6 reasons why President Obama will defeat the NRA and win universal background checks

Something is going to happen this session in the US Congress that hasn’t happened in more than a decade: The National Rifle Association (NRA) is going to lose on a top priority issue. Here are six reasons why President Obama will win a victory on universal background checks.

6. Newtown is different

Some events are different. They puncture through the equilibrium of American politics and alter the political order. The Newtown massacre, unlike the bloodshed at Virginia Tech, Aurora, or Arizona, is still resonating with the public. We still read stories of what exactly the bullets sprayed from an assault rifle did to 20 young children.

And unlike those past mass-shooting tragedies, the full force of the American presidency will be harnessed to keep the memory of the Newtown children alive. With the help of the Obama White House, the families of the fallen will be with us for months, and the NRA will have a tough time opposing their impassioned grief.

The real battle: 2015

All of this points towards an Obama victory on background checks before the 2014 elections. Other items on the White House-led gun-control agenda aren't likely to be passed in a Republican-controlled House this term. But Obama is smart enough to know this. What he may hope to do is to win on background checks this session, and then ask the American people to put a new Congress in place in the 2014 mid-term elections. If the Democrats control both houses in 2015, they could pass a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

Given that presidents usually get shellacked in the midterm of their second term, as happened with Reagan, Bush, Eisenhower, Nixon, and even FDR, this is a tall order for Obama and his party. But if the voters respond to the new dynamic in gun control, then the real battle on guns will begin in 2015.

Jeremy D. Mayer is an associate professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University where he also directs the masters program in public policy.

6 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.