Attention NRA: Let’s Understand Something

New Media ≠ Old Radio

Let’s consider the Wikipedia definition:

New media is a term meant to encompass the emergence of digital, computerized, or networked information and communication technologies in the later part of the 20th century.Most technologies described as “new media” are digital, often having characteristics of being manipulable, networkable, dense, compressible, and impartial.

Although, from the sounds of it, since you don’t know what new media is, you probably don’t know what a crowdsourcing project like Wikipedia is.

Let’s establish that “Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, among others” are not new media. That’s old media. In the case of some of them, pretty damn old media.

Seriously, NRA, what the hell are you thinking referring to Rush as “new media” multiple times?!? Just because an old media broadcaster favors your position doesn’t make them part of the new media movement. (NRA’s definition apparently includes any conservative voice, especially if it’s on old radio waves.)

I clicked on this article because tonight’s email alert featured a description about how new media would be under constant threat in the Obama Administration. That definitely got my interest because that would lead educated, tech savvy folks to assume that NRA sees serious value in new media and is going to help look out for our interests when they cross paths with the organization’s core mission. Exciting, right?

This appears to be a piece sent out through Publications, not ILA, the division most bloggers (*ahem* new media producers) work with in the organization. It’s such a disappointment because since I’m meeting with NRA staff in January to discuss the second annual new media outreach event, I would have assumed that most of their divisions “got it” or were “hip to the lingo” by now. Apparently, we still have a long way to go if Rush is considered a new media leader for having an old media radio show. Now I just have to hope that none of the new bloggers, podcasters, and other new media producers I have on my outreach list actually bother reading the column from Wayne. If they do, then I’ll try to embarrassingly cover for them and just say it’s apparently one clueless division that doesn’t get it yet. I mean, come on, the guy has had the same talk show since 1988. There’s nothing new about it.

UPDATE: Oh, the sheer irony of it! Guess what they link to in the same email alert? A blog. Specifically, The Volokh Conspiracy. In case you can’t imagine it, I’ll describe my reaction as something like rolled eyes. And a loud sigh.

UPDATE II: There was a misunderstanding that some thought I believed the email to come from Publications, I did not.  I believed the column itself was written by Pubs and then sent out in the usual Grassroots email.  However, I have since had it clarified that Publications had no part in writing the column.  I apologize for the misunderstanding.  Based on what I did know and also the standard practices I’m aware of in the corporate world, this would be the case.  It’s not at NRA.

The premise that some office at NRA has someone who thinks a 102-year-old technology is somehow “new media” is still a very big problem.  It’s something that still needs to be addressed.  I am just happy to report that it turns out we know it’s not Publications.

NRA Desperate for Cash?

This looks like typical NRA fundraising to me, which as any member can tell you, they do frequently, even in good times.  I would have hoped that Washington Monthly would do a bit of research into how NRA is structured, but I guess that’s asking too much.

First, it’s NRA’s PAC that spent 15 million dollars.  NRA itself can’t legally spend money on electioneering, so NRA-PVF, which is supported entirely through monies donated by membership.  NRA-PVF can’t use funds NRA raises from membership dues, through extra fundraising, and it definitly can’t draw money from NRA’s endowment (which is part of the NRA Foundation, a different part of NRA).  It is established entirely to do electioneering, and must have seperate cash sources from NRA proper.

Now, it’s true that PVF needs to refill its warchest in time for the 2010 midterms, but that’s a separate issue from how NRA as a whole is doing.  It’s also expected.  I didn’t donate money to PVF this election cycle so they would sit on it.  I donated it with the expectation that they’d spend it, and spend it they did.

Plus, my understanding is that NRA is actually doing pretty well right now.  You might think with the news being rich with stories about gun sales being through the roof in anticipation of coming restrictions on gun rights under the new Congress and Administration, that people might also be thinking that maybe it’s time to join (or rejoin) the NRA.  I’m planning on upgrading to an endowment member, myself.  NRA is offering steep discounts until January 20th.

Hat Tip to Pro-Gun Progressive

Where Do Gun Nuts Fit in a Right-of-Center Movement?

I read something the other day that just didn’t sit with me very well. I mulled over it a bit, and decided to focus on the one section of a much longer post about building infrastructure for a conservative movement. Patrick Ruffini, while calling on the right to stop popping out new groups all the time and focus on the good ones we have, broke down the grassroots into three segments. The way he worded it was what jumped out at me.

Right now, the balance of power in the conservative movement when it comes to grassroots muscle rests with the economic (AFP, FreedomWorks, Club for Growth, etc.) and social (AFA, Focus, etc.) wings. You also have the NRA.

I agree with Sebastian on coalition building in order to advance our pro-gun efforts. I realize that we are not the only issue the GOP can cling to, and in fact, it’s actually pretty far down the pecking order of day-to-day political issues, even with the most anti-gun leaders in office. (We are lucky to have that be the case. Can you imagine hearings in 6 different committees on a dozen different versions of gun control every few months? I’m exaggerating, but you get the idea.)

However, reading that, I’m curious about the fact that NRA members are singled out. One, we’re last. Two, we don’t even get put into the same sentence. While I’m glad that it’s recognized that among those who commit to grassroots work for gun rights, we may differ on our social and economic views, it’s still troubling to just be casually thrown in like that at the end. (That’s not to nitpick Ruffini’s sentence structure, I’m just explaining my thought process as I read his piece.)

I had to ask, are we the “oh yeah, them, too” members of the movement? Many of us certainly feel that way.

Considering NRA’s membership numbers far out pace all of the other listed groups, we shouldn’t be. When you also consider that most of those other groups define member as anyone added to their email list in the last 5 years, vs. NRA requiring you to fork over $35 every year, it’s even more daunting. By simply having a mandatory paid membership model, NRA members prove every single year that we’re more willing to engage at the grassroots level than any of the other group lists.

