COPY AND SPREAD THIS! NFA POLITICAL ANALYSIS -- 10 JUL 95 NFA PRINCIPLE: Most politicians (including Senators) are far more interested in politics than they are in firearms control. Therefore, one should show them how our ideas on firearms control benefit them and their party politically, and how Allan Rock's ideas on firearms control damage them and their party. Historically, politicians categorized the firearms community as a confused bunch of people who could never agree on what they wanted. We have therefore never been considered worth courting by politicians, because "They never knew what they wanted; every representative came with a different set of wants and needs." That view is changing rapidly, among intelligent politicians. The firearms community has strongly affected four recent elections, creating majority governments in three of them. In what follows, remember that 25 (government estimate, based on a telephone poll) to 40 (NFA estimate, based on extrapolation of available government research figures through three different methods) per cent of all Canadian household contain recreational or self-protection firearms. It is very difficult to form a majority government if the firearms community is united and voting against your party; you start with 25 to 40 per cent of voters solidly voting against you, over a single issue, and the rest split into factions. In the last federal election, Kim Campbell bet that the guaranteed loss of firearms owner support would be offset by attracting votes from "the anti-gun majority" of voters. Her estimate proved to be in error; she lost virtually the entire recreational firearms community, and gained virtually nothing. The political lesson should have been clear: The firearms community will change the party it supports and the way it votes over a firearms control issue; the "anti-gun majority" won't. We can control election results, and we have done it. Federally, the entire western branch of the firearms community transferred its support from Campbell's Conservatives to the Reform party, with the results visible in today's House. The Ontario branch of the firearms community split its support; some turned from Campbell's doomed Conservatives to the Reform party, and some to the Liberal party. They had two differing ideas: "Reform can't win in Ontario, so I will vote Liberal to get rid of Campbell" and, "I don't trust the Liberals, so I will vote Reform and pray that a lot of others will do the same." As it turned out, had those who held their noses and voted Liberal voted Reform instead, we would have Ontario Reform MPs in the House today. Reform ran a strong second, and would have elected MPs if the firearms community vote had not fragmented. THE LESSON: Act as a bloc, and we have enormous power. Act as confused individuals or wee groups, and we lose opportunities. The western vote put many Reform MPs into the House. The Ontario split put Liberals in control of the House, where they promptly repeated Campbell's political bungling by introducing Bill C-68. They refused to recognize the rising tide of rage, and rammed it through the House. That has had three effects: 1. Firearms people who voted for the Liberals because "Reform can't win in Ontario" will not repeat that error. 2. All people who voted for the federal Conservatives are unlikely to repeat that error; there is room for only one small-c conservative party in federal politics. Splitting the vote between Reform and Conservative parties causes both to lose, so all small-c conservatives will probably vote Reform from now on unless Reform blows it badly and the Conservatives find a charismatic new Leader. One way or the other, there will only be one formidable small-c conservative party in the next election. 3. The recreational firearms community began to understand and organize its own political strength. In the Manitoba provincial election, the ruling Conservatives were selected as the best bet. They were approached by the political action group (PAG) of Manitoba's firearms community. The PAG proposed an alliance: Government support for the firearms community from a Conservative government--in exchange for firearms community support in electing that government. Predictably, the Conservatives accepted. They issued fairly strong statements supporting the firearms community in its battle with the federal Liberals. The PAG fed those statements back into the entire recreational firearms community, via the recreational firearms community's own internal communication networks (fax, newsletters, newspapers, magazines, Internet, etc.), which are now sophisticated and widespread. Those not directly in our internal network learned from those who were. Largely because that internal communication network was not accessible to the other parties, the messages passing through it were startlingly clear, unlike media broadcasts and articles. The entire recreational firearms community quickly came to the conclusion that the Conservatives were their friends, but the Liberals were allies of Allan Rock's federal Liberals. Manitoba's Liberals lost all but three Legislature seats. Manitoba's NDP was treated fairly by the internal communication network of the firearms community. Their opposition to Bill C-68 was reported, but that was insufficient to stem the tide. They now form the official opposition in Manitoba. The Manitoba PAG's experience was quickly summarized and transmitted to Ontario, for use by the firearms community's Ontario PAG. Again, the Conservatives were approached, as being the best bet. At the moment