Amitai Etzioni Notes

The Deficit Trap

The Obama Administration is planning to start cutting the deficit soon for economic and political reasons. To now even merely discuss tax raises, expenditure cuts, and increases in interest rates that are entailed will slow the recovery. We know what must be done; it does not require long preparations. And there is no sign that the feared inflation that deficits are said to cause is anywhere in sight. True, once inflation settles in, it is difficult to eliminate -- but it starts slowly. There is plenty of time.

Note that both Carter and Clinton fought to balance the budget and cut or capped social programs -- only to allow the Republican administrations that followed to provide huge tax cuts to those better-off.

As to politics -- whatever Obama does, the GOP will complain that the deficit is too high and make political hay out of the tax raises and benefit cuts. As to the voters -- while they tell pollsters they fear deficits, they hate increased taxes and benefit cuts many times more.

Last but not least, how much deficit is bad for the economy is far from clear.

In short, for now, worry about those without jobs, not those who are crying about deficits.

Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at the George Washington University. To contact him, write icps@gwu.edu. www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst

Canary in the Coal Mine: Student Loans

The Democrats are caught between the need to set up structures that will prevent future meltdowns and the pressures they face from well-heeled Wall Street-based interest groups. They are under cross-pressure to act in the public interest and to survive in the political system: those who displease groups with deep pockets face tough re-election campaigns, as their opponents will get the large amounts of funds needed these days to run for office.  Hence, despite all the talk about new regulations, surprisingly little is happening.

Student loans serve as a sort of a canary in the dark recesses of Washington politics. If the Democrats cannot stand up to private sectors here, they are extremely unlikely to persevere elsewhere. The issue is very simple. If the Democrats cannot show the public that the existing arrangement constitutes an out-and-out raid of the public treasury by a few investment houses and banks -- and that anybody who opposes reform should be booed out of office -- do not expect them to be able to do so on the much more complicated issues of credit swap controls and regulations of derivatives.

Since 1965, the federal government has provided funds to private lenders through the federal Family Education Loan Program.   The government gives loan money to private lenders and guarantees 97% of the loans, ensuring that the private lenders loan virtually without risk. Last year, these private lenders made $56 billion in loans to students.  They pocketed huge profits without providing any service.

On February 26, President Obama proposed that instead of going through private lenders to borrow money, students should borrow money directly from the U.S. Department of Education, eliminating the role of the private lenders. By early July, the chairman of the House Education Committee had endorsed President Obama's plan, which, projects the Congressional Budget Office, would save up to $87 billion in the next ten years.  On September 17, the House of Representatives voted 253 to 171 to put this plan into effect.  It is eight months later but the Senate has not acted, while all the time it has been shedding tears about the mushrooming deficits.

As I said, if this bill cannot fly through a Democrat-controlled Congress, do not be surprised if little else opposed by large and well-endowed private interests will see the light of day.  Even if the bill passes, it will be so diluted and further watered down after it is enacted that it will end up basically as a reform in name only. Watch the canary and see whether the toxic clouds are lifting or closing in.

Obama’s victory? Give me a break.

If this is a victory, I sure don’t know what a defeat would look like.

A July 29th New York Times headline states, “In victory for Obama, House panel approves Restraints on Executive Pay.” First, you should note that an approval by a panel and a token will buy you a ride on the subway. By itself, it is not worth much. The House has to approve it, and – given the lobbies lined up — it may not. More fatally for the bill, the Senate is quite unlikely to support such an anti-Wall Street move.

Wait, wait, I am just warming up. The bill does not limit any one’s pay by one penny. It merely allows shareholders to vote on the matter. If and when they do – the vote is not binding! That is, the corporations are free to pay their executives all they want, anyhow.

You may say the corporations will be embarrassed to pay through the nose after their shareholders vote not to grant monumental pay raises. However, so far there have been no signs, no hints, that these Wall Street firms are embarrassed by anything.

Finally, you should know that unless limits are set on the total compensation of executives, all such a bill—if enacted, if acted upon, if heeded—will lead to is just more gaming.

Here is one method of gaming that should give you a feel for all the others. I was a guest of a CEO of a very large insurance company. He even gave me a ride on his private jet. I asked him how much he spent last year on the entertainment of customers, fellow workers, and politicians. He responded with a wide smile: “About 300 dollars.” When he saw that my jaw dropped down about as low as it goes, he added with a chuckle: “One of my assistants makes all the arrangements and signs on the checks and credit card slips with his name.”

