How the NRA Defeated Washington
by Anthony Arnold
May 2020
Any conversation about the politics of gun control eventually ends up on the subject of the NRA. And rightfully so. It’s impossible to imagine a scenario in which any gun control measure passes without first confronting this powerful group. There are few, if any, lobbying organizations that can claim to match their astonishing levels of success and influence.
If you’re an advocate for gun control, then none of this comes as a surprise. Progressives have long lamented their inability to break the NRA’s stranglehold
on Republicans, and frequently use it as an opportunity to criticize the negative influence that money can have on politics. Unfortunately, that explanation
is not only generally wrong about how political influence operates, but it widely misses the mark in this case.
The NRA’s power does not come from money. Direct political spending, via donations to candidates or parties, makes up a very small percentage of how the NRA spends their money. Other, far less successful groups, actually spend far more money through these sort of conventional channels.
This doesn’t mean money has zero influence, of course. A large donation may be a good way to secure an initial meeting. But retaining a politician’s support is about understanding how power really operates in Washington, and it’s about being able to wield that power with both nuance and authority. And this is where the NRA shines.
There may not be another group that has such an intricate understanding of how to operate on so many different levels. They are deft political operators, and countering them will require a thorough understanding of the ways in which they’ve amassed so much power inside of our political system.
Local Politics
The NRA’s base of power starts with voters. Due to decades of grassroot level activism, they’ve developed a network of people who can be easily reached, easily activated, and easily directed to target or support a particular candidate. This network is extremely involved in local politics and can be counted on to send emails, make phone calls, participate in local NRA events, and spread the word to friends and neighbors.
This is an incredible advantage. Local races typically lack the money or coverage that defines national politics, and this creates any number of chances for a relatively small number of people to wield large influence in the process. The NRA excels at making sure that in the races that matter most, they’re going to have a powerful voice.
But this voice isn’t just targeted at Democrat candidates. You could actually argue that trying to do that would be a tremendous waste of the NRA’s time. Think about it like this: In almost every election, the deciding issue for most voters between a Democrat and a Republican will not be gun control. The politics of gun control have been highly partisan for a while now, and the NRA is unlikely to convince a Democrat to switch sides. Instead, they first direct their supporters at insufficiently supportive candidates in Republican primaries. This tactic not only achieves their goals, but the specific method they use drives the two parties further apart, and establishes the outlines of the debate.
The Scorecard
If you’re in a Republican primary, then the chances are that you and your opponent share similar views on a large number of issues. Under these circumstances the support, or lack thereof, of the NRA can make or break you. Which is the exact reason why the NRA publishes a scorecard every year grading the level of support from every politician. This scorecard provides an easy way for Republican voters to gauge exactly how supportive a candidate is on the issue, and anyone receiving less than an “A” runs the risk of getting attacked.
The really tricky part to understand is how this same scorecard also impacts Democrat politicians. Let’s call this the “Bernie Sanders” effect. As a longtime Progressive politician, Senator Sanders has frequently been on the far left of our political spectrum. But, due to Vermont’s particular somewhat unusual politics, he’s always been relatively moderate on gun control for a Democrat. The NRA has, at times, scored him as high as a C minus on their scorecard.
It’s easy to forget now, but in 2016, this was actually an area of weakness for him. He sustained attacks from the Progressive wing of the party that was concerned he wouldn’t be hard enough on guns. Since then, in order to prepare for his entry in the 2020 Democrat primary, he’s taken a much tougher stance on guns in order to avoid having that happen again.
While this may be politically smart for him, it also suggests that if you’re a Democrat, there’s no motivation to get anything other than an “F” on the NRA’s scorecard. With few exceptions, higher grades only open you up to attacks from your own party. And like their Republican counterparts, the main fear that elected Democrat officials have is a primary challenge from their own party, and strongly opposing the NRA is one way to avoid that.
This is exactly what the NRA wants. The two parties have motivations that are in direct opposition, with zero room for compromise. Politicians that attempt to bridge the divide are punished by their own parties, which means that any discussion about guns starts so far apart that any sort of middle ground position is much harder to get to. The entire debate is poisoned before it even begins.
The NRA and Identity
But, the NRA isn’t just a local group, and they don’t just talk about guns. Their reach now extends into areas that aren’t, on the surface, related to guns at all. Understanding how they’ve pulled that off requires understanding the NRA’s main tool for influencing national politics: Identity. Identity politics is a modern term to describe a longstanding and basic fact. We all vote based on any number of identities. Parent, college graduate, race, gender, orientation, business owner, and so on are all examples of identities.
