 |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_congressional_districts#/media/File:NY_Congressional_Districts_110th_Congress.png |
 |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_congressional_districts#/media/File:Map_of_New_York%27s_congressional_districts_from_2013_to_2022.png |
Anyway, Gillibrand challenged four-term incumbent Republican John E. Sweeney in an extremely personal race: a domestic violence related police report regarding Sweeney was leaked late in the race, accusations were made that Gillibrand lived in a NYC apartment, and negative TV advertisements were on the air for both sides (unfortunately I could not find any on YouTube) (biography.com). Gillibrand won the 2006 race 53% to 47% and was re-elected in 2008 with 62% of the vote (time.com).
Now, you may be asking what does this have to do with Gillibrand's position on gun control, and I am getting there. Now as mentioned and shown above in the first picture, the 20th district of New York was oddly shaped and predominately Republican. Gillibrand barely won the race and in order to do so, she would have to adjust her positions and meet in the middle. And to do this, she focused on gun control, well lack of gun control. Her politics had to reflect her conservative district and Gillibrand received major endorsements from the National Rifle Association (NRA) for her stances in regards to gun control, giving her an "A" grade (politico.com). Gillibrand moved her position to bridge the political and cultural divide, shunning political labels and even embracing the Second Amendment that placed her outside the mainstream of her party but kept her in office. Gillibrand was even quoted as saying that she kept two rifles under her bed and told Newsday in 2009 "If I want to protect my family, if I want to have a weapon in the home, that should be my right" (newsday.com).
In 2008, President-elect Barack Obama announced his choice of Hillary Clinton, then junior Senator from New York, as Secretary of State. Thus began the search process to fill her vacant seat and under New York law, the Governor appoints a replacement. Governor Paterson announced Gillibrand as his choice. Becoming a Senator of New York State, an overall liberal state, forced Gillibrand to change her stance on many issues including her pro-gun stance.Gillibrand softened her pro-gun stance when she sought appointment to the Senate after Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as Secretary of State, and she has become increasingly vocal in her support of gun control measures. Her NRA rating in 2012 dropped down to zero percent (buzzfeed.com).
Opponents of Gillibrand, specifically Republican challenger in 2012 Wendy Long, saw this as weakness and accused Senator Gillibrand of flip-flopping on gun control. However, Gillibrand was forced to changer her views when she took on a wider constituency in the Senate, the entirety of New York State. The 20th district, a district that covered a lot of farm land, did not experience the same issues on gun violence. But as a statewide representative, Gillibrand needs to focus on solving problems of the entire state, which unfortunately includes gun violence.
As her time in the Senate continued and she was re-elected for office, Gillibrand's stance on gun control became more liberal. After Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot and the Sandy Hook shooting, Gillibrand wrote in an oped on Daily News that "...[Americans] deserve more from this Congress" and that "[representatives] have an obligation to act and prevent tomorrow's senseless deaths by coming together and ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill" (nydailynews.com).
And Gillibrand has made gun control one of her top issues. Just this Friday, Gillibrand hosted a round-table discussion in New Rochelle, NY, calling for passage of legislation that "would make gun trafficking a federal crime with a maximum punishment of up to 20 years in prison" (newsday.com) The bill is cosponsored by Republican Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, making this bill a bipartisan effort.
This effort hopefully is what is needed in the push for creating a safer environment in the United States, one where we don't have to worry about school shootings or stray bullets.
Sources:
http://www.biography.com/people/kirsten-gillibrand-21044423#early-family-life-and-schooling
http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1873589,00.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/report-gillibrand-shifts-on-guns-085474
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/sen-kirsten-gillibrand-says-she-keeps-2-rifles-under-bed-1.887707
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/kirsten-gillibrand-no-longer-keeps-guns-under-her#.mtoW2ean6n
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gillibrand-obligation-act-prevent-tomorrow-senseless-deaths-article-1.1221663
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/gillibrand-presses-for-gun-trafficking-bill-1.10942475
3 comments:
Emily, your analysis touches on something very important when you point out that "Gillibrand was forced to changer her views when she took on a wider constituency in the Senate, the entirety of New York State." The role of who comprises a particular constituency is so crucial to understanding how that candidate is going to campaign and, if elected, vote on certain issues. However, the general public and the media are often quick to label candidates and MCs as 'flip-floppers,' which you mention happened to Sen. Gillibrand. Similar labeling happened, for example, to Mitt Romney in 2012—he was criticized for portraying himself as more conservative during his 2012 Presidential campaign than he did previously as Governor of Massachusetts. In both examples, the labelers do not consider the drastic change in constituents; for Gillibrand, as you note, moving from GOP-dominated NY-20 to all of New York, and for Romney, moving from the very blue Massachusetts for the more politically diverse entirety of the United States. As soon as the media hooks onto this notion of flip-flopping for a particular person, the idea spreads rapidly. I wonder, then, the impact this labeling has on candidates based on the two offices between which they are moving. That is, perhaps Gillibrand would have escaped this criticism if she had represented a traditionally liberal House district. More largely, this could have implications for anyone moving from representing a district that generally sides with one ideology or party to a district that represents another.
I think it's also helpful to look at a politicians changes in personal beliefs in accordance with events in history, or with relations with their constituents. People all over the world frequently change their beliefs, and that happens very often as the result of influences, either from other people in their life, or an event. All Gillibrand needed for a shift in her beliefs was the right influences, really. First, it was being appointed Senator of New York, a liberal state. Perhaps in her transition, she heard from a lot of her constituents regarding gun control. Perhaps their beliefs were imprinted onto hers, and made an impact. Then, when a tragic event like Sandy Hook or Gabby Giffords being shot was enough to have a passinate and emotive response to guns and gun control legislation. Sometimes tragic events have the power to completely change the views of human being, and perhaps that is a big reason for Gillibrand's change regarding guns and gun control. It'd be interesting to see how many other politicians have changed their views on guns in response to tragic events or things of that nature.
http://www.wthr.com/story/20379913/gun-control-debate-heats-up-after-sandy-hook-shootings
there's an interesting article that references this idea of tragic events that bring policy and beliefs to the forefront of legislation
Post a Comment