Though many reporters hailed House Democrats’ pro-gun control sit-in as “historic,” some in media saw the protest as little more than a vainglorious stunt designed to boost the political clout of a few self-serving lawmakers.
“Dems are ginning up emotions over gun violence in support of an authoritarian measure that they know full well won’t pass. It’s craven,” said Vice columnist Michael Tracey. “They are poisoning the debate, inflaming cultural resentment and lessening the likelihood that anything meaningful will be done.”
“It’s a transparent election year ploy dressed up as principled resistance,” he added.
Columnist Jeb Lund, “[E]very time I come back to CSPAN, I hope that somehow this passionate stand is being made on behalf of something other than that dogsh*t bill.”
Democratic lawmakers took control of Congress’ lower chamber Wednesday morning while the House was out of session, and shut down all legislative business with a “sit-in” they vowed would continue until GOP leadership agreed to a vote on two gun control measures, including one that would bar suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms.
Democratic lawmakers gave speeches accusing their Republican counterparts of being unwilling to debate gun control; they sang 1960s-era protest songs; they dined on pizza and doughnuts; they dismissed concerns that the so-called “no fly, no buy” measure posed a threat to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which requires “due process of law,” and says no one can be held to answer for a crime “unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”
The protest, which came in the wake of a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., that claimed the lives of 49 people, also included a moment where House Democrats applauded the press for its coverage of the sit-in.
The feelings of admiration were mutual, as several reporters and pundits stood in awe of the gun control demonstration.
“Democrats are doing a historic protest by sitting here in the well,” said MSNBC’s Luke Russert. “It is a historic moment without a doubt.”
His MSNBC colleague Kate Snow agreed, and said, “I’ve covered that place for five years. I can’t remember anything like this. I know you haven’t seen anything like this either.”
Jezebel editor J. Escobedo Shepherd said elsewhere, “This is so amazing to watch and historic.”
However, not everyone in media was impressed with the display of so-called civil disobedience. There were some who characterized the entire experiment as pointless, self-serving and nakedly partisan, with much of the criticism being aimed at House Democrats’ support for the “no fly, no buy” proposal.
“Problem here is not political theater per se but political theater in support of cynical, misleading, civil liberties-destroying measures,” said Vice’s Michael Tracey. “Doubly cynical because Democrats are purposely conflating support for addressing “gun violence” with support for the Terror List proposal.”
“If nothing else, the slow-motion disintegration of Congress as an institution is interesting to watch,” he added. “Members enjoy immunity from arrest while on the House floor, so likening this stunt to civil disobedience events of the past is ridiculous.”
[T]here is another ugliness here. In the long term, in two or three presidential-election cycles, we may witness meaningful gun-control legislation inspired by this week’s actions in Congress, enacted with the same gradualism that eventually brought marriage equality to this country. But, in the immediate term, what the sit-in will generate is countless 30-second negative campaign ads about Republicans who wouldn’t vote for gun control everyone can agree on because it’s ultimately about a terror watch list. And that is a list that disproportionately and inaccurately targets Muslims and Arab-Americans.
In an America that effectively synonymizes Islam and certain kinds of brown people with terror, what the Democrats are doing flirts uncomfortably with leveraging the same kind of fear of ‘the other’ that animates baser things like Donald Trump and turns it into an instrument of the Democratic Party. It offers a clean, bipartisan, morally clear endorsement of what it’s acceptable to be afraid of, enshrined as a progressive tactic, the first low step on a path supposedly leading to a higher goal.
Vox.com published a report that underscored the concerns over the terror watch list-based legislation: “Democrats’ proposal lacks basic due process protections, and would give the Justice Department a power that would probably be disproportionately applied to Muslims.”
Gawker published an article with the none-too-subtle headline, “The Democrats Are Boldly Fighting For a Bad, Stupid Bill.”
The gossip website’s social media feed promoted that same article with a separate headline reading, “Democrats are finally taking a stand — in support of a shi**y, racist bill that won’t reduce gun violence.”
However, for Gawker, the demonstration wasn’t a total wash, as it offered the website the opportunity to highlight a few noteworthy moments.
Lastly, there was the Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald, who has long been a vocal critic of any legislation based on the federal government’s terror watch list.
“Dems are embracing a bigoted, tyrannical & dangerous law,” he wrote. “Dems’ bill literally seeks to expand Bush/Cheney secret, due-process-free terror watch lists.”
“I wonder who Democrats think will end up on these secret suspicion-based lists they are trying to implement? Any guesses?” he added.
As Democratic lawmakers gave speeches on the need for stricter gun laws, they repeatedly broke into chants of “No bill! No break!”
They called it quits on the demonstration less than 25 hours after it began, surrendering the floor back to leadership without a vote on the two gun control bills.
