The liberal playbook in the aftermath of any mass shooting works like this: The left, usually taking it cue from President Obama, declares that we once again have all the proof we need that we need to ban guns (except that they phrase it as "common-sense gun safety laws"), and that any argument to the contrary is self-evidently a refusal to solve the problem of gun violence, which is obviously the result of politicians' fear of the NRA or some sort of cultish devotion to the Second Amendment.
What is supposed to happen is that the left shames us over our erstwhile refusal to "do something," and we dutifully bow our heads in shame and submit to whatever it is they want done. What is not supposed to happen is that anyone points out just how empty their indignation really is - coming as it does with all kinds of moralizing and emotion, but with virtually nothing in the realm of fact-based analysis or cause-and-effect reasoning that might lend any credence to the notion that their proposed solutions would actually solve anything.
That's why the familiar liberals of MSNBC become so flummoxed at National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke when he appeared Friday morning on Morning Joe. Cooke did what mainstream journalists never do. He demanded that liberals demonstrate they've actually thought the issue through and can back up their assertions that what they propose would actually solve a damn thing.
How did the liberals do in response to that challenge? Not well:
The exchange beween Cooke and Mark Halperin is especially instructive. Halperin can't even get his brain around Cooke's assertion that it's not good enough to do something just for the sake of doing something. Halperin interprets that as a demand to do nothing and simply admit that no solution is possible. But Cooke isn't saying that at all. What he's saying is that an action worth taking has to be submitted to real scrutiny, which means looking at the real nature of the problem and being made to prove that your idea actually solves it.
Liberals never want to do this with any policy, but especially not with gun control. To them, it's simply self-evident that if you pass a law saying people can't have guns, people won't have guns. It's also self-evident to them that if anyone doesn't agree, they obviously just don't want to solve the problem because everyone knows banning guns is the solution.
Challenged by Cooke to back up their ideas, they don't do so well. Nor would you expect them to because they consider it an affront to their self-styled righteousness that anyone would even ask them to.
Liberals suffer from a certain conceit that leads them to assume everything that ever happens is the result of government policy, good or bad, right or wrong. Someone is doing well? A wise government policy must be helping them! Someone did something wrong? Government policy must not be what's needed in order to address the problem. They can't really conceive of the idea that the best government in the world can't stop every bad person from doing every bad thing.
Liberals also suffer from the delusion that suggests their ideas are inherently correct, and if they ever fail to solve a problem, the only possible explanation is that we don't have enough of the liberal idea in question. You can see why people concerned about gun rights would sense a trap here. Give liberals the limited "common-sense regulations" they say they want, stand back and wait for the inevitable next mass shooting, and then what happens? Of course. Liberals want to take gun control even further, which they'll say they really wanted all along only to to find themselves thwarted by political realities that came in the form of conservative recalcitrance or fealty to the NRA or whatever.
But now! Now that there's been another shooting, well . . .
This is why the panelists get so upset with Cooke for continually declaring the problem complicated. They want to pretend it's not and just ride the emotion of the issue. Cooke is supposed to play his role and meekly capitulate to that agenda. And when he doesn't do that, you see the result.
The liberal playbook in the aftermath of any mass shooting works like this: The left, usually taking it cue from President Obama, declares that we once again have all the proof we need that we need to ban guns (except that they phrase it as "common-sense gun safety laws"), and that any argument to the contrary is self-evidently a refusal to solve the problem of gun violence, which is obviously the result of politicians' fear of the NRA or some sort of cultish devotion to the Second Amendment.
What is supposed to happen is that the left shames us over our erstwhile refusal to "do something," and we dutifully bow our heads in shame and submit to whatever it is they want done. What is not supposed to happen is that anyone points out just how empty their indignation really is - coming as it does with all kinds of moralizing and emotion, but with virtually nothing in the realm of fact-based analysis or cause-and-effect reasoning that might lend any credence to the notion that their proposed solutions would actually solve anything.
