Hindsight from The New Gun Week October 1, 1998
Politics and Government Is for Players
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive EditorIn the days immediately following the release of Independent Prosecutor Ken Starr's Grand Jury Report, Bill Clinton's defenders have repeatedly said that his mistakes do not warrant prohibiting him from exercising his "mandate" from the American people.
They have also suggested that he has done so much to strengthen the American economy, to advance our prestige abroad, and to improve the social well being of Americans in general that the people of this nation should overlook his hypocrisy, philandering, lying and moral bankruptcy so that he can continue to lead the country.
However, some of the people who have been closest to him-in his cabinet like Donna Shalala and Robert Reich, on his staff like George Stephanopolous and Dee Dee Meyers, and in his party like Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut or Rep. John Dingell of Michigan-reply that he has acted immorally, has lied and has no useful remaining presidency to preserve. Meanwhile, about 60 major newspapers, including the national USA Today, have called upon Clinton to resign.
While this debate has been going on, I have been intrigued by the frequent, if improper, use of the political term "mandate," particularly by liberal Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York.
"Mandate" has meant different things at different times in history, but always suggests that the people have overwhelmingly commanded a leader to follow a specific agenda.What Clinton Landslide?
According to William Safire's definite, 900-page guide to the new language of politics-Safire's New Political Dictionary (Random House, 1993)-the leading definition of "mandate" is "the authority to carry out a program conferred on an elected official; especially strong after a LANDSLIDE victory (Safire's emphasis)."
Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 were far from real mandates from the people. In neither victory did he win the support of more than 50% of Americans who actually voted for president. In the 1992 election at least 55.9% of the eligible voting-age population actually voted for all of the candidates. However, in 1996, the total number voting was only 49% of the voting-age population. Thus less than one-quarter of eligible Americans elected Clinton president the last time around.
That's far from a mandate, even using some of Safire's examples of the twisted definitions of mandate that have been created by politicians here and abroad to suggest that they are following the commands of an overwhelming proportion of the population in pursuing their own, not the people's, agenda.
If the 9 million or so voters who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 had not stayed home on election day 1996, the final outcome might have been different. But they did. Perot apparently excited people in his first Reform Party campaign, possibly giving many hope that real changes were possible, and drawing over 19 million votes. But he dropped to only about 8 million votes in '96, while Bob Dole pulled almost as many votes as Bush did four years earlier, and Clinton gained about 2.5 million.American Non-Voters
There are two points to be made from all of these numbers. The first, of course, is that Clinton never had a mandate-never even won a majority of the popular vote-but like many other politicians, he and his party claimed one. The second is that by staying home in such numbers in 1996, Americans encouraged Clinton to act with even greater disregard for the law and the sensibilities of the nation.
Maybe one shouldn't spend too much time pursuing Clinton's abuse of his high office; instead one should take a look at how important are the people who stay at home and fail to exercise their duty to vote and help determine the policies politicians will follow.
Some may chalk this up to voter apathy, but what is apathy, really, except an expression that one doesn't care. Gunowners cannot afford to be apathetic, yet many are. I recently learned that a pro-gun county organization held a candidates' night at which 15 candidates turned out to speak with an audience of only 12 of the gun group's members. The candidates, being serious about their prospects, stayed and talked with the meager audience they outnumbered.
In another anecdote from the 1996 presidential election, a husband and wife of my acquaintance in another state were the only two people to show up for a Kemp-Dole presidential campaign rally at which seven campaign staffers appeared. Again, the Kemp-Dole people were serious and went through their whole presentation for the audience of two.
A final example: In Rochester, NY, during the current primary campaign for the Senate seat now held by Republican Alphonse D'Amato, Democratic hopeful Rep. Charles Schumer and his staff outlined his economic platform for an audience of 12.Gunowners and Apathy
This question of apathy, disinterest and disengagement from politics is especially important for the average gunowner. Many folks complain that their right to keep and bear arms is being constantly infringed by elected officials who violate their oath to uphold the whole Constitution. Some even suggest that the gun issue should merely be brought before the Supreme Court to restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place. Others recommend that elected officials who violate their oath be removed from office for abrogating that oath and committing perjury.
These approaches ignore the fact that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are all driven by the will of the majority as expressed in the snapshots obtained from public opinion polls and on election day, when the most accurate poll of all is conducted.
When millions of people fail to vote, they let others decide the directions that all three branches of government will take. When half or more of the total eligible voting population walks away from the opportunity to help set the agenda and determine the course that leaders will take, it is not surprising that politicians like Clinton declare that they have a mandate and do as they please. They figure that people must indeed be satisfied or don't care what happens.
The millions who miss the right and the responsibility to vote are seldom swayed en masse, even with the power of communications media like television. The millions are won over one vote at a time. If one wants to convince millions of unknown fellow citizens to support or oppose a particular candidate or policy, one must begin with the neighbor, co-worker or relative one already knows.
If one wants to get close to the politicians, one must become involved in the political process. That doesn't just mean voting, even though voting is probably level one in Citizenship 101. That doesn't mean just registering with a political party, although that may be level two. (In many states, if you do not affiliate with a political party when you register to vote, you may be excluded from primary elections, and thus lose an opportunity to pick who the candidates on the final ballot will be.)Only a Start
Affiliating with a particular party is only a start. From there one may become a player by participating in party meetings and caucuses, by attending party or candidate social functions and fund-raising events, or by volunteering to help the party, or a candidate of that party, to perform one or more of the hundreds of tasks that are part and parcel of the political process.
If one doesn't really have the time or the resources to become more active as a volunteer and supporter, one can at least perform more basic, less time-consuming, but important, functions. It doesn't take much time to obtain a bumper sticker and put it on your vehicle or put out a house or yard sign for a candidate. In many cases, if you phone in your willingness to allow a yard sign on your property, volunteers will come out and put it where you tell them.
For the more committed there are dozens of tasks one can perform as a volunteer, from circulating nominating petitions, addressing envelopes, helping to man an office, distributing literature and hang tabs for door knobs, holding a coffee hour or other event at which you can introduce the candidate to your friends, neighbors, relatives and co-workers.
You don't have to start in a presidential, or even congressional campaign, but before you know it, you might be invited into a national campaign.
This is Part One of a two-part commentary to be continued in the next issue.
The New Gun Week is published three times a month by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th. Hindsight is a commentary written by SAF President and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may be reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the publication. For more information or to subscribe, write Gun Week, PO Box 488, Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, Production manager-JohnSAF@Compuserve.com or gunweeksaf@broadviewnet.netAlso, check out the New Gun Week at http://www.GunWeek.com