Students – especially those from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida – took center stage in Saturday's "March for Our Lives" against gun violence. They gave the protests the aura of a children's crusade that would not only focus the country on a campaign against weapons, but succeed where other efforts had always failed: at the ballot box.
The rhetoric of the students was violent. There were calls for compromise as protesters demonized the National Rifle Association and all politicians supporting it as a child murderer.
As David Hogg, perhaps the most prominent of Parkland's kids, said in an interview, her "old donkey" parents are not attracted to me. I no longer know how to use a democracy as an iPhone, and therefore must stay out of the way go. More than one speaker said the march triggered by the Parkland massacre marks the beginning of a movement in which teenage America would change forever.
From the perspective of the great crowds and the awesome coverage of the worst and most discouraging of teenage speeches, mainstream media has been saying it's hard to argue with such predictions.
But those who expect children to sweep supporters of gun violence out of Washington need to breathe deeply. While the Post-Parkland movement has pushed the NRA on the defensive, the assumptions about its long-term effects are greatly exaggerated.
The gap between the predictions of revolution and reality is based on two factors. One of them is that it is probably a mistake to assume that all young voters agree with the anti-gun revolutionaries. The other is that even if gun supporters now have all the passion on their side, this would not be the first time that liberals mistakenly assume that youthful demonstrators would reinvent the nation's politics in their own image.
Even if we agree that the march is praiseworthy for your beliefs and that the children should not be destroyed, those who conclude that all Millennials agree with the anti-gun crowd are mistaken. While surveys indicate that young Americans are more likely to oppose gun violence than older ones, a 201
The splitting of weapons is not so much a matter of age as it is regional. Those living in rural areas with gun ownership tend to support gun rights. Those living in cities or coastal areas are likely to prefer stricter arms control and ignore the fact that such measures, shortly before the repeal of the Second Amendment, would not prevent mass shootings.
This is the same red state / blue state culture war tears the country into other issues and is reflected in the fact that for all their passion, the march through the organizational muscle and the money of liberal organizations, not teen activists has been produced , When Hogg treats senators who try to meet them like Marco Rubio, as if they were criminals, he only alienates the red America and reinforces the NRA's support.
There is also a precedent that speaks against the success of the anti-gun youth revolution
Pop culture tells us that young demonstrators against the Vietnam War changed America in the 1960s and 1970s. But a closer reading of the story says something very different.
Anti-war demonstrators also assumed that their passion would sweep men like President Richard Nixon out and announce the beginning of a new era of Aquarius. The belief in their sure success was fueled by the reduction of the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1972.
But the revolution boiled down to the fact that – as is still the case today – most children choose their parents. Nixon was re-elected in a landslide when Republicans won four of the five presidential elections from 1972 to 1988.
This may be a big year for the Democrats. But if they win or avoid losing ground in the Senate, it will be due to the victories of pro-gun Democrats like Conor Lamb, who have recently won a poll in a red Pennsylvania district, not liberals Hogg Disagree
The likelihood is great that angry children will become even more angry if their November revolution fails for the same reasons.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS – The Jewish News Syndicate – and a contributor to the National Review.