Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


It’s probably not shocking that Mother Jones would find much to expose inside the National Rifle Association. What is surprising is that the Republican Party has allowed its majority in the House to do the radicalized NRA’s bidding. Specifically, in March, the House voted overwhelmingly to repeal the assault weapons ban passed in 1994.

Vice President Gore subsequently said the Republican leadership has “an IOU to the NRA,” a shorthand the National Rifle Association finds both accurate and pleasing. Accurate because in 1994 the NRA was the top PAC donor (primarily to Republicans), and is on track to double its record $5.3 million this electoral year. Pleasing because the NRA leadership can show it’s donors that their dollars count. Meanwhile, the rest of the country is treated to the spectacle of a Republican Congress calling for unlimited access to assault weapons as a prescription for personal safety.

“My wife lives alone five days a week in a rural area in upstate New York,” Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) yelled at Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), nephew of John and Robert, just before the vote. “She has a right to defend herself when I’m not there, son. And don’t you ever forget it. Don’t you ever forget it!”

Let’s distinguish between rhetoric and symbolism. Both Democrats and Republicans exaggerate the efficacy of the ban and the dangers posed by its repeal. Rep. Solomon and his wife already own five rifles, none of which are in danger of being confiscated. Meanwhile, many varieties of assault weapons are still easy to purchase because of limitations in the legislation. But with this vote (and similar votes, for example, to abandon environmental protection), the Republican majority has declared it no longer represents conservatives.

Conservatives of various stripes share a belief in limited government because they disdain human perfectibility. Most attempts to improve the human condition, they think, are doomed. The father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, wrote in 1790 in his Reflections on the Revolution in France: “We have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution; that he should never dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion.”

According to Burke, the state and the status quo deserve respect because they contain the accumulated wisdom of the past. Radical liberty should be feared because individuals lacking proper respect for the past are unlikely to fulfill their obligations to the future. To Burke, society is “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

This fear of unbridled individualism was articulated even earlier by the philosopher to whom modern American conservatives trace their moral and political thought. In Leviathan (1651), Thomas Hobbes theorizes that in the “state of nature,” individuals would continually engage in a “war of all against all.” They therefore pool their authority into a sovereign, whose main job is to secure “the common peace and safety.”

The assault rifle celebrates the war of all against all. So do armor-piercing bullets and nontraceable gun powder, both advocated by the NRA and its representatives in Congress. Somehow, fighting for “cop killer” armaments has become a badge of bravado. The state — and even order itself — have been transformed into the enemy. Laissez-faire has evolved into lock and load.

Of course the Republicans don’t have a monopoly on selling out their party’s deepest principles. The Democrats, in their quests for campaign cash, often render their votes unto the corporate lobbies and forget they are supposed to represent working men and women. This bipartisan abandonment of core values contributes to the creation of what progressives call “a predatory society” and what conservatives call “the mob.”

Sensible conservatives and progressives have common reasons to fear the decomposition of American society. If the middle class continues to shrink, and if the rules of behavior become increasingly survivalist, the ensuing crossfire won’t recognize political affiliations or disengaged bystanders.

The opposition to such an embattled world thus needs to be broad — drawn from the ranks of conservatives and progressives, the secular and the religious, the rich and the struggling. A healthy respect for American tradition mandates that individualism be a given, but that it can be guided. In what direction? Towards accountability.

Opening the market for assault weapons is an admission of failed accountability, and a recipe for increasing mayhem. On this basic point, marksmen, pacifists, and everyone in between can surely agree.

Let’s distinguish between rhetoric and symbolism. Both Democrats and Republicans exaggerate the efficacy of the ban and the dangers posed by its repeal. Rep. Solomon and his wife already own five rifles, none of which are in danger of being confiscated. Meanwhile, many varieties of assault weapons are still easy to purchase because of limitations in the legislation. But with this vote (and similar votes, for example, to abandon environmental protection), the Republican majority has declared it no longer represents conservatives. Conservatives of various stripes share a belief in limited government because they disdain human perfectibility. Most attempts to improve the human condition, they think, are doomed. The father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, wrote in 1790 in his Reflections on the Revolution in France : “We have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution; that he should never dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion.”

According to Burke, the state and the status quo deserve respect because they contain the accumulated wisdom of the past. Radical liberty should be feared because individuals lacking proper respect for the past are unlikely to fulfill their obligations to the future. To Burke, society is “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

This fear of unbridled individualism was articulated even earlier by the philosopher to whom modern American conservatives trace their moral and political thought. In Leviathan (1651), Thomas Hobbes theorizes that in the “state of nature,” individuals would continually engage in a “war of all against all.” They therefore pool their authority into a sovereign, whose main job is to secure “the common peace and safety.” The assault rifle celebrates the war of all against all. So do armor-piercing bullets and nontraceable gun powder, both advocated by the NRA and its representatives in Congress. Somehow, fighting for “cop killer” armaments has become a badge of bravado. The state — and even order itself — have been transformed into the enemy. Laissez-faire has evolved into lock and load.

Of course the Republicans don’t have a monopoly on selling out their party’s deepest principles. The Democrats, in their quests for campaign cash, often render their votes unto the corporate lobbies and forget they are supposed to represent working men and women. This bipartisan abandonment of core values contributes to the creation of what progressives call “a predatory society” and what conservatives call “the mob.” Sensible conservatives and progressives have common reasons to fear the decomposition of American society. If the middle class continues to shrink, and if the rules of behavior become increasingly survivalist, the ensuing crossfire won’t recognize political affiliations or disengaged bystanders. The opposition to such an embattled world thus needs to be broad — drawn from the ranks of conservatives and progressives, the secular and the religious, the rich and the struggling. A healthy respect for American tradition mandates that individualism be a given, but that it can be guided. In what direction? Towards accountability. Opening the market for assault weapons is an admission of failed accountability, and a recipe for increasing mayhem. On this basic point, marksmen, pacifists, and everyone in between can surely agree.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate