Senate balks on gun control. Reasons for the division.(Read article summary)
The US Senate failing to pass gun control is a sign that rural, older, white America occupies one land; younger, urban, increasingly non-white America lives in another, Reich writes.
My first reaction on hearing of the Senateâ€™s failure to get 60 votes for even modest measures to regulate the flow of guns into the hands of people who shouldnâ€™t have them, such as background checks supported by 90 percent of Americans, was to be furious at the spinelessness of the four Senate Democrats who voted against the measure (Mark Begich, Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, and Heidi Heitkamp), as well as the Republicans. And also with Harry Reid, who wouldnâ€™t lead the fight on changing the filibuster rule when he had the chance.Â
The deeper message here is that rural, older, white America occupies one land; younger, urban, increasingly non-white America lives in another. And the dividing line on social issues (not just guns, but also abortion, equal marriage rights, and immigration reform) runs between the two.
Yes, I know: Plenty of people who are rural, older, and white arenâ€™t regressives on guns, abortion, equal marriage, and immigration. And plenty who are urban, younger, and non-white are. My point is that if you want to explain whatâ€™s happening in America on these non-economic issues you have to understand whatâ€™s happening to the nation demographically â€” and why the demographic split is important.Â
Begich, Baucus, Pryor, and Heitkamp may be Democrats but theyâ€™re also from rural, older, white America. That land has disproportionate political power in the Senate, and a gerrymandered House â€” which may not bode well for immigration reform over the next few months, and suggests continuing battles over â€śstateâ€™s rightsâ€ť to determine who can marry and when human life begins.Â
Over time, though, older, rural, white America is losing ground to a nation becoming ever younger, more urban, and increasingly non-white â€” a fact that threatens the former so much that itâ€™s in full backlash against the forces of change.Â