The big news yesterday was that the FBI is going to further investigate Hillary Clinton about her email server. The Washington Post was typical of the angle of the coverage, Computer Seized in Weiner Probe Prompts FBI to Take New Steps in Clinton Email Inquiry. I think this is deceptive. Is this actually how the causality works? I think it’s the opposite. I think it’s more like this:

After months of attacks on FBI Director James Comey, he was looking for any reason at all to bolster his reputation in the Republican Party — the party that he belongs to. So when email files were found on a computer used by Weiner’s wife and Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, they pounced. The odds that there is anything here are minuscule.

The whole thing is entirely in keeping of all the Clinton scandals: innuendo and no substance. The FBI hasn’t gone through the files that they found. They don’t even know if the files they have are all duplicates of files they already had. But that didn’t stop James Comey from telling Congress that the FBI would take “appropriate investigative steps.” In a vacuum, that wouldn’t mean much. Less that two weeks before the election, it simply soils Clinton without any way for Clinton to defend herself nor any time for the FBI to finish its new investigation.

Working the Refs

There is a more charitable way to look at all this, of course. After all that Comey has been through, he wants to make sure that he protects himself. But it all comes to the same thing. The Republicans are the masters of working the refs. Thus far, there has been no real story about the FBI’s decision that there was nothing to prosecute Clinton over. But that hasn’t stopped the right wing from claiming that James Comey is absolutely part of some evil Democratic conspiracy.

The media play right along with it. After all, the media were the original referees that the Republicans got so good at working. They are the ones that fold at the slightest hint of disapproval — at least when it comes from conservatives.

But the truth is: the damage is done. All of Trump’s horrendous behavior and incoherent policies are so yesterday’s news. There is a new story out now! And the fact that there is almost nothing known actually makes it worse for Clinton. This, of course, is why the Clinton campaign is demanding that the FBI release any information it has.

James Comey Didn’t Say Anything Important

Comey’s letter basically said nothing. This is the most important part of it:

In short: I don’t know a damned thing but I’m terrified by you nut-jobs.

This is no way to run a democracy. I suspect that Comey’s banal letter won’t change the outcome of the election. People’s minds are made up. The people who care already “know” that Clinton is guilty of this and anything else you might want to name. But it does hurt her and just adds fuel to the fire of the crazies.

The spectacle of Republicans coming up with a new reason for not allowing the late Justice Scalia’s seat to be filled is funny in its way. Greg Sargent summed it up in an article yesterday, Republicans: The Next President Should Fill Scalia’s Seat. Correction: The Next Republican President Should. As he noted, “What’s really striking here is how effortlessly the rationale that Senate Republicans themselves offered — for months and months on end — for not acting on Garland this year has been tossed out the window.” It does show that they lack any kind of base ideology other than the gaining of power so that they can give more money to their rich backers. But more important is that it shows how focused they are on short-term thinking.

This is nothing new. Remember the last debt ceiling rise? John Boehner sacrificed his political career (not much of a sacrifice, but still) in order to get the debt ceiling raised. Paul Ryan just became Speaker of the House. So the Republicans used that as cover for doing this. But in 2017, what will the Republicans do? It’s always short-term thinking with them. They just want to get through the next term — and sometimes just the next day or two. It’s really amazing to watch.

Long History of Republican Short-Term Thinking

But we can go back much further to see the short-term thinking of the Republicans. Their entire strategy to gain power is based on white Christian resentment. And this made sense during the years of Reagan and the elder Bush. But even at that time, they should have known that they needed to start pivoting. They haven’t. It took them until after losing the 2012 election to even think about serious outreach to Latinos. But there are two important things about that. First, that was all about immigration reform — something their rich donors want. Second, they did nothing about it.

The truth is that they are unwilling to risk upsetting their rabid but declining base. Again: it’s short-term thinking. If ever they had an opportunity to sacrifice the short-term for the long-term, it was this election. But instead, they clung on to the hope that they could win the presidency. They really seem as though they think that if they can just get control of Washington for 4 years, they can enact everything they want and the future will be saved. Just four years and they can roll back all that horrible (Popular!) legislation from the last 80-odd years and finally America will be its True Self.

Do Republicans Even Have a Long-Term Plan?

It really isn’t clear what the Republicans want to do beyond rolling back the New Deal and Great Society — allowing ever more money to be funneled to the rich. I suspect that they don’t actually have any other ideas. Even conservative intellectuals seem focused on what’s supposedly wrong with liberal policy rather than what is right with conservative policy. (There might be a reason for that!)

