Elitist Hypocrite

What would William Safire, the award-winning columnist for the New York Times, have written about the term "elitist hypocrite" used in the recent National Rifle Association Stand and Fight ad  that criticized President Barack Obama's position on putting armed guards in schools?

Safire wrote a weekly column called On Language that analyzed the usage of contemporary language, including unusual phrases. Following his approach, let's look at the meaning of these words  - "elitist" and "hypocrite." What do these words mean by themselves as particular parts of speech, together as a phrase, and in the context of our nation's political debate about gun control and violence?

Dictionary.com defines an elitist in adjective form as "(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society."

The same source provides two definitions for the noun, hypocrite. With President Obama being an elected public official and public figure, let's use the definition: "a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements."

"Elitist" finds part of its roots in old French, meaning selection or choice, while in Middle English, the word "elitist" became a "chosen person."

A "hypocrite" in the Greek language refers to an actor - "one who pretends to be what he is not."

In the phrase itself, the adjective, elitist, complements the noun, hypocrite. It suggests that this person is the worst of all hypocrites.

Political Context

The NRA ad declares that Obama is an "elitist hypocrite" because he questions the effectiveness of having armed guards in all public schools, while his daughters have them at their private school.

In reality, the guards at the Obama girls' private school are secret agents, and they are responsible for protecting these girls for national security reasons. Our country has an obligation to protect its president and his family so that the president can fulfill the duties of his office without fearing daily for the security of his daughters.

Here's what Obama did say about armed guards at schools: "I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools," Mr. Obama said during a recent interview on the NBC News program Meet the Press. "And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem."

Representative Leadership

The national problem of gun violence requires solutions that the majority of Americans support and can accept. President Obama has asked Congress to pass four measures:

1) Require background checks on all gun sales.
2) Restore a ban on "military-style assault weapons."
3) Ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds.
4) Toughen penalties on people who sell guns to those who can't have them.

Meanwhile, NRA leadership has been pushing for armed guards in all schools, while positioning the NRA and its membership against Obama's four proposals.

Just as members of Congress and our President are elected and have a responsibility to represent their constituents' beliefs on a particular issue, so does the NRA leadership. A look at two polls reveals that the NRA leadership is not considering its members' beliefs on gun control. Rather, it is acting contrary to the desires of a majority of its members.

Those Polls

A May 2012 poll commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz reveals strong support for gun control among NRA members. The poll found that 74 percent, or 3 of every 4 NRA members, agree "criminal background checks should be required before selling a gun to a potential buyer."

A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted earlier this January found even higher support for background checks being required for all gun purchases (whether from a licensed dealer or via an unlicensed private individual and including those at gun shows). Of NRA members who were respondents to this survey, 85 percent indicated that they favor background checks on all gun purchases. This compared to 9 in 10 Americans who support background checks, whether they had a gun in their household or not.

Looking at Obama's measure to ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds, the same New York Times/CBS News poll found that 6 in 10 respondents supported a ban on high-capacity magazines. Of those respondents living in households with guns, the majority supported a high-capacity magazine ban.

Elitist Hypocrites, Please Stand Up

As these polls indicate, NRA members want stricter background checks on all gun purchases, and a majority of gun owners support banning high-capacity magazines.

Very clearly a majority of NRA members (and Americans) support two of Obama's gun control proposals. Yet the NRA is advocating against its NRA members in these two regards.

Applying the definition of "elitist," the NRA leadership considers itself above the membership it represents. NRA leadership considers its opinion and knowledge as superior to the beliefs of its NRA members. The NRA's leadership is not listening to and respecting NRA members' viewpoints on key gun control measures.

Put in the context of the word "hypocrite" - the NRA leadership is pretending to be something that it is not: the NRA membership.

It is the NRA leadership that is acting in an "elitist" fashion and like a "hypocrite." The "elitist hypocrite" is not President Barack Obama, but in the persons of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and President David Keene.

The Man in Black

Suttons Bay, Michigan.

