Courage under fire

It is truly amazing to see how friends and family members of the slain at Virginia Tech are doing everything in their power to provide each other comfort from the nightmare that has been realized. Princeton and other schools have jumped into the fray, recognizing early on that such reckless hatred and violence transcends the boundaries of Virginia Tech. Comments made online by people all over the world demonstrate how even the most unlikely of individuals, persons from around the globe, feel connected to this tragic event.

Along with these universal sentiments of compassion, I was proud to see that a fruitful policy debate on gun control had emerged. While it can be expected for ordinary civilians to remain immobilized in a state of mourning, leaders responsible for molding our national policy are expected to remain in a constant mode of critical reflection, planning and action, especially during a crisis. Unfortunately, when some in Congress began to voice an urgent need for fast work on this topic, an arbitrator quickly and quietly removed the wind from their sails. In a moment of great opportunity, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) chimed in: "I hope there's not a rush to do anything. We need to take a deep breath," he said.

Reid's soft warning to his Senate colleagues effectively killed any potential moves by Congress to bring gun control back to the forefront of our national agenda. Reid has long been known as a strong gun-rights proponent who voted against both the 1993 Congressional ban on semiautomatic firearms and the 2004 renewal of that law. In June 2004, Reid sponsored a gun liability bill that would protect the gun industry from most potential lawsuits. The bill, given a perfect "100 percent" rating by the National Rifle Association (NRA), was supported by Reid and 12 other Democrats who joined the Republican majority and got it to the president's desk. One Democrat echoed the frustrations of the opposition, saying that the bill's passage "was about politics, the power of the NRA to dictate legislation."

Even now in 2007, when a "clean-cut" teenager burdened with a record of mental instability can so easily purchase the means of mass destruction, Reid's concern remains the same: Calming the fears of the gun lobby instead of voicing the growing consensus of most Americans, who largely believe that the time for stricter gun laws is long overdue.

The voice in the back of my head reminds me that Reid is only being a realist who knows full well that some of the new Senate Democrats won on a pro-gun rights platform. Reid, a former Nevada gaming commissioner who entered the Senate in 1987, learned early on that in politics you never bite the hand that feeds you. But one cliche deserves another, and what I call for is a revival of the courage that has inhabited the spirit of past leaders when the nation most desperately needed it.

When the civil rights movement was in its infancy, Harry Truman disregarded opposition from generals and his own reelection campaign when he ordered the desegregation of the U.S. armed forces in July 1948. A maverick who at times disregarded the best interests of his own political career, Truman supported the unpopular Korean War even as his administration was brought down by a popular tide of opposition. Because he believed that East Asia was a critical battlefield for the success of communist containment, he took on that risk.

It's sad for this moderate Democrat to say that Truman's heir appears not on the left but the right: I'm speaking of leading Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who has complicated the Republican race with his unapologetic support for a woman's right to choose and gay rights. On the hot topic of abortion, he boldly told Republican voters "If [abortion] is the most important [issue for you], then I'm comfortable with the fact you won't vote for me." Though I would love to point to a Democrat, it seems that Reagan-era attorney is the best example of a contemporary politician taking a career-ending risk for the sake of doing what's feel right in his heart.

Reid appears to be an immovable object, but if other leaders have any bravery or common sense, a massacre such as this would spark the idea that improved gun legislation is needed for at least our nation's universities. More extensive background checks and an improved system to better inform schools about students owning firearms are obvious suggestions, but many more should be in store. We expect this as the bare minimum for our political leaders, but if they follow past and contemporary examples of unflinching courage despite a storm of disapproval, perhaps we'll receive a few surprises as well. David Smart is a sophomore from Los Angeles, Calif. He can be reached at dsmart@princeton.edu.