the approach was made, the Liberals were at 57 per cent in the polls. Six weeks later, the Conservatives elected 82 to the Liberals' 30. Again, the firearms community's internal communication network had major effects on the election. News of Liberal Leader Lyn McLeod's campaign offer to set up "gun-free zones" in Ontario was spread throughout Ontario. The exact mechanism by which she could to it (C-68 revocation of C-68 business and personal licenses "for any good and sufficient reason") was laid out by the NFA's legal experts, and disseminated. The probability that her "gun-free zones" would expand until Ontario became the first "gun-free province" was explored. Her support for Bill C-68 and alliance with the federal Liberals were published. The firearms community's internal communication network was closed to the Liberals, open for the Conservatives. In today's world of fast and accurate communication, access to a major communication network is power. Being shut out is a wound. In Saskatchewan, the ruling NDP had wisely taken a very strong stand against Bill C-68 from the day of its introduction. The Saskatchewan PAG therefore approached the NDP, made an agreement, and threw its support behind that party, ensuring its re-election as a majority government. 3 elections, 3 majority governments! The Saskatchewan win tells us that the firearms community is not interested in party labels; it is interested only in party positions, and shops for real value before acting. Federal, partial success; Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan, full success. How many elections must the firearms community win before the political lesson is learned by the political parties? A new bumper sticker is appearing already in the west: "We vote for pro-firearm political parties." Wise politicians are already retrimming their sails, while the Liberals merely lash the helm. The electorate is no longer composed of a great mass of unwashed laborers who can only be reached through the news media. They are no longer naive Maritime farmers who vote Liberal because Grandpa voted Liberal, no longer Ford buyers because "Ford makes the best cars. Ford says so!" The 21st century is upon us. Today's electorate consists of sophisticated and choosy voters who analyze before buying, aren't fooled by "brand names," are skeptical of old-fashioned ideas, and have lost their faith in the wisdom of government--and in the value of government. Their faith in government wisdom eroded when they noticed that both Liberal and Conservative federal governments governed for years, but were unable or unwilling to understand that you should not spend more money than you take in. Every voter learned that lesson easily, long ago; why didn't federal government learn it? Today, many large groups--like the firearms community--are capable of rapid and accurate location, transmission, and distribution of information. Any political party that ignores the communications revolution is as doomed as Kim Campbell's Conservatives. It is a wooly mammoth, helpless and doomed, surrounded by men with spears--who communicate with each other. A political party that relies upon the news media as its primary method of communicating with the electorate gives up any hope of swift and accurate presentation of its positions, ideas and actions. In today's world, the media have their own agenda, and apply their own "spin" to everything they report. In tomorrow's world, political parties will have to establish cooperative communication with the largest groups in our society in order to gain access to their internal communication networks. It is the only way to avoid distortion of the political party's positions as they filter through news media interpretation. In the recent US election, the Republicans ran the first 21st- century campaign. They identified four huge groups: The religious conservatives, the supporters of a strong US military capability, the firearms owners, and the free enterprise/low tax proponents. Instead of thinking up items to offer those groups, they sent the Republican politicians most knowledgeable in each of those four areas of interest to talk to top people in each group. A deal was hammered out: A Republican government would enact legislation favorable to the interests of each group, in exchange for that group spreading Republican election material and position through the group's internal communication network. In the discussions, the Republicans committed themselves only to limited but concrete promises that could and would be carried out. It was, roughly, "You want A, B, C, D and E. We will offer you A, C, D, and half of E, because B impacts negatively on another client of ours, and E provides the media with a major opportunity to attack us during the campaign." It was enough. The Republicans won the election. They then enacted legislation to keep their promises, to a degree unprecedented in American political experience. That is 21st century politics. In an era of high-speed, accurate communication networks, that is the way politics is going to be for the foreseeable future. Parties are going to have to make limited and practical promises to huge groups, in order to gain access to their internal communication networks. Parties are going to have to deliver on their promises, or go the way of Campbell's Conservatives. Voters no longer forget and forgive; they remember, and switch parties. Any party that continues to use 20th century political methods is as doomed as Kim Campbell's Conservatives. GIVE YOUR LOCAL POLITICIANS A COPY OF THIS PAPER