Saturday, February 17, 2018

Sam Webb: Mass killings, Trump, and some loose ends

Mass killings, Trump, and some loose ends


Sam Webb

1. I find it hard not to despair at moments like this, but I also can't help but feel anger at the Republican Party and the NRA that over and over have prevented any, even the most mild, measures to institute gun control and other steps that will cut down on this senseless slaughter of children, teachers, and other innocent people. What they offer in the wake of yesterday's mass shooting, instead, is what they have offered on earlier occasions when gun violence stole away the lives of innocent people — their prayers and perhaps a conversation at a later date. That's it.

When nothing happened after Sandy Hook, I concluded that gun control legislation was dead-on-arrival as long as this retrograde gang is in control of Congress. And with Trump in the White House, the obstacles only become bigger. The craven dependency of both to the NRA and their own retrograde politics are an effective barrier to any solutions, including common sense gun laws, to the reoccurring cycle of mass killings. And this will continue to be the case until we elect a Congress that is committed to meaningful steps to address this national crisis. This fall we have that opportunity. Let's seize it by electing a Democratic Party majority in both chambers of Congress.

2. With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the extreme right began its ascendancy in the Republican Party and became a wrecking ball in U.S. politics. Too many on the left, however, awash in the contemporary language of neoliberalism and influenced to a degree by sectarian notions from the sixties, didn't get this. It didn't register on their radar screen. What did was a critique that saw the two parties as nothing more than "two peas in a pod." And whatever differences existed between them were not worth noting.

This analytical-strategic blind spot turned this grouping of the left into passive observers of one election cycle after another. Meanwhile, right wing extremists were of a different mind. They planted themselves squarely on the terrain of "bourgeois" politics and its electoral cycles. For them it was anything but a spectacle. Indeed, they seized this terrain and catapulted themselves from the edges of power into its main corridors. In so doing, they shifted the balance of power in Washington and nationally in favor of the most reactionary class and social forces in the country.

This new constellation of anti-democratic power should have been obvious to any observer of politics long ago. But for some on the left, it was only with the election of Trump — an authoritarian president, enjoying the near uncritical support the Republican Party — that some melting away of these flawed positions began.

To what extent? Well, the elections this fall, in which the overriding challenge is to elect a Democratic Party majority in the Senate and House, will provide a pretty good answer to that question. Let's hope the melt is extensive. We need every hand on deck if we hope to turn the possibility of a Democratic wave election into a reality.

3. Perhaps it is obvious, but the outcome of the elections in November won't be decided in cities like Berkeley or Cambridge or San Francisco or Los Angeles or New York. It will be decided elsewhere – in states like Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois as well as congressional districts that are purple or red and have to be flipped if the Democrats are to become a majority in both chambers of Congress.

In other words, Democrats have to score big in states and congressional races in which the politics aren't as liberal, the demographics not as favorable, and the districts gerrymandered to favor Republicans. In normal times, that might be a insurmountable hurdle. But these times are anything but normal. So much so that the structural advantages that the Republicans enjoy going into the fall elections could dissipate in the face of an unpopular authoritarian president, a Democratic Party intent on making major electoral gains, and the surging energy of women and a larger opposition that resists narrow boundaries.

4. I hear said that Trump embraces and practices the politics of victimization and resentment. No quarrel here. But it would also mention in the same breath two other things: First, these same politics have animated the right for decades ago. Indeed, they have been the grease that catapulted it to positions of power in Washington and in a majority of state capitals.

At the same time, it would be a mistake to see Trump as simply a continuation of these politics. His sense of victimhood and resentment are unapologetic, unconcealed, and unconstrained. Moreover, he speaks for a mass political constituency that viscerally shares his sense of resentment and victimization. Not least, the logic of his politics, evident in his nearly daily lacerations to the fabric of our democracy, could lead, if not challenged, to authoritarian rule – that is a qualitative break from the historically constituted norms, values, and practices of democracy and democratic governance of our country.

Luckily, the elections this fall give the American people an opportunity to rollback his assault, coauthored with his Republican counterparts in Congress.

