Following the recent Oregon school shooting, many politicians rushed to the
microphones to call for new gun control laws. President Obama even called on
gun control supporters to "politicize" the shooting, while some members of
Congress worked to establish a special commission on gun violence.
The reaction to the shooting stands in stark contrast to the reaction to the
US military's bombing of an Afghanistan hospital run by the international humanitarian
(and Nobel Peace Prize winning) group Doctors Without Borders.
Our Nobel Peace Prize winning president did apologize to his fellow Nobel
laureate for the bombing. However, President Obama has not "politicized" this
tragedy by using it to justify ending military involvement in Afghanistan.
No one in Congress is pushing for a special commission to examine the human
costs of US militarism, and the mainstream media has largely ignored Doctors
Without Borders' accusation that the bombing constitutes a war crime.
The reason for the different reactions to these two events is that politicians
prefer to focus on events they can "politicize" to increase government power.
In contrast, politicians ignore incidents that raise uncomfortable questions
about US foreign policy.
If the political and media elites were really interested in preventing future
mass shootings, they would repeal the federal "gun-free" schools law, for example.
By letting shooters know that their intended victims are defenseless, the gun-free
schools law turns schoolchildren into easy targets.
Even some who oppose gun control are using the shooting to justify expanding
federal power instead of trying to repeal unconstitutional laws. Some opponents
of new gun control laws say Congress should expand the federal role in identifying,
tracking, and treating those with "mental health problems." This ignores the
fact that many shooters were using psychotropic drugs prescribed by a mental
health professional when they committed the horrible acts. Furthermore, creating
a system to identify and track anyone with a "mental health problem" could
deny respect for individuals' Second Amendment and other rights because they
perhaps once sought counseling for depression while going through a divorce
or coping with a loved one's passing.
While our political and media elites are eager to debate how much liberty
people must sacrifice for safety, they are desperate to avoid debating the
morality of our foreign policy. To admit that the US military sometimes commits
immoral acts is to admit that the US government is not an unalloyed force for
good. Even many proponents of our recent wars support using the US military
for "humanitarian" purposes. Thus they are as reluctant as the neoconservatives
to question the fundamental goodness of US foreign policy.
Anyone who raises constitutional or moral objections to the US use of drones,
bombs, indefinite detention, and torture risks being attacked as anti-American
and soft on terrorism. The smear of "terrorist apologist" is also hurled at
those who dare suggest that it is our interventionist foreign policy, not a
hatred of freedom, that causes people in other countries to dislike the United
States. Which is a more logical explanation for why someone would resent America
-- a family member killed in a drone attack launched by the US military or
rage over our abundance of liberty?
The disparate reactions to the Oregon school shooting and the Afghanistan
hospital bombing shows the political class is unwilling and unable to acknowledge
that the US government cannot run the world, run our lives, or run the economy.
Clearly, politicians will never stop expanding government and give us back
our lost liberties unless and until the people demand it.
