Shame and social transformation
Quentin Young would like to shame people whom he labels as “gun extremists.” As the editor of Colorado Newsline, he has a platform on which to do this, one whose tagline is “start with the truth” and that claims to present “fair and accurate reporting on politics, policy and other stories of interest to Coloradans.” Perhaps he and his magazine would do better to say that their goal is to analyze the news from a particular political perspective, but a quick read of the articles on the front page makes the site’s stance clear, so while there is an ingredient that is not labeled on the tin, no one should be in any doubt as to how “truth” is defined inside.
And there is nothing wrong with this. The notion that journalists are supposed to be objective has its use, to be sure. A piece of reporting ought to present the facts of the story, and when there are sides to consider, all sides should get a fair chance to be heard. But reporters are human beings, as are commentators, and I would rather have an honest admission of the angle from which the story is being viewed than a claim of omniscient disinterest.
One problem with the latter, for example, is in the choice of which facts are relevant. A story about bicycle lanes on city streets might discuss efforts at reducing carbon emissions and interview cyclists and car dealers to seek balance, but leave out any mention of the city’s typical air temperature and pressure and the width of the roadways. A piece on a sewage treatment plant may refer to water usage rates and the extent of emanating odors, while leaving out a reminder of cholera rates in the region prior to the construction of the facility. What facts are relevant is determined by the perspective of the writer, and readers who do not pay attention are left with the impression of a comprehensive report, an impression that molds the debate in ways that may not be fair to the subject.
Young does present his article as commentary, however, and that should alert readers to what he is doing—if his citation of gun control advocates uncritically and his rare mention of someone on the other side only to attack the person’s views were not a sufficient announcement—and it is his page to write what he wishes.
As this page is mine, and what he advocates cannot go unremarked upon. Young goes through the usual list of gun control talking points—the U.S. has the highest gun death rate of the developed world, the Supreme Court is stacked against reform, the framers of the Constitution in many cases held slaves, and on and on, at last concluding with a demand that:
“Castigation must befall anyone who obstructs gun violence prevention. Lawmakers should continue to enact measures to protect constituents from the daily massacres their communities suffer. But members of those communities can participate in the greater reform project by shaming gun proponents wherever they show themselves.”
This is his recognition that unless the Second Amendment is repealed or a new group of justices can be placed on the Supreme Court, legal restrictions such as magazine limits, “assault weapons” bans, and red flag laws are unlikely to survive constitutional challenges. He is left with fantasies of sending supporters of gun rights on a naked walk from the Great Sept of Baelor to our domiciles where we keep our guns, or he might be satisfied to put us in stocks on the town square, but he is not going to tolerate us any longer.
To which I respond by inviting him to go use as much force as he likes in the compacting of finely divided mineral particles. But I would also like to ask him what he thinks about all the attempts to curtail freedom of expression in the pursuit of someone’s interpretation of public interest. The First and Second Amendments being next to each other in the Bill of Rights may be a matter of chance, but the fact that they occur together in a document designed to forbid the government from meddling in our rights is not to be ignored. Young sees the Second Amendment as the founders’ “biggest mistake” after their errors on slavery and the lack of protection for women’s rights, and it is his right to say so, but what can be done to one protected right can be done to all of them.
And has been done and is being done as I write this. I do not know Young’s position on abortion rights and will not speculate, but the treatment of supporters of gun rights that he advocates is exactly the same as what anti-choice activists employ. It is the same as what a group of hecklers do to a speaker in a lecture hall. It is what Democratic Party ideologues do to leftist voters in primaries as a part of the program to keep progressives from being nominated.
In those cases and in so many more like them, depending on one’s point of view, this technique may appear vile, but that likely will not distress Young and those of his mindset. What ought to trouble him is the effectiveness of his tactic.
We do not live in the Middle Ages, no matter how much the Christofascists would like the situation to be otherwise. Shame as a lever of social manipulation is a failing art. Yes, it works within groups, as all the yammering about cancel culture illustrates, but if I am not a member of the group in question—if, say, I am not a party-line Democrat, a Razorbacks fan, or a Traditionalist Catholic—attacking me with in-group ideology or mores will only confirm me in what I, in fact, am. It is hard for me not to sneer at a Trump supporter, for example, but such a person and I have no language and few values in common, and thus my criticisms fall wide of the mark from the viewpoint of the MAGA voter.
What I work to remind myself—not always successfully—and what Young should consider is that to effect social change, we have two choices, either to vanquish our opponents, however long that may last, or to implant in their souls our ideological frameworks. He certainly is not achieving the latter with me, and for him, the former is impractical, since he brings nothing but his smugness to the fight.