Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Libertarian Wins Gubernatorial Debate

—

by

Peter Galuszka
in , , , , , , , ,

sarvisBy Peter Galuszka

The most interesting thing about the Virginia gubernatorial debate Wednesday night wasn’t the bitter personal attacks between the two lackluster candidates from the dominant political parties. It was the television ad by the man who wasn’t there.

Looking young and fresh, Libertarian Robert Sarvis, kept out of the debate, cast himself with his ad as a real alternative to Republican Kenneth Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

Sarvis says in the ad that, “like you,” he can’t support Cuccinelli’s “narrow-minded social agenda” or McAuliffe’s “cronyism … where government picks winners and losers.”

The Annandale lawyer and software engineer set a nice Libertarian balance, shunning the flag-waving of other right-wing groups such as the Tea Party while offering an anti-government message that stabbed at McAuliffe’s ties to big machine Democrats.

Sarvis, who hasn’t a prayer of being elected, is making a difference. A recent Post poll puts him at 10 percent. He is mostly stealing that away from Cuccinelli. who got 39 percent compared with McAuliffe’s 47 percent in the poll.

I’m hardly a Libertarian and have very mixed views on Sarvis’s platform. His backing of legalizing marijuana is intriguing for a hidebound state like Virginia. It shows the potential for newcomers and younger residents to change the Old Dominion.

The rest of his platform is standard and unworkable anti-government fare. He wants “competition” in education but he doesn’t explain how to do that in poor inner-city or rural districts. He backs gun ownership by putting the blame for violence on outdated drug laws. That ignores the issues of mental illness that played out so tragically in the Navy Yard shootings. The rest of his platform is an Ayn Rand fantasy of rolling back taxes, regulations, and so on.

Still, Sarvis has an appeal and brings in sharp focus the severe flaws of the two major gubernatorial candidates. He’ll be worth watching in the future.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

9 responses to “Libertarian Wins Gubernatorial Debate”

  1. Breckinridge Avatar
    Breckinridge

    Gee, Peter — your guy faltering a bit? Now the talking points from HQ say to pump up Sarvis to draw votes away from Cuccinelli? The Democratic Party numbers crunchers don’t see Terry breaking 50 percent?

    Like Bacon I think Sarvis is getting the short end of the stick and should have been in the debate last night. But he is unlikely to keep 7, 8, 9 or 10 percent on election day. The numbers in the poll are protests but many of those protesting will wake up on election day and put the clothes pin on their nose a bit tighter and go vote for their party (and more importantly, against the other party). Sarvis might be at 5 percent in the final tally.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Polls vs votes. Sarvis polls better than he will get actual votes. In polls people don’t have to go out, stand in line and vote. It’s easy to express a protest vote in a poll. However, on election day you have to get up, go to the polling place, stand in line and then vote your protest. Most people who see Savis as a protest will stay home. Some will get to the polling place and decide to vote for the lesser of two evils. A few will make their protest clear by voting for Sarvis. Of course, there are those who genuinely want Sarvis and will vote for him. I just think his polling numbers today will shrink quite a lot on November 5.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The more Sarvis “protest voters” go to the polls on Nov 5, the better for Cuccinelli. Since Sarvis seems to be drawing more Republicans than Democratic voters those who “drop back to their party” on Nov 5 are more likely to vote Cuccinelli.

      The Dems ought to be discounting Sarvis as irrelevant in an effort to keep the Republicans who want to protest vote against Cuccinelli away from the voting booth.

  2. jft Avatar
    jft

    He backs gun ownership by putting the blame for violence on outdated drug laws. That ignores the issues of mental illness that played out so tragically in the Navy Yard shootings.

    Actually, Sarvis’ website says that the drug laws are the first issue to address, and he’s right about that. The majority of gun homicides occur in urban areas and are attributable to gangs and/or drug crimes. Only a handful of gun homicides are committed by crazy people in the kind of mass shootings that we have seen at the Navy Yard, Aurora, Newton, and Virginia Tech.

    Despite their vivid and horrific nature, mass shootings are still extremely rare – and we can thank the media for the fact that people overestimate the threat presented by mass shootings.

    Also, the pro-gun community and its supporters, which I assume include Sarvis, are very vocal about switching the discussion to mental health issues, so it’s a bit inaccurate to tag Sarvis for his failure to mention that issue. The pro-gun community wants the nation to focus on mental health issues, because it stops politicians from passing universal background checks, magazine limits, and other poorly-conceived gun laws.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      How would you prevent the sale of guns to the mentally ill without universal background checks?

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        exactly. And who is going to go for mental health help if they know that they’ll lose their job and the gov will take their guns, their home and everything else and incarcerate them?

        we want it both ways but the folks with the issues know what will happen to them also.

      2. jft Avatar
        jft

        Well, we need to define the terms a little better. The phrase “universal background checks” refers to a background check system that is extended to cover private sales between individuals, in addition to sales by gun retailers. Currently, at least in Virginia, only sales by gun retailers (people who hold a federal firearms license or “FFL”) require a background check. Universal background checks are generally opposed by the right wing pro-gun folks, who believe that a universal system would require a government database of gun owners in order to be effective.

        Universal background checks are not the tool for stopping mentally ill people from getting guns. If you remember, the Navy Yard shooter passed background checks when he bought his shotgun. Jared Loughner, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords, bought his gun through a retailer as well. A lot of these mentally ill guys do not have a criminal record, and they haven’t been formally committed to an inpatient facility, so they will pass a background check – it doesn’t matter if the check occurs when they buy the gun from a retailer or a private seller. So the universal feature of universal background checks isn’t going to help.

