The myth of the invincible NRA
The National Rifle Association, as every savvy politico knows, is all but invincible, a force of millions of dollars and grassroots power that keeps the U.S. Capitol and most state legislatures in its iron grip.
Or at least that's how people have thought of the NRA for a long time. But that may be about to change. In fact, Democrats could actually make the NRA toxic, at least in some places. All they have to do is try.
Better than almost any other interest group, the NRA wields influence through fear. Legislators believe that if they cross the NRA then the group will use its vast power to destroy them, activating its vast army of supporters to crush its enemies. The result is that gun safety legislation usually dies before it ever sees the light of day, as each proposed bill to regulate guns is met with, "Don't bother, the NRA would never allow it."
But right now we may be experiencing a unique moment, not just because the activism of the students from Parkland, Florida, is galvanizing the gun safety movement, but because in the process advocates are focusing on the NRA and the complicity of the Republican legislators who do its bidding.
On Wednesday, the groups Everytown For Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action published a two-page ad in The New York Times listing every member of Congress and the amount they had received from the NRA, with the obvious intention of having people look up their representatives to see whether they're being rewarded by the group, then perhaps confront them about it.
Is that likely to work? Isn't the NRA pretty popular? The answer is that it's complicated, and it depends on what districts and states we're talking about. Nationally, the NRA has in the past had approval ratings in the 40s or 50s. But they've relied on an aggressive effort to cultivate grassroots activism and convince legislators that their members are unusually motivated by the gun issue alone. The idea is that while there may be more Americans who oppose the NRA's positions than support them, theirs is a particularly active minority that will mobilize on the gun issue.
At some times and in some places, that's true. But it's also true that the NRA's ability to swing elections in its favor is largely a myth, one the organization works hard to cultivate and maintain. When Republicans win elections the NRA takes credit, saying that the outcome was due to their money and their voters. When Democrats have a good year, on the other hand, they grow strangely quiet. For instance, in 2012 they spent $13 million trying to defeat Barack Obama, to no effect. That year they also spent over $100,000 to help eight different Senate candidates; seven of them lost.
Yet the myth of the NRA's electoral potency persists, and it's one the organization depends on. But what if Democrats not only didn't take it as a given, but started attacking politicians who take the NRA's money? They wouldn't have to do it in deep-red places like Alabama or Wyoming where it would be futile. There are lots of Republicans in more moderate districts and states who have benefited greatly from the group's largesse, but who have never worried before that it might hurt them.
Entire article at:
http://theweek.com/articles/756680/myth-invincible-nra?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=twitter
= new reply since forum marked as read
