Amanpour and Company

HISTORIAN HEATHER COX RICHARDSON WROTE THIS WEEK, QUOTE, AMERICA'S GUN FREE FOR ALL IS A SYMPTOM OF THE TAKEOVER OF OUR NATION BE A RADICAL EXTREME -- LETTERS FROM AMERICAN. HERE SHE IS SPEAKING TO MICHELLE MARTIN ABOUT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AND THE FAILURE TO TACKLE GUN CONTROL. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US. >> IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE. >> HOW DID WE GET HERE? IT IS A FACT, IS IT NOT, THAT A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS FAVOR SOME FORM OF GUN SAFETY REGULATIONS, CORRECT? >> OH, YES. >> SO BEGIN THAT A MAJORITY -- AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS FAVOR THESE KINDS OF THINGS, HOW DID WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE A MINORITY OF THE POPULATION, INCLUDING A GUN-OWNED MINORITY CONTROLS THE POLICIES IN WHICH WE ALL LIVE? SO TAKE US BACK TO THE BEGINNING. OBVIOUSLY, THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION IS CENTRAL TO THAT. DID THEY ALWAYS HAVE THIS UNCOMPROMISING POSITION TOWARDS REGULATION OF FIREARMS? >> NO, THEY DIDN'T. THAT'S PART OF THE INTERESTING STORY OF HOW WE GOT TO THIS MOMENT. THE NRA STARTS IN 1871. IT STARTS FOR MEN WHO FOUGHT IN THE CIVIL WAR TO CONTINUE THEIR FIREARM SKILLS DOING THINGS LIKE HAVING SHOOTING GAMES AT TIN CANS FOR EXAMPLE. AT THE SAME TIME, THERE WAS THE RISING OF SPORT OF SHOOTING FOR WHICH THERE WERE VERY LARGE PRIZES. SO AMERICANS GET TOGETHER AND BEGIN TO HAVE SHOOTING COMPETITIONS THAT ARE UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION. THAT ASSOCIATION IS DESIGNED NOT ONLY TO PROMOTE THE SPORT OF SHOOTING WITH, THE CAMARADERIE OF THE CAMPFIRE FROM THE CIVIL WAR DAYS AND ALSO GUN SAFETY. WHEN I WAS GROWING UP, THE NRA WAS IN OUR COMMUNITY TEACHING SAFETY. THAT CHANGES DRAMATICALLY IN THE 1980s. >> WHY DID IT CHANGE AND HOW DID IT CHANGE? >> THE STORY OF THE CHANGE IS AN INTERESTING ONE BECAUSE IT'S DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN OUR POLITICS. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GUN SAFETY OR REGULATION IS THE IDEA THAT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT GUNS. YOU CAN'T SEPARATE THAT ISSUE OFF. IT'S VERY MUCH PART OF WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR AMERICAN POLITIC IN THE 1970s AND 1980s. WHAT HAPPENED THEN WAS A DRAMATIC BACKLASH AGAINST THE NEW DEAL COALITION THAT PROVIDED A BASIC SAFETY NET AND PROMOTE INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT WORLD WE HAD LIVED UNDER SINCE THE 1930s AND ESPECIALLY SINCE THE 1950s HAD PROTECTED CIVIL RIGHTS. THAT BACKLASH TAKES SHAPE IN THIS IMAGE OF THE AMERICAN COWBOY WHO STANDS ALONE AGAINST A GRASPING GOVERNMENT, A GOVERNMENT THAT BY THE WAY IN THE 1870s WHEN THE COWBOY IMAGE ROSE WAS CALLED A SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT. THAT WHOLE LANGUAGE IS NOT NEW. THAT IMAGE OF THE GUN TOTING COWBOY TAKE ITS SHAPE FROM PEOPLE LIKE BARRY GOLD WATER WHO RUNS FOR PRESIDENT AS A REPUBLICAN AS A COWBOY. IT'S THE IMAGE REAGAN PICKS UP. WHAT THAT IMAGE DOES IS SOLIDIFY A POLITICAL MOVEMENT THAT PUSHES AGAINST BUSINESS REGULATION PRIMARILY, TAX, THE IDEA OF INVESTMENT IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PART OF THAT ATTACK ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION FOCUSES ON THINGS LIKE CIVIL RIGHTS OF COURSE, BUT ALSO ON REGULATIONS ABOUT GUNS. AND THAT IMAGE OF THE LOAN COWBOY IS REALLY THE IMAGE THAT COMES OUT OF THE 1980s. YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THINGS LIKE IN 19 # 7, THE BLOCK BUSTER IMAGE WAS THAT OF LUKE SKY WALKER WHO WAS THAT GUY TAKING ON THE EMPIRE. A LOT OF AMERICANS ENVISION THEMSELVES AS THAT IN THAT PERIOD. THAT'S WHEN IT COMES ABOUT PROTECTING THE SPORT OF SHOOTING, WHICH IS STILL A BIG SPORT IN AMERICA AND BECOMES ABOUT WHAT THEY CALL GUN RIGHTS, THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO ACT AS HE ALMOST ALWAYS WISHES. >> SO HOW DID IT GET TO BE THAT THE LEVEL OF VIOLENCE THAT WE ARE NOW EXPERIENCING IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THAT THIS KIND OF VIOLENCE, ESPECIALLY MASS VIOLENCE HAS BECOME SO PREVALENT AND THE POLITICAL SYSTEM SEEMS COMPLETELY UNABLE TO DEAL WITH IT. