That last result is consistent with the hypothesis that the more people knew about the gun control legislation, the more likely they were to oppose it. Which reinforces a point that should be kept in mind whenever anyone cites public approval of a policy as a reason to support it: The public does not necessarily know what the hell it’s talking about. That is demonstrably true in the case of “assault weapon” bans, which received majority support in polls taken after the Sandy Hook massacre, probably because most people don’t know what an “assault weapon” is. Likewise, Obama is fond of saying that 90 percent of Americans support expanded background checks for gun buyers, which is what a CBS News survey conducted in January found. To be precise, 92 percent of respondents said they favored “a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers.” Yet Obama himself says “most Americans think that’s already the law.” How well-informed can support for requiring private sellers to run background checks be if most people who favor the idea don’t even realize it would represent a change in policy? Might these people be less inclined to support this proposal if they were not only familiar with current law but understood the reasons why background checks are not effective at keeping criminals from obtaining guns as well as the burdens and risks that a universal mandate would entail?
They’re going to wait a good long time, I think and hope.
As he points out, there is no duty on an elected representative to vote in accordance with the polls. Doing so would basically remove him from his responsibilities to vote his principles and conscience, and uphold his duty to the Constitution. The polls are ephemeral, and the only polls that matter are the ones on election day. Like Jacob Sullum, I’m glad as hell that we don’t have to put the Bill of Rights to a popular vote, because it would almost certainly lose.
They may have to start using shale to remain competitive with the U.S.
They worry that the country’s ambitious environmental goals are far less meaningful if the economy withers in achieving them.
You don’t say.
It would be a shame if they decided to start being economically sane.
[Update a while later]
More bad news for the warm-mongering econuts — scientists say that fracking is safe. And of course, they’ll believe it, because as they always tell us, we must follow the science.
Steve Hayward wonders if there could be a sitcom about think tankers.
Actually, it would be amusing to see the interactions between denizens of, say, AEI and Brookings. And imagine the snark from Cato, CEI and Reason. I’d cast Katherine Mangu-Ward as herself. But Kate Micucci might be able to do the job, too. And then there’s Jonah.
And now the media are full of stories about how the Tsarnaevs were all-American kids and “beautiful, beautiful boys” and maybe it was the boxing or the Ben Affleck movies or the classical music but, whatever it was, it was nothing to do with Islam. Nothing whatever.
Also, I fearlessly predict calls for, and introduction of legislation to ban the purchase and possession of recreational fireworks by the general public.
Play with numbers all you like, but the fact remains: After an actual bill was written, after there was an actual vote on that bill, after a concerted and well covered gun control campaign that lasted for months, and after Obama’s nationally televised Rose Garden Grand Remonstrance, only 47 percent of people were annoyed that nothing had been done.
This, suffice it to say, is not good for the Left. Bottom line: Even after a national horror, they can’t get 50 percent for a minor gun control bill. Republicans must be praying daily that Harry Reid follows through on his threat to reintroduce something into the Senate or, even better, that Michael Bloomberg decides to go into the likes of Montana and South Dakota and kick up a fuss in 2014. That will not end well.
West Wing (the teevee show, not the section of the White House) isn’t real:
The American President and The West Wing are not searing portrayals of effective political management. They’re drama. The first question a dramatist asks is not “Is this how it really works?” but “Is it entertaining?” And the second is “Can the audience understand this in less than thirty seconds?” Veracity is way, way down the list. If you want a clue to how realistic it all is, consider that Aaron Sorkin awarded Jed Bartlett the Nobel Prize in Economics. Then go interview some Nobel Prizewinning Economists and ask yourself whether a single one of them would have the desire, or the ability, to run for president.
Jed Bartlett doesn’t win policy debates because of his amazing tactical skills, his overpowering arguments, or the sheer persuasiveness of his granite-faced brand of urbane folksomeness. He wins them because Aaron Sorkin is a liberal and he wants Republicans to lose on the major issues. Unfortunately for liberals, Tom Coburn and John Boehner don’t have their lines faxed over from Hollywood every morning.
Their problem is, as Obama once said of himself, that they believe their own bull****.