Sixth unit of analysis: Policy for the future (Early 2016)

The sixth and last unit of analysis is not using a collective trauma event as its point of reference like the previous four units, but is focusing at statements and ideas relating to future policy regarding gun control. In a year when a new President of the United States is chosen, the issue of gun politics is certainly on the agenda and part of the programs of the various presidential candidates. The beginning of 2016, just before the start of the series of primaries and caucuses, that is the prelude to presidential election time, is, therefore, a suitable moment to take a last snapshot of both sides of the gun debate. The texts that discuss gun rights or Second Amendment rights of the campaign programs of the two most important presidential candidates the Republican camp, Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, are included. Although it was the intention to also include two of the same kind of texts that discussed the issue of gun control from the two main candidates from the Democratic camp, only a text from the campaign program of Hillary Clinton is part of this unit of analysis, because Bernie Sanders does not discuss the issue of gun control in his program. Furthermore, a securitizing act of President Obama is incorporated. In this speech text Obama discusses the development in gun politics during his Presidency and the road that lies ahead for gun control. The analysis starts with this last text.

Table 4.6 An overview of the securitizing texts of the sixth unit of analysis Securitizing texts of gun control

advocates

-Speech by President Obama on Executive Actions on Guns at the White House (January 5, 2016);

-Vision of Hillary Clinton (D) on the issue of gun violence prevention.

Securitizing texts of gun/Second Amendment rights advocates

-Vision of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) on the issue of second amendment rights; - Vision of Donald Trump (R) on the issue of second amendment rights.

President Obama’s speech was held at the White House on January 5, 2016, and discussed his executive action on guns, his motives and his visions for gun policy that he deemed important, but not necessarily achievable in the remainder of his presidential term (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2016, January 5; see Appendix F., pp. 211-222). Many survivors and family members of survivors and victims of mass shootings were present in the room and this is reflected in the use and function of collective trauma. Interactions with these attendees that refer to various mass shootings are used in function of remembrance,

67 | support and evoking some emotions. The function of remembrance, together with an emphasis on the widespread and frequent nature of these events of collective trauma, also emerges when Obama gives a recap and lists a large number of the mass shootings to which he had to react to during his Presidency:

“Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. Too many.” (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2016, January 5; see Appendix F., p. 211)

This all contributes to a securitizing text that shows an extensive use of collective trauma in direct mentions, metaphors, emotions, interactions and identification attempts. This use of collective trauma does not only cover mass shootings, but there are also some references to domestic terrorism and racial segregation. This diverse usage serves many functions in the securitizing discourse. Before Obama discusses his executive actions and policy ideas, he reacts to several comments and counterarguments of gun rights advocates. He directly reacts to presidential candidates Trump and Cruz, who stated that background checks will lead to taking away guns of the people, a constitutional right. He emphasizes that the people’s Second Amendment rights are not harmed and reassures the audience that it will not affect their gun rights by using the perpetrators of mass shootings as a concrete example of persons who will have more trouble getting their hands on guns when these checks are installed.

In this context, he uses the no-fly list argument, that was also used previous texts, to show vulnerability and the urgency for these measures. By mentioning and explaining the working of these background checks, Obama also directly refers to the efforts of Sen. Manchin and Sen. Toomey and their Manchin-Toomey Amendment. The next arguments he responds to, that have a strong connection with mass shootings, are the often heard comments of gun rights proponents that these background checks have not stopped the last mass shooting and that mental health should be blamed. To this first argument, Obama responds in the following way:

“Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking. (Applause.) We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.” (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2016, January 5; see Appendix F., p. 214)

In relation to the mental health-arguments, Obama states that mental health is an important focus of the executive actions, but he illustrates through the use of mass shootings in the discourse that gun rights advocates often overreact when confronted with a mass shooting and

68 | blame mental illness to avoid further gun control. Consequently, the use of collective trauma by Obama in relation to these comments of gun rights advocates also have the function of expressing frustration about their attempts of obstructing new legislation and their false arguments.

Subsequently, Obama discusses in his speech text his executive actions, what is happening at this moment in relation to gun control and what is not possible to achieve during his presidential term and why. His answer to this ‘why-question’ is a Republican, anti-gun control blockade in Congress and he, therefore, makes use of collective trauma to appeal to the American people, as he did in his memorial speech at the Washington Navy Yard, to stand up against the gun lobby and these politicians. This is in line with one of the main functions of the use of collective trauma, namely uniting the American people and creating a strong community that will together pursue real policy change in the future. The other main function is creating a sense of urgency about pushing through gun control policy by stating that the current legislation is not sufficient, that this does not happen in peer nations, and that this new normal of mass violence cannot be accepted. These latter two arguments are also heard in his earlier speeches and in speech texts of Sen. Church and Sen. Boxer. At the end of his speech, Obama calls upon every American that, although the Second Amendment rights are important, there are other constitutional rights that need to be taken into account and that are constantly violated in mass shootings:

“Second Amendment rights are important, but there are other rights that we care about as well. And we have to be able to balance them. Because our right to worship freely and safely –- that right was denied to Christians in Charleston, South Carolina. (Applause.) And that was denied Jews in Kansas City. And that was denied Muslims in Chapel Hill, and Sikhs in Oak Creek. (Applause.) They had rights, too. (Applause.)