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? >> IT'S CRAZY. I WILL ANSWER THAT, BUT IT'S REALLY WORTH SITTING FOR A MOMENT WITH THE IDEA THAT WE ARE LITERALLY A COUNTRY IN WHICH OUR CHILDREN, OUR ELDERLY, OUR CHURCH-GOERS, ARE GUNNED DOWN, AND OUR SYSTEM SAYS, THIS IS THE PRICE OF FREEDOM, AS BILL O RILEY ONCE PUT IT. THE FACT THAT WE GOT HERE WHERE WE HAVE LEGISLATORS SAYING THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT GUN SAFETY REGULATIONS, AGAIN IS ABOUT POLITICS. SO BEGINNING IN 1986, WE GET THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BEGINNING TO TALK ABOUT VOTER SUPPRESSION. THEY CALL IT BALLOT INTEGRITY AT THE TIME, BUT THEY'RE EXPECTING TO THROW BLACK PEOPLE OFF THE ROLLS. WE GET OPPOSITION TO THE MOTOR ACT OF 1983, WHICH ENABLES PEOPLE TO ENROLL AT VEHICLE REJS TRAGS PLACES. WE INCREASINGLY GET THE FOCUS ON VOTER SUPPRESSION AND MAKING SURE ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE GET TO HAVE A SAY IN OUR SOCIETY. NOW, AT THE SAME TIME, GERRYMANDERING IN THE STATES WHICH REALLY TAKES OFF AFTER 2010 WITH WHAT WAS CALLED OPERATION RED MAP, THE IDEA OF CONTROLLING STATE LEGISLATURES BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN SUCH A WAY THEY COULD REDISTRICT THOSE STATES TO FAVOR REPUBLICANS TOOK OFF AFTER 2010 AND THEN OF COURSE WE GET A NUMBER OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS LIKE THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION THAT ENABLES CORPORATIONS TO POUR MONEY INTO POLITICAL CONTESTS AND SHELBY VERSUS HOLDER DECISION THAT CUTS BACK ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. THOSE THINGS ENABLE PEOPLE LIKE THE NRA TO FUNNEL MONEY INTO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND ALSO MAKE SURE THE MAJORITY REALLY DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO INFLUENCE THE DIRECTION OF OUR COUNTRY. IF YOU THROW ON TOP OF THAT THE SENATE AND THE FACT THAT THE SNIT FILIBUSTER WHICH HAS BEEN SO EXTRAORDINARILY ABUSED OF LATE, IT MEANS THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DON'T GET TO HAVE A SAY IN THEIR GOVERNMENT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HORROR THAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN THE COUNTRY, PART OF THE FURY, I THINK, IS THAT THE MURDER OF OUR CHILDREN AND OUR ELDERLY AND OUR CHURCH-GOERS ILLUSTRATES THAT WE ARE IN FACT EXPERIENCING A TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY, AND A LOT OF THE MAJORITY IS NO LONGER WILLING TO PUT UP WITH THAT. >> FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN WAS SHOT AND KILLED BY A GUN. HIS PRESS SECRETARY WAS PARALYZED FOR LIFE. TIM McCARTHY AND A POLICE OFFICER, AND AFTER THAT, THEN CONGRESSMAN SCHUMER, NOW SENATOR INTRODUCED LEGISLATION KNOWN AS THE BRADY HAND GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT. NOW, RONALD REAGAN ACTUALLY ENDORSED THIS BILL, BUT THE NRA OPPOSED IT. THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR INSTANCES WHERE MEMBERS OF THE NRA CAME FORWARD AND SAID TRIGGER LOCKS ARE ACCEPTABLE. BUT SOMEHOW PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BE KILLED. THE QUESTION IS IS THE NRA MORE POWERFUL THAN THE POLITICAL LEADERS WHO REPRESENT ALL OF THESE PEARS? HOW DOES A SMALL INTEREST GROUP YIELD SO MUCH POWER OVER PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> IT DOES. IT'S WORTH REMEMBERING FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE NRA, THEY'RE EXTRAORDINARILY IMPRESSIVE AT SWAYING LAWMAKERS. NONETHELESS, THERE'S PLENTY OF LOB BYIESTS THAT DO THAT SORT OF THING. NONETHELESS, I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT GUN SAFETY ISSUES IN