As Democrats wander around the political wilderness, more and more of them are starting to rethink their support for ideological rigidity; not because they themselves have had a change of heart on any particular issue, but because they realize that the Democrat brand is politically toxic to many Americans.
A former staffer for John Fetterman has launched a left-of-center think tank meant to push Democratic candidates to adopt “the most effective, broadly popular positions regardless of which wing of the party they come from”, and now none other than Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy says maybe the Democrats shouldn’t be so dogmatic on the issue of gun control.
Speaking at an anti-monopoly conference in Washington, D.C. on Monday afternoon, Murphy told the audience that “the fastest-growing share of the electorate are socially and culturally conservative voters who are economically populist.” As he saw it, that would require his party, the Democrats, not only to embrace populist economic positions (he was, after all, speaking to a room full of anti-monopoly nerds) but to make room for candidates who won’t always echo the D.C. Democratic consensus on issues. That was particularly true, he added, on social and cultural topics. And if he was going to demand certain ideological compromises from others, he would have to offer one of his own.
“I spent a long time trying to apply a litmus test to my party on this issue that I care so deeply about. I’m rethinking the wisdom of that,” Murphy said, having just referred to gun policy specifically. “I think the future of our republic and the future of our party now depends on us building a big-tent party with economic populism and the unrigging of democracy as the two tent poles—and really being purposefully more permissive about who we let in on a host of other issues that matter to me and a lot of other Democrats.”
Now, it’s important to note what Murphy isn’t saying. He’s not rethinking his own position on gun control, or that Democrats are wrong from a constitutional perspective about applying a gun control litmus test to candidates. He’s saying that if it’s going to take having a few pro-gun Democrats to gain a majority in Congress, then maybe it’s worth it.
I’d be thrilled to see some Democratic candidates who are actually Second Amendment supporters instead of cosplaying as gun owners and defenders of the right to keep and bear arms. As far as I’m concerned support for our right to keep and bear arms should be bipartisan. But I don’t think it’s going to be as easy as Murphy thinks it will be to attract pro-2A candidates to the Democratic Party.
First, the gun control lobby isn’t going to stand idly by if pro-gun candidates start running in Democratic primaries. They’ll make sure that their preferred candidate has plenty of campaign cash to throw around or spend gobs of money on independent expenditures promoting their anti-gun candidate of choice.
Everytown, Brady, Giffords, and other gun control groups simply can’t afford to lose influence in the Democratic Party. We’ve already seen those groups engage in mission creep by running ads that focus more on abortion and other issues than gun control as part of their efforts to remain good foot soldiers for the left, but Murphy’s “big tent” policy would be a direct attack on their relevance and importance on the left.
Money also matters in politics, and any pro-gun Democratic candidate would need to not only tap into the left’s donor base, but count on current Democratic officeholders to help raise money for their campaigns. Murphy might say he’s ready to drop his gun control litmus test, but is he willing to go out and fundraise for a candidate who opposes a ban on “assault weapons” and is in favor of a national right-to-carry reciprocity bill?
I doubt it. I have a feeling that Murphy is willing to accept a candidate who might be opposed to an “assault weapons” ban, so long as they still support things like universal background checks or a federal “red flag” law. But even if I’m wrong and Murphy would get behind a true-blue Second Amendment supporter running as a Democrat in a swing district, there are other factors that make it difficult, if not impossible, for that candidate to win a Democratic primary; including the fact that the vast majority of Democratic voters want more gun control laws.
There are pro-gun Democrats out there, but they’re hardly a majority of the party. If Democrats started running pro-2A candidates they’d certainly attract some folks who are currently voting red, but I don’t know that it would be enough to counter the pro-gun control contingent of Democrat voters already in place.
If Murphy is serious about bringing pro-2A candidates into the Democratic tent, the first step is taking on the gun control groups who don’t want to let them inside. I don’t think Murphy is willing to do that, but I’d be more than happy for him to prove me wrong.
Editor’s Note: As Chris Murphy knows, the Democrat Party has never been less popular as voters reject (among other things) its anti-gun agenda.
Help us continue exposing Democrats’ plans to lead America down a dangerous path. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