The fact that the CEO felt free to tell me all this shows you how impressed he and his friends are by Obama’s “victory.”

Progressive Security and Conserving Rights

   

There is no reason for the Democrats to allow themselves to be painted again as the party that is weak on defense, an image that will haunt them when the next terrorist attack hits. Nor is there a reason that security and the protection of rights cannot be squared. One should not take lightly the marker that Cheney put down, just because so many good people hold him in very low regard. Republicans, and many other voters and our allies overseas, will ask “Did the Democrats neglect security?” when we are attacked again.

President Obama’s response tries to split the difference by drawing legalistic distinctions. He is closing Guantanamo, but is keeping it open, or least holding the detainees there for now -- maybe some other detention location or shipping them to Saudi Arabia will follow. He has divided the detainees into five groups, each of which he hopes to grant a different level of rights, enough to make even the eyes of a law student blur over. He is closing the military commissions by reopening them under modified rules. There must be, there is, another way.

Democrats ought to start by making it plain that Cheney and his associates, far from making us secure, left us woeful exposed.  There are several major security threats that were largely ignored  by the Bush-Cheney Administration. It is the Obama Administration that is attending to these threats, and in ways that progressive people have little reason to oppose.

The threats include, first of all, the dangers posed by cyber terrorists to both the government and the private sector. Given the way U.S. computer networks are now exposed, little information—whether it concerns security or the economy—can be kept confidential. Moreover, cyber attacks can readily disrupt key elements of US infrastructure, such as air traffic. In 2008, hackers breached government computers and planted harmful software 5,499 times.  Cyber spies stole information on the Defense Department’s Joint Strike Fighter. It was left to Obama to pay the proper attention that this issue commands by appointing a cyber security czar, a long overdue step in the right direction.

Equally exposed is the electrical gird on which U.S. factories, offices and homes all rely. Software programs were found to have been planted in the U.S. electrical grid that could be used to disrupt the system in the future. An experiment in an Idaho demonstrated that hackers could command an electricity-producing turbine to spin in ways that would cause it to fly apart. Another security matter the previous administration did not address.

Finally, very little has been done to prepare for  bioterrorism. A 2008 Congressionally mandated independent commission report found that a biological attack is more likely than a nuclear terrorist attack. It is widely agreed that Al-Qaeda has tried to develop a bioterrorism capability, and a January 2009 report indicates that terrorists in Algeria may have been stricken by biological agents with which they were working, possibly the plague. Dealing with this threat has also been left largely to the Obama Administration.

Some may argue that although advancing these security measures violates no rights, indeed it helps protect them, merely championing new and powerful security measures amounts to fear mongering. However, the measures that are needed have the great merit that they should be introduced even if no terrorist attack is feared to occur. Enhancing cybersecurity is essential to protect our privacy, trade secrets, and intellectual properties. A smarter and more reliable grid is needed to promote energy conservation. And many measures needed to protect us against a bioterrorism are no different from those needed to respond to a pandemic.

In short, any suggestion that Cheney and company made us more secure and that the Obama Administration is neglecting our security has no basis in the facts.

At the same time, there are several key changes in security policy that civil libertarians favor and that no one in his right mind can claim undermine our security. For instance, instead of continuing with indefinite detention without review, a gross violation of one of the most profound foundations of liberty—habeas corpus—the term of confinement of each detainee should be reviewed every year or so to determine whether it is safe to release the person, as is done for many sex offenders. The Supreme Court examined that form of detention in Kansas v. Hendricks (regarding the constitutionality of Kansas’s 1994 Sexual Violent Predator Act) and found it constitutional.  There is no reason to accord terrorists more rights than to American sex offenders.

Similarly, it is hard to see why we should not replace the military commissions with a national security court, as suggested by the current U.S. Justice Department Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, or better yet with a national security review board. Those reviewed by this body should have access to a lawyer of their choosing from a list of lawyers with security clearances. And they should be able to appeal the decision to a second, higher ranking, review board. Other adaptations can be made, such as not  allowing incriminating statements to be thrown out on the basis of a suspected terrorist not having been read his Miranda rights, in the heat of a battle.  But one can still ensure that those detained will be judged by some independent body that will fairly determine whether they indeed are a security risk or should be released.