AMERICA, THE CONFLUENCE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE NRA, WHICH BY THE WAY REALLY NO LONGER REPRESENTS THE AVERAGE GUN OWNER. THE NRA RUPT REPTS THE GUNS ARMS INDUSTRY APP AMMUNITIONS. THEY ARE BOTH EXPENSIVE AND SALES ARE OFF THE CHARTS. SO YOU HAVE THE INTEREST OF THE NRA AS A BODY THAT REPRESENTS THE GUN INDUSTRY. YOU ALSO HAVE THE CONFLUENCE OF OUR POLITICAL MOMENT WITH THAT. THE HELLER DECISION THAT JUSTICE -- VERY FAMOUSLY WROTE THE OPINION FOR IN 2008 SAID THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT REGULATE UNDER THE TERMS THAT -- THE CASE THAT WERE IN THAT CASE, AND SCALIA WAS FAMOUS FOR HIS INSISTENCE ON WHAT HE CALLED AN ORIGINALIST INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE WHOLE POINT OF ORIGINALISM AND THE JUSTICE AND THE SUPREME COURT IS TO GET BEYOND REGULATION, TO GET BEFORE REGULATION TO SAY THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION DIDN'T HAVE THIS SORT OF REGULATION OF GUNS AND BUSINESS AND CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE MANY THINGS THE MODERN DAY REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE. SO THE IDEA OF REGULATION OF GUNS IS NOT JUST ABOUT GUNS. IT'S A WEDGE ISSUE THAT TALKS MUCH MORE LARGELY ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT, ABOUT WHO GETS TO HAVE A SAY IN OUR GOVERNMENT AND WHAT THAT GOVERNMENT CAN DO. AT THE SAME TIME, THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE THAT HAVE THAT CULTURAL IMAGE OF THE COWBOY. AND THE IDEA OF HAVING YOUR GUNS -- WHICH AGAIN, I GREW UP WITH PEOPLE HAVING GUNS ON THE BACK OF THEIR PICKUP TRUCKS. IT WAS NOT PART OF PEOPLE'S POLITICAL IDENTITY. IT BECOMES SO AFTER A POLITICAL MOVEMENT AFTER 1980 AS THIS IMAGE OF A COWBOY STANDING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WHICH DOES REGULATE WHAT MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY CAN DO. WE'RE IN THIS WEIRD MOMENT, WHICH IS A NEW MOMENT. IT'S VERY MUCH A NEW MOMENT IN OUR SOCIETY BECAUSE NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE NRA BUT BECAUSE OF THE CONFLUENCE OF THE INTEREST OF WHAT IS NOW THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION WITH THE POLITICAL MOMENT THAT SAYS THAT ANY KIND OF REGULATION IS BAD, AND THOSE TWO THINGS HAVE MARRIED AND THEY HAVE PRODUCED THIS AMERICAN IDENTITY THAT DEPENDS ON THE IDEA THAT A SINGLE PERSON CAN BE ARMED TO THE TEETH AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT THE REST OF US CAN DO ABOUT IT. >> SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS IS NO LONGER JUST A POLITICAL ISSUE. IT'S BECOME A MATTER OF IDENTITY? AND SOME ARGUE, JUST TO BE FRANK ABOUT IT, IT'S BECOME PART OF WHITE MALE IDENTITY, OR WHITE NATIONALIST IDENTITY. IF FREEDOM IS SO PROFOUND, WHY ARE SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE MOST LIKELY TO OWN GUNS WITH THE MOST WILLING TO LIMIT ACCESS TO ABORTION? JUST TO BE BRUTALLY FRANK ABOUT IT. WHY ARE THEY FAR MORE LIKELY TO OWN A GUN, BUT WHY DO EVANGELICALS ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO DISFAVOR ABORTION RIGHTS? SO HOW IS THERE THIS BELIEF IN FREEDOM, BUT THAT DOESN'T EXTEND TO WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO CONTROL THEIR BODIES? >> SO I THINK THAT YOU ARE MISSING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LONGIC AND IMAGE. SO LOGICALLY, OF COURSE, WHICH IS WHERE SOMEBODY LIKE BARRY GOLD WATER WOULD HAVE BEEN WHERE HE SAID, I DON'T WANT TO GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE CIVIL RIGHTS. I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE WOMEN'S RIGHTS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN A LIBERTARIAN BRANCH OF FREEDOM. THAT'S NO LONGER WHERE WE ARE. WE'RE A GENERATION FURTHER ALONG THAN THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS SO CRUCIAL ABOUT THAT COWBOY IMAGE WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THE 1980s AND POST1980s IS THAT IMAGE WAS NEVER ABOUT FREEDOM. THAT WASN'T EVEN REALLY PART OF THE LANGUAGE WHEN IT ROSE IN THE LATE 1860s IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. IT WAS THE IMAGE OF A MAN ALMOST ALWAYS UNMARRIED AND A WHITE MAN. COWBOYS WERE HISTORICALLY MEN OF COLOR. THAT MAN LIVED IN WHAT I CALL A WORLD OF BROMANCE. THAT IS THERE ARE NOT WOMEN, AND THE COWBOY IS THIS INDEPENDENT GUY WHO DOESN'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT FOR ANYTHING. WHICH IS NOT TRUE. THE GOVERNMENT IS MORE INVESTED IN THE AMERICAN PLAINS THAN IT IS IN ANYTHING IN THE COUNTRY. AT THE SAME TIME, HE'S USING HIS GUN, AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN A COWBOY SETTING BECAUSE IT SPOOKS THE COW. HE'S USING HIS GUN TO PROTECT HIS PEOPLE AGAINST THE BAD GUYS. AND THOSE BAD GUYS ARE INDIGENOUS AMERICANS, MEXICAN AMERICANS, SOMETIMES CHINESE AMERICANS, AND MEXICANS AS WELL. THERE IS ENCODED IN THAT COWBOY IMAGERY, NOT ONLY RACISM BUT A BRAND OF SEXISM. AND THAT DOVE TAIL BEAUTIFULLY WITH THE RISE OF EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY IN THAT SAME PERIOD. SO PEOPLE WHO EMBRACE THAT COWBOY IMAGE NOW, AND WE KNOW ABOUT 3% OF AMERICANS OWN 50% OF OUR GUNS. THEY'RE NOT EMBRACING A LIBERTARIAN WORLD WHERE THEY SAY, WOMEN CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. THEY'RE LOOKING AT AN IMAGE IN WHICH THEY'RE THE ONES ON TOP AND GET TO EXERCISE DOMINANCE OVER WITH IMAND PEOPLE OF COLOR, AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO STOP THEM FROM DOING T. THEN IT SEEMS VERY LOGICAL THAT YOU TAKE AWAY WOMEN'S RIGHTS AT THE SAME TIME YOU TAKE AWAY YOUR OWN RIGHT TO OWN AR-15s. >> TO THOSE THAT CONSIDER IT UNACCEPTABLE, WHAT DO THEY DO? HOW IS THAT ADDRESSED? >> I THINK YOU HAVE PUT YOUR THUMB ON A CRUCIAL PROBLEM, AND THAT IS IN THE 1980s, THE BEGINNING TO START THIS SNOW BALL ROLLING OF BEING AN AMERICAN IS BEING A GOOD COWBOY HAS NOW MOVED BEYOND THE POLITICAL CLASS THAT STARTED THAT. I THINK THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IS NOW RUNNING BEHIND THOSE PEOPLE WHO INSIST THEIR GUN OWNERSHIP IS CRUCIAL TO THEIR IDENTITY. THAT'S A CRISIS. OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY CREATE THIS KIND OF MINORITY RULE. WE HAVE GOTTEN HERE BY A SERIES OF DELIBERATE DECISIONS, AND THEY ARE DELIBERATE DECISIONS THAT HAVE MANAGED TO GIVE US A SYSTEM THAT FRANKLY DOES NO LONGER WORK. THINK ABOUT IT REALISTICALLY, ARE AMERICANS GOING TO PUT UP WITH MINORITY RULE? EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE IN OUR HISTORY, WE HAVE GOTTEN A PRESIDENT WHO WAS ELECTED WITH THE MINORITY OF POPULAR VOTE, RUTHER FORT B. HAYNES. BUT IT'S HAPPENING ALL THE TIME NOW. WE NEED TO FIX THIS. THE WAY WE FIX IT IS FOR PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT IT TO SPEAK UP AND DEMAND THAT WE FIX IT. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT MEANS VOTING, BUT IT ALSO MEANS TALKS ABOUT HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS AND WHO WE ARE AS AMERICANS. THAT WE ARE NOT COWBOYS. WE ARE NOT SHAME. WE'RE THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY AFTER SHANE RIDES OFF AND WE MOVE THAT PERSON OFF STAGE, AND WE WRITE OUR GOVERNMENT IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IN FACT DOES PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PER SUIT OF HAPPINESS, AND OUR GOVERNMENT IS A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE. THAT'S OUR HISTORY. THAT'S WHO WE ARE, NOT THIS SKEWED MOMENT THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE IN THE 20th CENTURY BY A MINORITY REALLY REACHING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1929 WHEN THEY BEGAN TO MESS AROUND WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. THIS IS AN UNUSUAL MOMENT. WHAT I'M HOPING WE CAN DO IS RECLAIM THE MEANING OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. WE CAN ONLY DO THAT IF EVERYONE PITCHES IN. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US TODAY.