        However, it’s possible that expanded background checks may help. Expanded background checks are a check system that takes into account more criteria than the current system – for example, the Navy Yard shooter had filed a police report containing statements which indicated that he was a crazy person. If that police report had somehow made it into a background check system, perhaps he would have been unable to purchase his gun. An expanded background check system could also take into account evidence of mental health treatments, medication usage, drug abuse treatments, etc.

        Obviously, an expanded background check has problems of its own – for one thing, if we start including more detailed information regarding mental health issues, then the mentally ill may not seek treatment because they know they won’t be able to get a gun. Personally, I think this an unlikely scenario – people like the Navy Yard shooter or Loughner do not get help in the first place, so I think it would be rare for one of these guys to want to get help but then decide not to because of a gun law (assuming that they are aware of the gun law in the first place).

        Another problem is that an expanded background check could be used to prevent people with a history of depression or anxiety, or other common mental ilnesses, from acquiring a gun. The vast majority of these people are not a threat to themselves or others.

        So, to get back to your original question – how do you prevent the sale of guns to the mentally ill? Well, the first thing is to step back in the process, and ask “How should we address the problem of mental illness in the first place?” If we can provide easier access to treatment, we can get these people under supervision – either in-patient or out-patient – and we can get them the help they need. I argue that this is far more important than simply expanding background checks. If we stop a crazy person from getting a gun, they may build a bomb instead or grab a kitchen knife, but if we get a crazy person some treatment for their illness, they may regain a normal life and not hurt anyone.

        This runs right into the health care reform issue, which completely wrecks any chance of a compromise solution. Because gun rights are associated (rightly or wrongly) with the right wing, conservatism, and the GOP, the forces that support gun rights tend to oppose universal health care or Obamacare or other solutions. My head wants to explode every time I hear the NRA say “this is a mental health issue” – as though the NRA and its members supported government policies which help people get mental health care. In my opinion, the pro-gun community can’t have it both ways – you can’t say no to gun laws which prevent crazy people from getting guns and say no to health care reform which helps crazy people get treatment. It’s one or the other. Personally, I think the latter choice is superior, because I don’t think even expanded background checks will have much effect.

  3. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” Actually, Sarvis’ website says that the drug laws are the first issue to address, and he’s right about that. The majority of gun homicides occur in urban areas and are attributable to gangs and/or drug crimes.”

    yes.. it’s actually gangs fighting over territory like gangsters did with alcohol.

    “Only a handful of gun homicides are committed by crazy people in the kind of mass shootings that we have seen at the Navy Yard, Aurora, Newton, and Virginia Tech.”

    probably. the “weapon of choice” for mass killings in other countries is explosives.

    “Despite their vivid and horrific nature, mass shootings are still extremely rare – and we can thank the media for the fact that people overestimate the threat presented by mass shootings.”

    it’s hard to believe that we don’t have any more mass shootings that we had – in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s – are there stats?

    “Also, the pro-gun community and its supporters, which I assume include Sarvis, are very vocal about switching the discussion to mental health issues, so it’s a bit inaccurate to tag Sarvis for his failure to mention that issue. ”

    hmmm.. if he is a true libertarian – the mental health issue is a private issue not a state issue.

    “The pro-gun community wants the nation to focus on mental health issues, because it stops politicians from passing universal background checks, magazine limits, and other poorly-conceived gun laws.”

    still don’t understand if we can require registration for some kinds of arms – why not other kinds – ?

    I’ve not read much about Libertarians and gun laws but in general they oppose the state “interfering” with personal liberty.. and are opposed to the govt restricting people from lawful behaviors.

    1. jft Avatar
      jft

      >it’s hard to believe that we don’t have any more mass shootings that we had – in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s – are there stats?

      There are data on this issue but we have to define our terms. The FBI defines a “mass murder” as the killing of four or more victims in one incident. The FBI defines a “spree killing” as several murders occuring close together in time but at different geographical locations. Killings of three or less people aren’t counted as mass murder – and there is some argument about whether they should be.

      Other gun-rights people will probably hate me for linking to Mother Jones, but the folks over there did a pretty good set of articles on mass shootings, available here. I note that Mother Jones’ reporting tilts towards the pro gun control side, but I still think their articles are worth reading for the data that they present.

      According to their data, there were 549 people killed in mass shootings since 1982, and 1056 people killed or injured in mass shootings since 1982. That is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the American population – 0.000336% of the American population has been injured in a mass shooting. (Using current population numbers of 314 million, which obviously distorts the percentage a little bit because the population was different in 1982.)

      They list something like 68 mass shootings since 1982, and 36 of those shootings occurred in 2001 or later.

      68 mass shootings.

      According to the General Social Study conducted in 2012, 34% of households reported that they were gun owners. There is debate over whether this percentage under-reports the percentage of gun owners but let’s set that aside for now. Because the GSS percentage refers to households, I also point you to this site, which estimates 30% to 35% of adults own guns in America. Let’s use the lower number, just to be fair to gun control folks.

      If we estimate that 30% of adult americans own guns, that’s approximately 70 million gun owners in America. That number was higher in 1982 and has declined since then.

      As I said above, we’ve had 68 mass shootings since 1982 – 68 crazy people with guns. But with 70 million gun owners, that means only 0.00009714% of gun owners have been involved in mass shootings. That’s an extremely, extremely low number.

      Do we really need gun laws to stop this small amount of people, for these very rare events? I don’t mean to sound callous but it seems like bad policy to base wide-ranging laws on the behavior of a very few people, to stop a small amount of deaths/injuries.

Leave a Reply

Read More