So why do so many of our activists feel like when they do engage with others in the movement that we’re taken advantage of? I don’t think it is quite as simple as an attitude of “who else are they going to vote for? Barack Obama?” from the other conservative activists. I think a big part of it is our fault. When I think about events where a standard right-of-center activist might encounter gun nuts, I realize that gun nuts aren’t there. NRA is, and they try to give our issue presence. But we’re not.

For example, in my years of going to CPAC, I was used to seeing people there who spotted the NRA booth and their reactions are generally limited to variations on these themes:

  • Oh look, guns. Sure, gun rights, sounds like part of liberty! I like Liberty! Jerry Falwell gave us Liberty!
  • Gun owners. They like low taxes, too. No one wants to pay high ammo taxes.
  • Cool! It’s the bitter clingers. I wonder if they have any candy or free stuff to fill my backpack.

That’s not the entire crowd by any means, but for most people, the issue is not a serious thought. They don’t know the political battles we’re fighting. They don’t know that beyond NRA, we have even more local communities like our gun clubs and even commercial ranges.

I think there are ways that NRA has successfully managed to rise above getting a pat on the head from the crowd by doing things like having Cam broadcast live from radio row. It reminds folks that there is a real issue to deal with in the political game. It’s not always an every day issue, but when it comes up, it’s usually big one way or the other.

But where are the attendees who make it clear that they are there for the Second Amendment? Where are the folks sitting in the crowd between speakers talking to the people around them about how guns are targeted more often at the state and local level? You don’t find us there.

When going door-to-door for the campaigns this year, the Victory Office gave us a bag full of buttons to choose from in case we needed them to identify us with a volunteer effort. There were no sportsmen buttons in there. There were clipboards with various coalition group bumper stickers plastered on there – not one had sportsmen. (At least until Sebastian got his hands on one with no stickers at all…) People complimented our Sportsmen for McCain t-shirts we created online, and that was the extent to which they saw gun owners involved. We had to create our own visibility.

Now, this doesn’t mean that I think every gun owner needs to go out and make their own “Sportsmen for X-Candidate” gear to make us visible. When I was in the main phone bank room one afternoon and we took a collective breather, I talked to the other volunteers about why I was there – gun rights. Plain and simple. Yes, I liked other issues, but gun rights were the top of my activist agenda. We attended the local GOP volunteer party even though we’re not Republicans. Sebastian talked to a candidate about why he needed to return his NRA questionnaire next time, and we met one of his fellow club members who was brought to the event by a friend – another discussion in front of conservative activists about gun rights as an issue.

There is a lot of work to do to solve this problem. But, if we want more proactive candidates, and we want a hand on the proverbial steering wheel of any political party or social movement, we have to become more visible. For those of us who identify on multiple fronts of the conservative movement, we need to mix it up in those circles a bit. Get in those other circles and talk about guns as an issue we face, and why it is one that inspires your activism.

We can’t keep making excuses that our guys would rather just be at the range instead of out talking to the other members of the movement. Every issue has that problem. We just need to get over it if we want that position of “you also have the NRA” to change. If we don’t, then we can keep on being keyboard warriors and resign ourselves to sitting in the back seat instead of with a hand on the wheel.

Just to note, this is an even bigger problem in the Democratic circles since gun rights are marginalized within their activist base. But everyone here is pro-gun and can at least acknowledge that many of our political friends (though by no means all) are on the right side of the aisle – especially at the federal level. I definitely don’t have any special solutions there, but I’d love to hear ideas from those who lean left on other issues

We Knew This Was Coming

Is the NRA still relevant? They couldn’t defeat Barack, so clearly they must be.  They point out that sportsmen turned out for McCain at the same rate they turned out for Bush in 2004.  Here’s what the politicians need to understand: no gun control.  Unless they want us to turn out in 2010 like we did in 1994.  There won’t be any Lightworker driving Democrat turnout then.

History News Network on the NRA

This is a pretty good article on why the National Rifle Association was founded:

To him, what counted was accuracy: Soldiers needed to learn how to hit their targets with the minimum number of bullets. This wasn’t just about being able to hit a bullseye at 300 yards with a rifle. Such marksmanship went hand-in-hand with other typically American virtues. Good shots required coolness under fire; steely self-discipline; familiarity with such high-tech implements as telescopic sights, windage indicators, and ballistic instruments; a determination to improve themselves by constant training; and independence of thought and action. In Europe, where the ideology of mass-firepower had long held sway, soldiers were still treated as dull, disposable automatons and subjected to fearsome discipline to flog out any remnants of individual initiative. Civil War generals had fallen beneath the European spell; Church wanted to “re-Americanize” warfare.

Yes.  This is still a gun blog :)   Read the whole thing.

Chris Cox vs. Paul Helmke on Fox News

Well, at least the gun issue is getting some traction in this election.  I know we kind of sneer as groups like the Brady Campaign grasp for relevance, but the silence on the gun issue has actually hurt us too.  The media is burying it, largely because it hurts Obama more than it helps him.

You might think that any gun owner worth his salt knows Obama’s record, but trust me, they don’t.  A lot of them are concerned about other issues this election, and hearing Obama say he supports the Second Amendment is enough for them to vote on other issues that are concerning them.  This is a big problem in Pennsylvania, where the unions have been active conspirators in convincing their membership that Barack Obama is an OK guy on guns.  In a state where a lot of gun voters overlap with union voters, that can hurt when combined with media silence.

UPDATE: Chris Cox has an editorial in the Washington Times as well.