Door Number Three

I had an "Aha!" moment yesterday, and I'm feeling unsettled by it. It may be something that seems both obvious and not at all unsettling for many reading this, but understand--until this realization, I had always felt that the political left and right in the United States took precisely the opposite positions on gun control from what they should have taken, if they were being intellectually consistent. It seemed obvious to me that the "do your own thing," revolutionaries committed to equality and empowering the downtrodden should be arming minorities, women, the elderly, the disabled, and so on. And it seemed just as obvious to me that the folks who practiced the civic religion of worshiping the flag, the military, and the police, and who were always calling for harsher punishments of criminals and crueler treatment of the poor would be the ones wanting to strip the weapons away from the populace to make it easier for the government to maintain order and compliance.

It truly baffled me why this was not the case. I chalked it up to being some combination of the Left's embrace of pacifism in the latter half of the 20th century, and the media playing the two sides against each other. Plenty of people disagreed with me, but none bothered to educate me. Those on the Left simply ran away and stuck their heads in the sand when they saw the word "gun." The Right verbally abused me for being stupid and unpatriotic, but couldn't provide an explanation that made any sense, because most of what the Right believes about the Left is wrong*.

I get it now, though. The key for me was looking at some of the arguments on the Left about other issues--arguments I myself have made on unrelated topics, like universal healthcare.

"It is scandalous that on the richest nation on Earth, we have people dying of treatable diseases."

"Why is there hunger in a country that throws away millions of pounds of food every day?"

They see resources as being something we all own (or should own) collectively. They feel that these resources are being misallocated, and that this is why some people don't have enough. The thinking is, "There's plenty to go around. The government should take some away from people who have too much, and give it to the people who don't have enough."

The conservatives respond, "I don't need the government to give me anything. I could take care of myself just fine if only the government would keep its mitts off my money and leave me alone."

They take the same approach to public safety. The conservative says he can defend himself just fine if only we'd let him arm himself as he pleases. The liberal wants the government to provide protection services. She wants to ride a public bus or train so she doesn't have to own a car, and she wants the police to be her bodyguards so she doesn't have to fight for her own survival.

I get it now, but I'm not entirely comfortable with either of these views. The conservative view is sensible, within the tiny bubble of concerns it considers, but it is myopic. Yes, maybe your business pays you enough to buy what you need for a comfortable life. But how comfortable will you be in a world full of thieves and beggars because the masses are left poor for the benefit of a handful of billionaires? There's a certain amount of psychopathy inherent in conservatism--an attitude of, "Screw you, I got mine," as though your neighbor starving or being victimized has no affect on your own life.

Liberals, though, are naive. I've heard them say things like, "I shouldn't have to take precautions against getting raped, because it's the rapists' responsibility not to rape me." Also, "If a robber threatens you, just give him what he wants. You don't have to fight," as though criminals haven't killed people just for thrills, from today's gang initiations back to Vikings killing unarmed monks. Tell Emmit Till that he should have just given his attackers what they wanted.

I don't like either of these views. We shouldn't have to choose between being an antisocial island or being dependent infants with no autonomy. I'm not comfortable with the dystopia that either of them presents as their utopia. Instead, I'd like to do what may sound impossible: marry these two views into a single vision that should appeal to both sides. To me, that would look something like this:

It is your civic duty to be as useful as possible. You can be a hero to your community by having skills and resources to share with them. Take pride in empowering others. "Teach a man to fish," if you can. If you can't, then share your fish with him so he can be free to do other things for you and your community.

I want you to learn to safely handle guns and keep one in your home, not because I want my neighbors to shoot each other or so you can wreck our society by overthrowing the government. Rather, I think the day may come when our government needs your help defending us all. Our military could be crippled and our leadership compromised. If we get to that point, I don't want it to be every-gunman-for-himself, with the gentle people left to perish. I want people of conscience, who care about their communities, to be available to grab their personally owned weapons and assemble into an ad hoc defense force to repel invaders. I want neighbors to take care of each other such that the police can just come when called instead of patrolling our streets like an occupying army. That's my vision for America--a nation of Minutemen Hoplites, not survivalist hermits or cities of sheep.

And it's not all about guns. I want as many of you as possible to know as much as possible about how to do everything necessary for survival. I want you to know how to grow food and how to process, preserve, and cook it. I want you to know how to fix each other's homes and furnaces and pipes and cars. I want you to know how to rig up a water purification system and electricity generation, whether it's your family, your neighbor, or your whole town who needs it. I want you to respond to tariffs on imports by saying, "So what? We can make that here." And I want the most celebrated people to be the ones who can help the most people in the biggest ways.

I want liberals to be more independent, and conservatives to be more empathetic. I don't think that puts me in the middle or makes me a watered-down thing we call a centrist because of its fear of choosing sides. This is option "C," where people show their love for their community by strengthening all individuals.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I was going to insert a link here, but I can't find it now. Cards Against Humanity did a poll to find out what Democrats and Republicans believe about each other. Both sides had many errors, like Republicans overestimating the percentage of Democrats who were gay, or Democrats overestimating the percentage of Republicans who were white supremacists, but the Republicans polled were generally more wrong than the Democrats were. That is to say, while both sides believe inaccurate stereotypes, the Republicans were more likely to have a view of their opponents that bore no actual resemblance to reality.