Our right to peaceful assembly -– that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette. Our unalienable right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -– those rights were stripped from college students in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first-graders in Newtown. First-graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.” (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2016, January 5; see Appendix F., p. 216)

In the campaign program text of Hillary Clinton, where she discusses gun violence and measures, she talks about her proven record in gun politics, what needs to be done, how and why (Clinton, 2016; see Appendix F., 223-226). Within this securitizing act, she uses direct mentions and metaphors of mass shootings and terrorism to, firstly, show what she has done for gun control. Her use of directly mentioning certain collective traumas, such as the Columbine High School massacre, helps to illustrate Clinton’s response after every mass

69 | shooting. Second, with regard to what needs to be done, how and why, collective trauma has the function of emphasizing the current vulnerability of the system with all its loopholes, the ineffectiveness of legislation and the need for legislative change. Collective trauma is mentioned in the discourse to tell the audience what needs to be done, why and how to prevent a next Virginia Tech, a next Charleston or a next Sandy Hook. Intertextually, the program text gives a direct link to a text of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, survivor of the 2011 Tucson shooting, in which she explains why she supports Hillary Clinton. Overall, Clinton’s campaign program on the issue of gun control is an securitizing, action-oriented text that shows a usage of mass shootings and terrorism in general and in specific.

As a gun advocate, Ted Cruz is not approaching the gun debate in his campaign program as an issue of gun violence, but as an issue of protecting American Second Amendment rights (Cruz, 2016; see Appendix F., 227-229). Unsurprisingly, the securitizing text of Sen. Cruz does not contain any reference to a mass shooting as collective trauma. There is one metaphor that refers to collective trauma. This metaphor mentions radical Islamic terrorism on American soil and this is an indirect reference to the September 11 attacks. In his discourse, this use of collective trauma serves to emphasize the need to upheld Second Amendment rights, so people can protect themselves, their family and their home. The use of collective trauma remains limited to this single occasion. Cruz’ program text clearly states his record of advocating Second Amendment rights, but is not proposing any policy measures. The only action-oriented idea and at the same time a reference to the actions of gun control proponents, is to keep fighting against measures that are aimed at taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

The text of Trump’s campaign program shares with Ted Cruz the similarity that it is strong appeal for upholding Second Amendment rights, but the text contains also some significant differences (Trump, 2016; see Appendix F., 230-234). The text has a greater presence of collective trauma in the discourse and it introduces concrete policy measures through the use of various metaphors. There is no mentioning of any proven record by Donald Trump on the subject of protecting Second Amendment rights. In his text, Trump uses the collective trauma of mass shootings to make a couple of arguments and statements that were visible throughout the case in securitizing texts of other gun rights advocates and in other texts Trump himself. First, Trump calls for more attention to violent criminals and mental health. By using collective trauma, he states that law abiding citizens are getting the blame for mass shootings, while these violent criminals and mentally ill people are the real problem. This particular use of collective trauma has the function of emphasizing the urgency to tackle this problem to protect the Second Amendment rights, showing that Second Amendment rights are

70 | damaged, creating an outgroup of violent and mentally instable people, and emphasizing that gun control proponents are overreacting. Second, Trump accuses the gun control advocates of exploiting the collective traumas of mass shootings to push for their gun control measures that would not even have prevented these tragedies. Here, the function in the discourse is to show that proposed legislation is not effective and to isolate the pro-gun control politicians and condemn their actions as overreaction. Finally, Donald Trump addresses the inability of well- trained military men and women at military installations to defend themselves without a firearm when a perpetrator threatens their lives. This indirect reference to mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard and Chattanooga serves the function of pointing at the ineffectiveness of current legislation, creating a sense of urgency to change policy, and emphasizing the vulnerability of the American forces.

Concluding analysis of the use and function of collective trauma in the sixth unit of analysis All four securitizing texts give a relatively complete overview of the main arguments and the most important functions of collective trauma usage throughout this gun debate case. The speech text by President Obama discusses the various mass shootings and the development of gun control during his Administration and gives a recap of the debate. The collective trauma in his discourse has the function to remember the tragedies and victims, to respond to the arguments of gun rights advocates and to share his vision for the future of gun politics. In a discourse filled with direct and indirect references to collective traumas, he does a ‘final’ appeal to the American community to unite and come into action. What stands out is that he is the first actor, in all units of analysis, that uses collective trauma to argue that the right to keep and bear arms is not the only constitutional right that is of importance to the gun debate.

The campaign programs, although the language is more formal, contain arguments and references that have been used by these securitizing actors throughout the case. In general, both Cruz and Clinton emphasize their proven records, while Trump and Clinton too are focusing on what needs to be done, why and how to protect Second Amendment rights or to achieve better gun policy.

71 |

5

CONCLUSION AND D

The idea of this research is to take the concept of collective trauma as a starting point to offer a new perspective to securitization’s facilitating conditions of context and audience and the case of the American gun debate. It is about understanding the role of collective trauma in the securitizing actors’ efforts in the gun debate to construct shared understandings vis-à-vis the securitizing issue and aim and communicate at the same level of the audience in terms of experience. An analysis of the case, that comprised six points of reference in a defined period of the American gun debate, led to an answer to the following research question: ‘How and to what extent is collective trauma used and what is its function in the discourse of securitizing acts by political actors in the case of the American gun debate in the period between the introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 and the presidential election race until early 2016?’. The conclusion presents this answer to this research question and reflects on the research and body of knowledge. Subsequently, this chapter contains a discussion of various insights, shortcomings, strengths, and recommendations.