The NRA Wants You (Page 4)

But the ultimate winner--or loser--over guns will be Bush, whose record in Texas ties him firmly to the pro-gun side of the political equation. The NRA has already virtually endorsed Bush, but some wonder whether Bush will eventually move to create some distance between himself and the organization. Phil Journey, a former NRA board member and Republican activist in Kansas, is one who thinks the NRA's high-profile battle with President Clinton could hurt Bush. "It would be much better for George W. Bush if the issue doesn't come up in the national election," says Journey. "The NRA's game of chicken may cost them in the fall. Picking this fight now has the potential to activate the base of gun-control supporters."

Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political analyst, thinks that if Bush is seen as beholden to the NRA it could not only put him in an awkward position but could also create problems for Republicans in close House races. "If Bush were actually painted that way, it might hurt down-ballot Republicans, even in the suburbs," he says. One candidate aware of exactly that danger is Mark Kirk, a Republican running for Congress in Illinois's 10th district, in Chicago. Kirk, like his Democratic opponent, Lauren Beth Gash, is a strong supporter of gun control, and he is at pains to distance himself from the GOP's embrace of the NRA. "There are two key issues on which I will be disagreeing with the leaders of my party: on choice and on guns," he says. But he acknowledges that Gash will try to hang the NRA-Republican alliance around his neck.

* * *

There are already signs that the NRA might understand and be responding to the problem. Reuters reported on March 31: "Charlton Heston said...gun control would not become a hot-button issue in the 2000 election, which he said was the most important in at least 100 years. 'I don't think it's going to be as important an issue as people think,' Heston told reporters." Such a low-key approach would not be without precedent. Indeed, in recent years the NRA has frequently spent millions of dollars in advertising for and against various candidates for Congress without mentioning guns at all, choosing instead to emphasize issues like crime, taxes or family values. Neal Knox suggests that by being too public the NRA risks activating its opponents. "If the NRA is too open in its activity, it's going to be energizing to the other side," says Knox. "Since it's been demonized, I don't think the NRA is going to be so visible in statewide independent expenditures. We'll do independent expenditures in certain Congressional districts, but only in areas where it won't be counterproductive."

One recent California race offers evidence of the NRA's stealth approach. In that contest, the NRA sought, unsuccessfully, to defeat a longtime anti-gun state senator in the Democratic primary in March. The NRA urged its members to volunteer to help the opposing Democrat--but to do so secretly. "Do not let on that you are associated with the NRA," said a memo circulated among pro-gun activists. "Keep the NRA hats and sweatshirts at home.... If our help were widely known, it would stimulate the Democrats.... Do not talk to anyone in the press about this."

In the end, this year will be a test of whether the NRA can maintain some semblance of its new sophistication or, in the heat of battle, will revert to its former fringe-dwelling. So far, the organization has chosen to emphasize a fairly moderate-sounding theme: that the United States needs no new gun laws, but instead ought to enforce existing ones. Although the Justice Department fiercely disputes charges that it's failed to enforce gun laws, and although gun-control activists point out the obvious need for tougher laws restricting firearms, the NRA's mantra is being echoed now by Bush and other pro-gun Republicans, giving them an easy response when asked about gun-control legislation. And anti-gun activists believe that unlike past years, the NRA will give a pass to embattled Republicans seeking re-election even if they stray from pro-gun orthodoxy, sacrificing purity for the larger goal of keeping GOP control of the House.

Still, the NRA is facing a political climate that has changed radically since 1994, the organization's previous high-water mark. The "angry white man" of the early nineties has given way to the "soccer mom." The gun-control movement, which for years has lacked a grassroots base, is seeing the emergence of a fledgling network of state and local groups that can organize anti-gun voters and get them to the polls. City attorneys and trial lawyers have thrown gunmakers on the defensive by a wave of liability lawsuits. And with each outbreak of high-profile gun violence, the number of voters intent on voting out NRA-backed lawmakers increases. This could be the year that politicians, Republicans and Democratic alike, learn that they don't have to be afraid of the NRA anymore.

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
• Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.