Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger52
Question: Do you honestly believe that the other "side" in this principal topic under discussion has honestly & fairly exhibited understanding of the scholarship that drives citations of framers by the adversaries they also demonize? [...] Pretty sure we've both got library cards, so if you don't want to take the question, fine.
|
From a political standpoint, they don't need to.
In general, conservatives base a great deal of their intellectual credibility in interpretations of America's past that have been either discredited thoroughly or updated so that they're paradoxically more comprehensive and also less definitive. (That is, the more you study American history, the less you know about American history.)
So, when conservatives speak/write of the "lessons of history," those lessons are likely to be out of date (by 30 to 50 years). From there, a person can just say "These guys don't know what they're talking about" and score a huge political point--even though that person may not know what he/she is talking about either. (This corresponding level of historical ignorance is often offset by the argument that the past should not determine how .GOV responds to present day issues, and/or that those very issues are legacies of past, which must be overthrown.)
A point that I've been making (or attempting to make) over the last year or two is that, until the American political right can (a) find the time to get "up to speed" on the changes to the historiographical landscape and/or (b) become more familiar with the historiographical framework of their own understanding of America's past, we need to be very careful about how we talk about the past so that we do not fall into that trap. (Or, worse, we provoke a senior academic historian (or two) from writing a book that destroys, point by point, the conservative view of America's past.)
One last point. Your comment about a "desired result" is a way to put the president, and others, into positions where they can walk the talk in which they say they agree that the Second Amendment establishes the inalienable right of gun ownership for law abiding citizens. That is, the president talks of a reduction in gun violence against children and showing a willingness to try solutions, then why not ask "Okay, what about regular mental health background checks on all school employees in the country, especially at public schools?" Why not suggest, "Okay, let's put veterans returning from OEF/OIF to work as armed security staff?" And then say, if those two options don't meet the criteria you set, we will try additional measures. (It is purely by coincidence that these two options don't help the Democratic Party politically. And none of the measures will unduly impact the ability of lawful citizens to buy, to own, or to sell fire arms.)