Each of these carry their own potential voting preferences, and appealing to them is standard practice. The NRA has used this practice to amass vast power at the national level inside of the Republican party. They’ve done it by tying gun ownership to other identities for decades now, so that those identities amplify their own power.
Two examples of this are the slogans “America’s First Freedom,” which is also the title of an official NRA publication, and “Freedom’s Safest Place,” which is one of the NRA’s more recent slogans. Both of these connect the concept of gun ownership to the fundamental value of freedom. In doing so they’re able to portray themselves as vital defenders of America, instead of being seen as a largely self-serving group with vested interests in the debate. NRA members get to see themselves as people participating in a battle to preserve freedom.
This also allows them to link themselves to other groups that fall under the umbrella of “defending freedom,” such as the military or the police. So if you support the NRA, you’re also “supporting the troops.” And if the NRA is saying “Blue lives matter,” then that’s the side you stand on.
Each identity that the NRA absorbs gives them more power. That’s how they move from local politics to national politics. Because in addition to granting them power, these identities also grant them protection. Attacking the NRA is much more difficult when that also means tackling the police, as an example. Or when it means telling an individual supporter, who may have multiple identities tied to the NRA, that this organization which means so much to them is bad.
This is the exact sort of focusing of power that politicians love at the national level. As you move up in politics appealing to individual voters becomes more difficult. You need to convince people from varying backgrounds that you’re the correct choice, and so you can’t make your message too specific. But the NRA offers a powerful alternative. Their ability to carry a message across a broad spectrum makes them very appealing to politicians.
Foreign Policy
So the NRA is grassroots, with traditional avenues of power, on the local level. They expand to the national level by using identity politics. And lastly, they use transactional politics to expand onto the International stage. Transactional politics is the way most people think about politics. A person offers to do something in exchange for something else. A transaction. It’s wildly unpopular with most people, because it suggests that politicians can be bought. Which is why the NRA uses it in foreign policy, which is virtually uncovered by the media and so it’s unlikely that their activities will draw much attention.
Imagine you’re a gun owner in a country with tighter gun regulations. Perhaps you look to the U.S. and wish your gun laws were more like ours. The NRA is willing to help you. While they can’t get directly involved in your politics, they can give you the sort of guidance and support you need to try and launch a campaign on your own. Or maybe you’re an International gun manufacturer, and you want a way to capitalize on America’s large gun market, while you also work to create a larger market in your home country. Again, the NRA is happy to lobby on your behalf, ensuring that your business is protected from American lawmakers, while you run ads in the NRA’s publications, making sure that your product is shown to a very receptive audience.
Or perhaps you’re a foreign country, interested in the NRA’s extensive connections to American politicians. Donating to the NRA could be a way to donate to those politicians in a way that avoids detection, and if you help high ranking NRA members with their own personal interests, then they might help you make those contacts. None of these examples are really hypothetical. The NRA has used those exact playbooks to expand into the politics of Brazil, Russia and Australia.
In return, those countries, and their gunmakers, have gained the ability to directly influence the NRA. And indirectly influence American politics. And with every bit of power they accumulate, the NRA becomes even more deeply entrenched in our politics, and in the power structure of the Republican party. And that’s really their goal: To become an indispensable part of the Republican machine. If supporting the NRA is just a standard pillar of Republican politics, then passing any gun legislation becomes almost impossible.
Why It Matters
The NRA’s influence in American politics is bad. It’s bad because the NRA creates and enforces a level of partisan fighting that makes healthy discourse impossible. It’s bad because the NRA uses our natural tendency towards identity and warps it into a weapon to spread their brand of toxicity. It’s bad because they’re an International non-profit operating with no oversight, and they’re pumping virtually untraceable money and influence into our political system.
It’s bad because the cost of continued inaction is death and violence on a staggering scale. It’s bad because mass shootings are background noise now, and don’t even warrant headlines anymore. It’s bad because they’ve made it almost impossible for us to imagine a world in which gun violence, and the tragedy that accompanies it, doesn’t exist.
The NRA’s power is terrifying. They’ve successfully captured one of our parties, and they’ve successfully shaped the conversation for decades. But nothing lasts forever. Especially in politics where change could be as little as one election away. And that’s what it’s going to take. That’s what the situation demands.
Hear more of about this story, in the author's own words, right now. >>