The other thing I would say is that the politics of resentment and victimization (and I would add the politics of nostalgia) are inseparable from the animus of racism, misogyny, and nativism. It's in their pairing with these particular forms of inequality and oppression that these politics gain their visceral power and tenaciousness, especially among white males.

5. It is said that the fish rots from the head. Well, that is the case in the White House. And last weekend we got another example of this when Trump made no mention the two ex-wives of Rob Proctor who were the victims of sexual violence. At the same time, there are no innocents running around the White House. Whether everyone knew of Porter's history of sexual violence early on is debatable. But it is preposterous to think that the main principals, including Trump, didn't. Moreover, the footprints of most of the staff are evident in the subsequent coverup and attempts to discredit Porter's ex-wives.

At some level, one has to wonder if their thinking is that Porter's ex-wives got what they deserved. After all, Porter is a "man of great integrity."

6. The unified Korean delegation marching into the stadium for the opening of the Olympics was an impressive. and hopeful sight. We can only hope that it leads to further steps to ease tensions on the peninsula and in the region. Of course, little help can be expected from the Trump White House. And if you wanted some evidence, albeit symbolic, of its posture toward the thawing of relations, it was on display when Pence sat stone faced and with his hands at his side as the Koreans walked in as one.

7. It strikes me that to reduce the Mueller investigation and the heated controversy around the FBI to simply an intra-class conflict in which each side is pursuing some narrow class interests and nothing more is shortsighted, notwithstanding being dressed up in the gown of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, albeit a dogmatic one. Usually, attempts to stuff reality, which is always contradictory, complicated, and novel, into such rigid schemes yield little analytical fruit. It misses more than it captures, and thus can easily mislead politically. The purpose of theorizing is to give us an approach or entry points to understanding reality, not to substitute for or simplify it.

8. Watching the event below hosted by the Obama White House is uplifting, but also very bittersweet, knowing that in the White House today sits someone who is so morally, politically, socially, and culturally retrograde and irredeemable.



--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
7-9 AM Weekdays, The Enlighten Radio Player Stream, 
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Gun Makers Are Reeling Even as Threat of Regulation Recedes [feedly]

Gun Makers Are Reeling Even as Threat of Regulation Recedes
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/business/gun-makers-are-reeling-even-as-of-regulation-recedes.html

Gun Makers Are Reeling Even as Threat of Regulation Recedes - The New York Times

As the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., stokes the national debate over firearms, it may be easy to overlook another major development in the gun world this week.

One of the nation's oldest and largest gun makers, Remington, said it was nearing a bankruptcy filing.

Hit with slumping sales and unable to sell itself, Remington has negotiated a deal with its lenders to cut its debt and keep operating.

Other gun makers are also struggling. Colt completed its trip through bankruptcy last year, while sales and profits at Smith & Wesson's parent company have plummeted and its stock price is sagging. All three companies make a version of the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle, which was used by the killer in Parkland on Wednesday and is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

The problems demonstrate the paradoxical and tumultuous nature of the gun industry. It has prospered when the prospect of tighter regulations induces people to buy more guns.

And it slumps when that threat of new regulation subsides, as it has done during the Trump administration. President Trump, who has called himself a "true friend and champion" of guns, did not mention gun control in his remarks on Thursday about the Parkland shooting. And many leaders in the Republican-controlled Congress, where gun restrictions have withered over the years, have shown no change of heart in light of this week's school shooting.

"When people feared there would be increased gun regulation, they went out and bought more guns," said Kevin Cassidy, an analyst at Moody's Investors Service, who covers the gun manufacturers.

Declines in the Gun Business

Firearm background checks, often used as a proxy

for firearm sales (for which data is not readily

available), fell farther last year than they had before.

Guns flooded into the American market in the past decade as

manufacturing surged during the Obama administration,

creating an inventory glut that now exceeds slowing demand.

Sales by two of the country's biggest gun

manufacturers declined sharply last year.

