 2191?

“A Future American History Reviewed” by Karen A. Olson (of Boulder Denver at the time of publication) was the Colorado state prize winning essay in American Voices: Prize-winning Essays on Freedom of Speech, Censorship and Advertising Bans published by Philip Morris USA in 1987. More about the crappy old book here.

Olson’s essay consists of an exchange of six letters between the fictional characters Ben Fintz, editor of the journal, American History Revisited, and Karen, a contributing author to the journal. The year is 2191. It is clear from the first letter than Karen and Ben are both professionally and personally acquainted, and we surmise are of the same socioeconomic bracket in late 22nd American society. Ben has offered Karen a writing assignment, “an article on the merger between the executive and judicial branches” that occurred in the late 21st century. Not being an expert in “politilegal history,” Karen shies away from that assignment, but offers an alternative regarding the history of the abolition for the First Amendment.

The letter exchange chronicles Karen’s research and their reactions to her findings.

January 12, 2191

Dear Ben,
...

... I’ve recently read some publications from the 1980s and 1990s, and I’ve run across a few pieces that shed light on the events that preceded the abolition of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Prevailing wisdom maintains that this peculiar little law just withered away of its own irrelevancy. However, I think I could make the case that a series of well-meaning but misdirected efforts was actually responsible for the death of unrestricted freedom of speech and press.

Contrary to popular belief, Americans in the 20th century did appear to place value on the First Amendment. The rhetoric of the period shows that, at least in theory, they held the concept in high esteem. In my article, I would argue that they never intended to abolish any part of the so-call “bill of Rights”; I will develop the hypothesis that they simply cut away at certain applications of the amendment until, ultimately, there was no amendment left.

Karen goes on to acknowledge that Ben may not be sympathetic to the idea. Indeed, he is not.

Open Carry

What follows is a short essay I wrote (when we lived in Cincinnati) for the premier gun rights organization in Ohio. In late 2008, the editors of the Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OFCC) hard-copy newsletter wanted someone to write a piece advocating open carry, which is legal in Ohio. The issue also included a piece-- ironically written by someone using a pseudonym-- which was anti-open carry. The issue generated a lot of discussion.  I won, by the way. From a commenter:

In my opinion the winner of the debate is-

Marica Bernstein, by an intellectual knock out. She logically explained her position, and won me over.

And another:

Haven't gotten my newsletter yet but I'm already biased by the fact that one author wrote using her real name, and the other chose not to.

With minor edits, here it is. (I've not checked the validity of the links yet, and I *think* OFCC has helped to make restaurant carry laws more friendly. I live in Mississippi now so unless I'm traveling to Cincinnati-- where my carry permit isn't recognized-- I don't pay too much attention now to what's going on in Ohio.)

Open Carry 

Marica Bernstein 

(Authorʼs note: Every law-abiding Ohio citizen is free to choose to carry his or her gun openly, or to obtain a license from the state in order to legally carry a concealed handgun. This is an individualʼs decision. My task was to present arguments and reasons in favor of open-carry, and to motivate each reader to examine his or her choice. Thus, this short essay has two parts: the first presents a moral argument in favor of open-carry, the second offers practical reasons to open-carry.) 

Part 1 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Sir:

Your newspaper is well-known for its anti-gun position and advocacy of strong gun regulation. This position is in stark contrast to the beliefs of many readers. I am writing to strongly oppose all government regulation of gun ownership.

Specifically, I vehemently oppose... .

... Our great nation is a Republic.

... The Second Amendment ... .

... A natural right CANNOT be infringed....

Signed,

Anonymous 

“Anonymous” is afraid, and rightly so. He fears his rights will be infringed by those who do not understand the American ideals he clings to so dearly. He worries the NRA will compromise his guns straight down the river. He is afraid “they” are going to account for his ammunition. He laughs nervously at the suggestion they may even come for his guns. He wakes wondering, “If this should come to pass how will I protect those I love? How will I protect my country?” He is afraid, and so he does something. He writes, he blogs, he joins discussion boards. But despite his posturing, rational arguments, and BIG BOLD WORDS, he remains nameless, faceless. His tongue is stored behind zipped lips; his pen is holstered under a grey overcoat belonging to john doe; he carries his ferocious patriotism close to his heart but concealed, without a print. 

Anonymous is a doctor, a lawyer, a professor. He is a clerk, a stock-boy, a college student. Anonymous is a teacher, a mother, a nurse. She is a city-council woman, a chief executive officer, a small business owner. Anonymous has associates, clients, students, peers, and friends who know and respect him. They seek his opinion, they ask her for guidance when troubled. He sits on boards and she coaches games. Anonymous truly and deeply cares about citizensʼ natural and inalienable right to keep and bear arms, but youʼd never know it by looking. Those closest to Anonymous, his family and dearest friends, suspect he might have a gun under his robes as he delivers the sermon, but his congregation is none the wiser. Anonymous is a coward. 

What we care about makes us who we are. How we act defines us. We all want our actions to be consistent with our deepest cares. No one wants to be a coward in his own or anothersʼ eyes. Cowardice is a vice. On the moral spectrum, it is the opposite of rashness. Somewhere, between rashness and cowardice, lies the virtue of courage. 

Anonymous is certainly not rash. Were he rash, his letter would have been peppered his letter with four-letter words and would have included his name, address, and phone numbers. Were he rash, he would have brazenly thrown open the swinging saloon doors, barged in à la Liberty Valance waving his ar15, and shouted that he had the right, guaranteed by the United States Constitution, to take his gun where ever he wants, regulations be damned! 

Anonymous is not rash, but neither is he courageous. Were he courageous, he would have simply signed his name. Were he courageous, he would carry his sidearm legally and openly, when and where he believed it appropriate. In this way, his actions would reflect his deepest cares. As a courageous man or woman, open-carrying Anonymous, would bring the full weight of who he is, and who heʼs known to others to be, to a cause he cares about in the depths of his soul. Those who know and respect him, who seek his opinion and guidance, might view him differently, seeing his gun. But they might also be inspired to examine their own cares. They might have sought out open-carrying Anonymous to discover why he acts as he does. They, too, might have begun to care about the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, though, these opportunities, along with Anonymousʼ gun, are concealed from them. 

Anonymous is neither rash nor courageous. We must therefore conclude that in the face of his deepest fears, Anonymous acts as a coward. 

Part 2 

“The open carry of firearms is a legal activity in Ohio” (Ohioʼs Concealed Carry Law, Office of the Attorney General, revised 8/2008, p.19). (Note: Ohio Revised Code restricts this legal activity in some circumstances, e.g., in “liquor permit premises.” See References, below, for additional information.) There are sound arguments supporting open-carry (OC). (See, for example, OpenCarry.org). A quick look at the posts on the OFCC Open Carry Discussions forum reveals there are about as many reasons to OC as there are gun owners. In their own words, this is what the courageous men and women of Ohio said when asked “Why open carry?”. 

Rights not exercised are lost: “We are citizens not subjects.” “A statement that they have the right to do so.” “I envy the younger folks here who will live the majority of their years with the ability to carry legally.” 

Tactical advantage: “Quicker to draw.” 

Deterrence: “Some hood walking down the street is more likely to confine his targets to ʻeasy, defenseless preyʼ.” “It's a good idea for women in the woods to be [openly] armed.” “You could avoid even more trouble if you carry openly. If I were going to hold up a store and saw someone armed, I might reconsider and leave. In that case, you would be safer.” 

Desensitizing and educating the public: “It lets people see that guns can exist peacefully among law abiding people.” “They never see the positive side because CCW ʻkeeps our light hidden under a bushel basketʼ.” “We allowed people to politicize, demonize, and emotionalize guns far too much.” “Exposed firearms on ordinary citizens aren't something most people are used to, but should be.” “If more of us carried openly, more people would come to understand and accept.” “OC gives me a tool to help change the gun-grabber mindset.” “Isn't there a line in the Bible about ʻnot hiding your light under a basketʼ?” 

There is. Matthew 5:15 (King James Version): Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 

Financial: “Because I don't really have the money for a CC license, making OC my only legal option.” 

Self-image: “Although I mostly conceal I, for some unknown reason, feel like I'm a bad guy. I feel ashamed or nervous about my gun. When I OC I don't have that issue.” “I've only been OCing a couple months now & its liberating. I didn't like the feeling I had that I ʻshouldn'tʼ do something that is my right over concerns for other people opinions, including the police.” 

Appearance: “I WILL NOT wear a shirt untucked.” “I donʼt want to look like a slob with

my shirt untucked.” “I'm not going to change my wardrobe just so I can carry a gun, and I'm certainly not going to wear some kind of undergarment with a 'holster' built in.” 

Identity: “I like seeing others OC & it makes me feel safer, I figure someone else may like seeing it as well or be comforted knowing someone in the crowd is armed.” 

Like Anonymous, each of us has a name, a gun, a today, and, God willing, a tomorrow. Each of us acts freely and independently. The choices we make are ours alone: Anonymity or Identity? Concealed or Open? Cowardice or Courage? 
~~

References and additional resources

Attorney General State of Ohio, Nancy H. Rogers. Ohioʼs Concealed Carry Law (revised 0/08) http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/pubs/200808_ccw_book.pdf 

LAWriter Ohio Laws and Rules. 2923.121 Possession of firearm in liquor permit premises. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.121 

LAWriter Ohio Laws and Rules. 2923.122 Illegal conveyance or possession of deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance or of object indistinguishable from firearm in school safety zone. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.122 

LAWriter Ohio Laws and Rules. 2923.123 Illegal conveyance of deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance into courthouse - illegal possession or control in courthouse. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.123 

LAWriter Ohio Laws and Rules. 2923.16 Improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.16 

Ohioans for Concealed Carry. Ohio Open Carry Discussions. http://ohioccwforums.org/ viewforum.php?f=21 

OpenCarry.org. http://www.opencarry.org