Waiting at the deli counter for my Pastrami on Rye, a new customer appeared.

He was a man in black with an open carry. Deadpan face and serious, he wasn't wearing a police or security guard uniform.

As this man in black stepped up, I stepped aside. As I moved quietly to the other end of the counter, the four deli workers' actions slowed to a stop, and dead silence took over. All casual conversation stopped. Fear seemed to seal our lips. This man in black wielding his open carry was controlling the entire situation. A chilling effect had set in.

For us, the clear and present danger test had been met. Why was this man in black "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater?" ... His open carry was shouting out "beware of me. He was disrupting the civil environment and putting public safety at risk.

Why was this civilian wearing an open carry in a quaint, peaceful little town with its own local sheriff? In a county where the county sheriff's office and jail are less than five miles away? And where many people don't lock the doors of their homes at night?

The man in black's Second Amendment right to bear arms was trampling on the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression for the deli workers and myself. Gone was our casual conversation, and the confidence and security associated with friendly dialogue. The minority right of the man in back had suppressed the liberties of the majority.

Later, I pondered why I had not slipped away to the front of the store and manager's office to express my dismay and feeling of helplessness about this open carry? Why hadn't I shown some vigilance by requesting of the manager that this man in black leave the store, or at least exit the store to put his handgun in his car before returning to the deli counter?

Later, I also wondered in how many other places across America that another man in black was imposing his minority right on a majority of law abiding citizens?

Majority Rule and Minority Rights

A goal of our Founding Fathers in writing the U.S. Constitution and its amendments was to ensure the rights and liberties of all citizens. Our Founders strived for a proper balance between majority rule and minority rights, aiming to prevent the majority's will from dictating a forced solution for a particular matter of public policy.

Our Founding Fathers realized that decision making on a public issue might not yield the 'right' answer, but one that was "satisfactory" to all. The minority would have their say just like the majority. It was expected that individual citizens would sometimes be a part of the majority and sometimes in the minority. There would need to be sacrifices and compromise for the common good and in the public interest.

What Comes First

What came first, the right to bear arms or the right to freedom of speech and peaceably assemble?

If the presence of a person carrying a gun acts to suppress the free speech of a majority of people in a given situation, then hasn't the balance of liberties defined in our Constitution been jeopardized?

If a minority of Americans carry a concealed weapon or have an open carry, and the presence of such weapons alters the environment of our public places by heightening the prospects of violence, then aren't the rights of the majority being undermined? Haven't civil liberties been suppressed or removed?

When the Second Amendment supercedes the First Amendment right to free speech or freedom of assembly, then hasn't the Fourteenth Amendment been violated? All Americans have equal protection in public places, not just those carrying guns.

Let's look at the make up of America using our first and second amendments. The First Amendment represents the rights of all Americans, while gun ownership, including carrying a concealed weapon or open carry, represents a minority.

The Numbers Speak

According to the U.S. Census Bureau and last census, there are 312 million Americans living in 115 million households in the United States. This represents an average of 2.7 people per household.

Of America's 115 million households, 32 percent or 36.8 million households own firearms. This means that just under 100 million Americans live in a home where there are firearms.

Of the 310 million firearms in America , 20 percent of gun owners possess 65 percent of these guns. In other words, a very small minority own two-thirds of all firearms.

Quite simply, gun owners represent a minority in America's democracy. More specifically, the 36.8 million households that possess firearms, the 99 million people living in those households, and the 20 percent of gun owners who possess almost two-thirds of America's firearms do not represent a majority of Americans.

Biden Commission

As the Biden Commission on gun violence gets ready to announce its recommendations, one of its goals must be to address the current imbalance between the excessive power and force of gun owners as a minority over the majority of Americans who do not own firearms.

The Biden Commission must formulate a satisfactory, comprehensive set of measures that embodies the U.S. Constitution's principle of majority rules and minority rights. The commission's recommendations must make accountability by gun owners the driving force for these measures.