There is something infantile about Republicans. You probably know about the Marshmallow Challenge. It’s a test given to children to see how long they are willing to put off immediate reward to get a greater one. (See Alfie Kohn on the problems with the test.) Something similar is going on with the Republicans. They aren’t willing to accept even the smallest amount of pain to look out for the long-term health of their party. It’s short-term thinking — always.

It’s an America Problem

But maybe the real fools are the Democrats. The truth is, the American people don’t seem to notice. Imagine if Donald Trump became president and tanked the economy. In 2020, the Democrats would likely regain power (assuming things hadn’t stabilized). But we would be at another (worse) normal. And if the economy went into recession in 2024, the thoughtful American voter would put the Republicans back in power. It isn’t just the Republican Party that suffers from short-term thinking.

Sharon Lafraniere and Emily Palmer at The New York Times wrote an important article last week, What 130 of the Worst Shootings Say About Guns in America. The newspaper “examined all 130 shootings last year in which four or more people were shot, at least one fatally, and investigators identified at least one attacker.” And what they found highlighted something I’ve argued for years: we need real gun law reform; the problem can’t be addressed by nibbling around the edges.

Let’s start with this finding: “In more than half the 130 cases, at least one assailant was already barred by federal law from having a weapon.” This is devastating. But it is hardly surprising. There are roughly as many guns in the United States as there are people.

Getting Guns Is Easy

Guns are everywhere. I live in the suburbs, and if I really needed a gun, there are a large number of people I could get one from. And I don’t make it a point of hanging out with gun freaks. But a lot of people have been convinced that they are safer to have a gun than to not. So they are just around. I’m not saying these people would sell me a gun. But if I told them I was in danger, they’d probably loan me one. And if not that, I could just steal one.

So in order to address gun violence, you have to look at the guns that are already here. Stopping more of them from flooding into our society is important. But even if you completely banned the manufacture of guns, it would not be nearly enough to successfully address the problem.

Maybe I’m just too cynical, old, and tired, but I can’t imagine us doing anything about our huge stockpile of guns. As it is, every widely publicized mass shooting only makes gun purchases go up. And every time a Democrat is elected president, gun purchases go up. There seems to be little that doesn’t cause gun sales to go up. So the idea of reducing the number of guns we have seems out of the question.

But if we are going to seriously discuss gun law reform, we need to start talking about this.

Handguns Are the Big Problem

Then there is the issue of gun types. Today, everyone focuses on assault rifles. But when I was younger, we discussed handguns. There was a reason for that. As the article says: “Only 14 shootings involved assault rifles, illustrating their outsize role in the gun debate. Nearly every other assailant used a handgun.” That’s not to say that assault rifles and high capacity magazines aren’t a problem. But the much bigger problem is handguns.

I think the reason we’ve backed off on handguns is that they seem more respectable to the middle class. If you are going to have a gun for self-protection, it is almost certainly going to be a handgun. A shotgun is almost certainly a better choice, but people think what they think.

On the other side, assault rifles look like they were designed for war. That’s because they were! And so it is easier to convince the middle class that there is no reason to have them around.

Real Gun Law Reform

These days, it seems that what we talk about regarding gun law reform is all about what is easy (or at least possible) to do. But that’s a mistake. For one thing, it isn’t a good negotiating strategy. Liberals have proposed that we do the bare minimum on gun control and the conservatives have offered nothing. But if we had spent the last decade talking about something more meaningful than closing the gun show loophole, we might be able to have moved the playing field in our direction.

But what I fear even more is that we do get a smaller limit on magazines and we do close the gun show loophole and it doesn’t make enough of a difference to show a decrease in gun violence. Then what? We have to make the argument that we always knew that these measures would have little effect on the problem. And that more must be done.

That’s why we need to be honest today. There are too many guns in the United States. Handguns are the most dangerous guns. Let’s close the gun show loophole, by all means. But let’s not kid the nation (Or ourselves!) that it will have a large impact.

As for me, I will go on making the argument that I always do. The American fetishization of guns is indicative of how cowardly we are. We think we need massive firepower to deal with anything. But anyone can pick up a machine gun and kill anyone they feel threatened by. It takes courage and self-assurance to go out into the world and manage difficult situations with finesse and intelligence.