Other measures can be readily discerned if one does not approach the matter with attempts to parse each measure so that it address both sides of the issue. There are some security measures this administration can and should take, and several ways rights can be restored, without so much fudging.

Retire Admiral Mullen

My original timetable called for President Obama to retire Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest ranking uniformed military commander) on Jan 20 at 12:01 pm -- as quickly as possible after the new president took his oath of office. I then considered that one must first find a suitable replacement. President Obama should make it clear that he will not tolerate military officers publicly denouncing his policies, not to mention undermining an agreement the United States and the Iraqi government just worked out of after agonizing negotiations.

Mullen told reporters on November 17 that that the withdrawal must be driven solely by conditions on the ground, and that the soonest all US forces could be safely withdrawn from Iraq is "two to three years." (The next day Mullen indicated that he would carry out any directions from the new president once he takes office.) Officers like him need to be reminded of a basic lesson of democracy -- that the military is there to carry out the civilian authority's orders, not to publicly pressure the president to follow the Pentagon line.

Wait a moment; I am not saying that if the generals have professional reasons for holding that a given policy or order about to be issued is best not followed, they should keep mum. In such cases, they should surely inform the president of their views, but through meeting with him and his staff, not via the press.

Admiral Mullen's speaking out of turn is especially offensive because instead of taking his misgivings first to the president, he went first to the press and the public, calling on the people to oppose a newly elected president even before he took office.

If the president issues an order that truly violates an officer's conscience, he should resign. Then he will be free to protest it all he wants, but not while in uniform. One may say that serving in the military does not negate one's citizen rights, including freedom of speech. This is true in all matters but those concerning the military. Here, the officers' duty is to carry out orders, not to seek to sabotage them.

Obama would hardly be the first president to be undermined by the generals. President Truman had to fire General MacArthur when he repeatedly publicly disagreed with the president's Korean war policies. Clinton was weakened from day-two of his first term when military leaders let it be known, to one and all, how unwise, and, in effect, dangerous they found his suggested policy on allowing gays to serve in the military. Clinton's timing was surely off, and the policy that was actually implemented is a sort of mind boggling compromise, but that is for the electorate to judge. Nor is there any shortage of voices, from retired generals to Rush Limbaugh to Fox News, expressing contrary views. Thus, there is no danger if the military will keep its place, the issues at hand will not be properly aired.

The overwhelming majority of Americans now think that most anything that President Bush has done, whether overseas or at home, is wrong-headed, and they have plenty of reasons to judge him so harshly. However, regarding the matter at hand, he got it right, and set a good example: in early 2008, after public statements highly critical of the President's policies on Iran and Iraq, Admiral William "Fox" Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, was resigned this post, ending his military career early.

The fact that President Obama does not have a military pedigree only enhances the point: he needs to establish early and firmly who is in charge, and who is to follow orders.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of Security First (Yale, 2007) www.securityfirstbook.com

Cap executive pay

A powerful social science theory, much advanced by Robert Frank of Cornell, provides a strong rationale for setting a ceiling on the incomes of the executives of all corporations that receive public loans, capital injections, or some other favor from tax payers. (Surprisingly many, by the way, if you include specially tailored tax loopholes, credit below the market rates, export assistance, and so on). Before I can lay out what the theory of relative deprivation suggests the next Congress and White House should do in this department, a few words on how we got executives who are paid scores of millions in the first place.

You may well say that the astronomical pay checks -- supplemented by bonuses, stock options, and all kinds of other goodies from executive jets to suites in five star hotels -- simply reflect unfettered greed and the fact that, at least until recently, most corporate boards approved whatever pay schedules their executives put in front of them. (These boards included many of the executives’ friends and retirees keen to collect hefty fees for attending an occasional meeting and voting yes.)

All this is true, but do not underestimate the role of Michael Jensen and his colleagues at the Harvard Business School. Professor Jensen was all the rage when I was teaching at what is called “The B School,” on the Boston side of Harvard. He was known for his die-hard support of the free market, and his arguments that executives were underpaid.  He held that given that executives generate billions in wealth for the shareholders of their corporations, to reward executives for their efforts, their income should rise as the market value of the company rises. Even if they just got a few percentages of the new wealth, Jensen argued, their compensation should have been much higher than it was at the time. No wonder he was the darling of the CEOs who visited the Harvard Business School with great frequency. They paid no mind, and still don’t, to Jensen’s argument that they should  also pay “big penalties for poor performance.”

Also, missing in Jensen’s and his associates’ proposal is any explanation of what, say, an additional million bucks would buy from an executive who is already making twenty. Because I was a member of a delegation that included CEOs, I got to spend several days with the CEOs of Protector and Gamble and of Boeing, and I met some others. I found them extremely hard working people. They worked long days, often taking work home, and traveled constantly from one plant to another, from one meeting to another, with little rest in-between. I cannot imagine that anything could make them work even harder –or, for that matter, that their business would benefit if they took even fewer times out. Nor can I figure out what one would buy—with, say, that last million dollars. An eighth house? Another sports car you have no time to drive?

The answer takes us to Frank and the theory of relative deprivation. Most CEOs use their compensation figures mainly as a measurement of prestige, a statement of their standing compared to other CEOs. They are keen to make more than the next guy or doll. (Indeed, this is the reason European executives, who on average make much less than Americans ones, are just as content as American ones, because their reference group are other European executives.)

A cap on executive compensation would not only save millions for the financially strapped corporations-- and be fair to the tax payers who help these corporations stay afloat-- but would also provide the executives with a new reference point. Anyone who makes the max allowed will have made it. No more need to try to outdo the other, money-wise. Such a ceiling would leave the CEOs free to do what is best for their corporations, the economy, and families-- rather than focus on ways to jack up the price of their stock each quarter.

Micro-blogging: Bother, can you spare a dime?
The executives of Goldman-Sachs just announced that they will forgo their bonuses this year and will do with a “mere” $600,000 salary. Given their performances this year, one wonders why they were entitled to bonuses in the first place. Anyhow, if you are worried about how they will able to do on this meager income, perhaps you could send them a Christmas food basket...

Social conservatives, I wonder...

Are social conservatives failing the most elementary test of ethics: to not discriminate? They seem to hand out boatloads of free passes to McCain and his political partner, while withholding the high marks due to Obama and kin.

For decades, social conservatives have extolled the value of marriage. However, we do not hear them cheering for Barack and Michelle, who are clearly honoring their marital vows, and they have precious little to say about John McCain's extra-martial affair or the fact that he has been divorced. (They need not be concerned about engaging in gossip or rumor mongering; McCain openly acknowledges both the divorce and the affair.)

Maybe social conservatives are saying to each other that not all moral transgressions or sins are created equal. Indeed, Catholicism, Judaism, and the secular legal codes of all major nations grade transgressions. One can hold that abortion is a much more serious offense than divorce and extra-marital affairs put together. Hence, one may try to argue that McCain's failings can be much more quickly overlooked than those of Obama. However, such a claim does not stand for a minute, as it disregards that all the Obamas have done is to talk about the right of women to choose; McCain committed adultery and got a divorce. I am hard put to find a religious or secular ethic, legal system, or set of values that does not draw a sharp line between talking and doing.

Then there is a matter which is difficult to approach but should not be shoved under the rug. For decades, social conservatives from Pat Moynihan to Charles Murray had a special beef with African Americans, especially the men. They were depicted as promiscuous, quick to move on, unwilling to marry, and neglectful of the children they spawned. Social conservatives promoted various plans to encourage marriage -- including denying welfare to single mothers, many whom were African American -- and they looked for positive role models for African Americans who did marry, stayed married and attended to their offspring. They could call them--the Obamas. I am not insisting on confetti, but how about some coast to coast acknowledgment that here is the couple we have being praying for, role models by any standard? And how about one more heartfelt round of applause for Obama for being willing to take the heat for supporting responsible fatherhood, especially among African Americans?

I do not blame Sarah Palin for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter, although Palin's advocacy of abstinence-only sex education may well have contributed to the pregnancy of some girls. But it seems curious to hear from those who have weighed in for decades against pre-marital sex and teen pregnancy that the news from Palin's family is welcome because it shows that theirs is a "normal American family, with its share of travails." It is not hard to imagine what social conservatives would have shouted from the rooftops if the shoe had been on the other foot, if Obama had a 17-year-old, unmarried daughter who became pregnant. Would they not have argued that it showed a profound character flaw in the parents?

Then there is a point best made by a leading social conservative, the former dean of the Catholic University Law School and an official in several past Republican administrations, Douglas W. Kmiec. (A man who, by the way, was subject to a tirade from the pulpit and denied communion for his support of Obama.) Kmiec says he expects that Obama and Biden will fulfill the call by Pope John Paul II to "ensure proper support for families and motherhood."

I take it for granted that social conservatives share the precept that "whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me." Better yet, these days they not care only about poverty and social justice, but also about the environment and climate control, about preserving God's gifts to mankind. I assume we can agree that the argument over who scores better on these points is going to be a short one.

I am not opposed to devout people who draw on their values to judge political candidates. I am merely concerned when they play it the other way around: shade, shave and tailor their moral judgments to fit their political preferences. Such bias surely is not the greatest moral failing, but it ranks somewhere far from the bottom of the scale of what is right vs. wrong.

Green the Public Square

The next president should include in his agenda the greening of all public facilities within 3 years. Such greening should be required of all federal facilities (from office buildings to prisons, from courts to military bases), and of all corporations that receive substantial amounts of federal funds in grants or contracts (e.g., Halliburton and Boeing). The same should be strongly urged for all state and local government facilities, for other public agencies (e.g., the nation’s 35,000 school boards), and for the hundreds of thousands of not-for-profit organizations, such as the Gates, Ford, and Rockefeller foundations.

Granted, some public agencies already participate in some greening measures, but it’s sporadic and not on a national level.

The greening of the public square should apply to all new facilities and tools (e.g., all new buildings should be required to meet basic green standards, all new vehicles to meet higher and rising CAFE standards, etc.) as well as to the retrofitting of old ones (through improved insulation, green roofs and so on). It should encompass both conservation (e.g., by turning off computers at night and on weekends and holidays) and requirements to purchase power from alternative, renewable sources (say, electricity produced by windmills rather than oil).
   
The greening of the public square would be self-financing. The initial outlays would be provided by special bonds to be issued by a new greening authority. Those who receive the funds will be required to pay them back with interest by turning over half the savings they gain as a result of greening, until the funds and interest due have been repaid.

Such greening is for the common good to the fifth degree. Environmentalists have already pointed out (albeit not in these exact words) that green acts are winners to the fourth degree. They reduce our dependence on foreign oil; generate jobs at home; improve the climate; and stimulate our research and development, a major engine of a strong economy that is especially well-suited for the American place in the global economy. I add only that the greening of the public square also creates a powerful and reliable demand for new or improved green products by securing a mass market for them. Take the example of vehicles that are much more energy efficient than existing ones. To develop such vehicles requires a major outlay. If there is no secure and sizable market for such vehicles, car manufacturers and investors will be reluctant to make such investments. If, however, they knew that all new vehicles purchased by millions of public entities in the future would be required to meet ever higher CAFE standards, such investments would become much less risky. Moreover, such an ensured mass market would reduce the unit cost for the private sector.

Most discussions of greening focus on the private sector. However, the public sector is the best place to rush greening forward. It is much more amenable to national guidance than the private sector.

In short, there is much to be gained from greening the public square. The main losers would be the adversaries who are confronting us from Latin America to Eastern Europe, drawing on the funds and political leverage sky-high oil prices have granted them. That is, such greening provides yet another “win”: more funds in our pockets, less in the hands of those who do not particularly love us.

Hispanics went missing in Denver

Hispanics now outnumber blacks in the USA, but they were practically invisible during the Democratic Convention in Denver.  Only one speaker during the primetime slots was Hispanic, and he did not speak to Hispanic issues.  Otherwise, though the convention started slowly, it kept improving and by the end, it soared. The Obama campaign may well have some good explanation for this neglect of Hispanics.  Hence, it may not need to say “sorry,” but it had better make amends. 

In recent days, new census findings further document what social scientists have known for years- that minorities are rapidly becoming the majority. The Census Bureau calculates that by 2042, Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites. However, lost in this summary overview is that one group has accounted for much of this population growth in the recent past and will do even more so in the future. By 2050, Hispanics will account for 30% of Americans, compared to 15% today.  In comparison, blacks will increase only from 13% to 15%, and Asians will increase from 5% to 9%. 

In political terms, African Americans have been mobilized for decades.  They had, and currently have, a large number and variety of leaders of national presence, culminating in the nomination of Barack Obama.  Hispanics are just beginning to find their political legs.  Many of them are still new to this country, and like many first generation immigrants, they focus on finding their way and on local affairs. However, with each election their votes have become more important.  Moreover, while most African Americans tend to vote Democratic, and surely will do so this year, Hispanics must be won over if more of them are to vote for Obama. 

During the Democratic Convention in Denver, only one Hispanic person, Governor Richardson, was given a prime spot.  (Gov. Kaine of Virginia threw in two lines in Spanish).  Other speakers courted the unions, spoke of Israel, expressed concern for gay rights, and so on, but little voice was given to the issues that trouble Hispanics.  This is especially regrettable, as the relationship between African Americans and Latinos is, let’s just say, complex. 

The Obama campaign may well say that the large number of African American speakers, introducers, and endorsers was due to the special nature of the day-- the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.s “I Have a Dream” speech -- and that they were speaking for all Americans and not just for their race.  Fair enough. But the convention was mindful of special concerns of other groups, and hence the campaign should make amends. 

Let’s have one or more occasions in which we hear from a variety of Hispanics on what their version of the American dream is. 

No right to bear arms

The Supreme Court decision to uphold the ruling of a lower court which struck down a Washington DC law banning handgun ownership as unconstitutional is a bigger set back to American law and public safety than first meets the eye.

To many Americans the court’s actions may make sense because even liberal publications often refer to the Second Amendment as if it speaks simply of a "right to bear arms."  Actually the text reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." You may say the text is ambiguous given that it speaks first about a militia and then about people. However, until this year, whenever this issue reached the highest court of the land, in cases that span nearly 125 years, the court ruled that there is no constitutional barrier to limiting or removing guns owned by individuals. It is this long accumulation of legal judgments which now has been undermined by a court loaded with conservatives.

In an overview of all the cases before 2008 none other than Erin N. Griswold, solicitor general in the Nixon administration, and former dean of Harvard Law School, noted: "Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds. Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well settled proposition in American constitutional law."

The relevant Supreme Court cases are United States v. Cruikshank (1875); Presser v. Illinois (1886); Miller v. Texas (1894); United States v. Miller (1939); Lewis v. United States (1980); Quilici v. The Village of Morton Grove (1983); Higgins v. Farmer (1991); and Printz v. United States (1997). Though the details of these cases vary, and like all such cases they are subject to different readings, the decisions reached in all of them fundamentally affirm that the Constitution does not limit the states' ability to restrict private gun ownership.

For instance, in United States v. Miller, the most often cited of these cases, Jack Miller had not properly registered his sawed-off shotgun, nor had he paid a tax for transporting this weapon in interstate commerce, both required under the 1934 Firearms Act. Miller claimed that the Act violated his Second Amendment rights. The Court ruled that because Miller could not prove that his shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Seems plain enough. But when I wrote previously about this subject I received a storm of critical emails. Many of the responses were composed merely of cuss words strung together, of the kind one would expect to find in a poorly kept public toilet.  Some readers, though, offered actual arguments. They quoted Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and George Mason to show that our founding fathers were proponents of private gun ownership. My response is that ours is a government by laws which cannot be trumped by quotations from even the most highly regarded patriotic icons.

Recently some social scientists have claimed that their studies show that the more guns private citizens have, the lower the crime. These are the results of highly manipulated models, not actual empirical research. If one compared the murder rates in nations in which there is next to no private ownership of guns (such as the UK and Canada) one sees that for decades, they had much lower murder rates. Ditto for other kinds of violent crime.

The NRA argument that criminals kill people, not guns, ignores the fact that guns make it much easier for a person to kill scores of others than say knives or wrenches, to which guns are often compared. Moreover, one must note that guns in the house are more likely to be used by one spouse against another, or discharged accidentally, or to endanger children—than ever be used against a criminal. In fact, for every justified use of a gun in the home, there are about 22 criminal or unintended shootings.

One can but hope that the recent Supreme Court ruling will not open the door to a widespread relaxation of laws in other cities or states which limit the availability of dangerous weapons. While unclear, the Supreme Court’s decision does not deny that cases may be made for state limitations on the possession of firearms. However, by reversing course in the Court’s history of interpreting the Second Amendment, it is likely to impose an unwelcome burden on attempts to improve public safety.

Amitai Etzioni is University Professor and director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University. His most recent book is Security First (Yale 2007) www.securityfirstbook.com  email: comnet@gwu.edu 

For more on Second Amendment issues:  http://dspace.wrlc.org/handle/1961/587