American

Outdoor Brands

Firearm background checks

Remington

10

million

+

20

%

+60

%

Year-over-year

change in revenue

Firearms

manufactured

Shotguns

and other

+

15

8

+40

+

10

Rifles

6

+20

+

5

4

0

0

Pistols

and

revolvers

2

5

–20

0

10

Quarterly

Annual

–40

'12

'17

'12

'17

'00

'05

'10

'15

'17

'00

'05

'10

'15

Formerly Smith & Wesson

During the Obama administration, F.B.I. background checks on prospective firearms buyers — a rough proxy for sales — surged nearly 50 percent in the month of the Sandy Hook attack in 2012, compared with the same month a year earlier, as calls rang out for tighter legislation. Similarly, the number of background checks swung up more than 43 percent after the shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015 and nearly 40 percent after the massacre in Orlando six months later.

But that trend has reversed since Mr. Trump has been in office. In October, when a gunman killed 58 people in Las Vegas and injured hundreds, background checks slumped, falling 13 percent from the same month a year earlier.

Over all, background checks tumbled more than 8 percent last year, the largest fall since the F.B.I. began keeping track in 1998.

"There is no panic buying of guns because there is clearly no threat of federal government action in response to mass shootings that would restrict or regulate firearms," Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, wrote in an email. "The gun lobby can't scare their followers into thinking Donald Trump would sign any piece of gun control legislation as they could under an Obama presidency."

Remington, founded in upstate New York by Eliphalet Remington II in 1816, is the oldest manufacturer of rifles and shotguns in the country.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

DuPont, the chemical company, bought a majority share in Remington in 1933, purchased the firearms maker outright in 1980 and then sold it to an investment firm in New York in 1993. The private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management bought the company in 2007 for $118 million and rolled it up with other gun manufacturers into a conglomerate called Freedom Group.

Under Cerberus, the company enjoyed years of expanding gun sales. In 2012, the number of guns made in the United States totaled 8.5 million, more than double the 3.3 million that were produced a decade earlier.

But in December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and killed 20 children and six adults. When the authorities reported that the gunman had used an AR-15-style rifle made by Remington, public anger focused on the manufacturer.

Photo
Gun-control initiatives in the wake of mass shootings used to spur gun purchases, but not lately. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

Large investors, like the California State Teachers' Retirement System, began taking steps to divest from the gun maker. Cerberus said it would seek to sell the company.

Despite the public outcry, the fallout from Sandy Hook helped the company's bottom line. Spurred by calls that gun controls were imminent, buyers purchased more Remington firearms, and sales surged 36 percent, to $1.3 billion in 2013, Moody's said.

Some investors may have had objections to Remington, but not everyone. After the Sandy Hook shooting, Remington was able to borrow millions more as gun production boomed, particularly heading into the 2016 presidential election because Hillary Clinton was expected to win and push for tighter gun controls.

The company borrowed $12.5 million from the City of Huntsville, Ala., in 2014 to open up a new plant there. The city has agreed to eventually forgive the loan if Remington meets hiring targets over a number of years, said Chip Cherry, chief executive of the Chamber of Commerce of Huntsville and Madison County.

Remington also borrowed $175 million to buy out investors that wanted to divest. (Remington has paid out a total of $48 million, according to a company filing.)

The company does not disclose its lenders, but an analysis by Morningstar shows that some of Remington's debt is held in funds managed by JPMorgan Chase. Oppenheimer, the large mutual fund company, also owned some of the bonds issued by Remington, but said it sold its debt holdings last year.

In 2017, Mr. Trump's first year in office, sales fell 27 percent in the first nine months (the most recent data available) from the same period a year earlier. After production was ramped up in expectation of a Clinton presidency, gun inventories have piled up.

On Monday, Remington announced that its lenders had agreed to cut its $948 million debt load by $700 million in exchange for an ownership stake in the company. Analysts said at the time that even with its lower debt, the company still faced a challenging sales environment.

But this week, things are looking up to some on Wall Street. The price of Remington's bonds have increased more than 16 percent since Wednesday — a sign that some investors believe the company has promise.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed