The Department of Homeland Security and its Guns

It was reported this morning that according to the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, General Richard Skinner, 289 handguns, shotguns, and automatic rifles belonging to the Department had been lost or stolen between 2005 and 2008. The 289 weapons included those left by agents in restrooms, bowling alleys, and fast food restaurants. Some weapons were stolen after they were left in truck beds. Others were lost after the agents left their weapons on their vehicle bumpers as they drove away. In a report, the DHS concluded the obvious when it wrote laconically that the department "through its components did not adequately safeguard and control its firearms."

According to its web site, the Department of Homeland Security's "overriding and urgent mission is to lead a unified national effort to secure the country and preserve its freedoms." One would think that a key to achieving its mission would be to secure its firearms. Nevertheless, the department and its agents didn't fail. It was the "components" that failed. Even then, its "components" did not screw up by losing or misplacing their weapons, they simply performed "inadequately."

Agents and officers are not "components." They are men and women hired and trained to protect us us. An agent leaving his weapon in a restroom or unattended in the bed of his truck is not a component performing its task inadequately, it is an agent demonstrating negligence of the highest order. As someone who was in the Army, it is near incomprehensible to me how someone officially charged with a weapon can misplace it or leave it somewhere. In the Army, if a weapon was lost or misplaced, the repercussions of that incident would be felt all the way up the chain of command to the battalion commander and perhaps beyond. Even an unattended weapon was a grave offense.

We are not talking about the local constabulary. We are talking of trained federal law enforcement officers. The U.S. is not Mayberry. If agent Fife leaves his weapon in a restroom or on the bumper of his truck, he is not to be chuckled at or chided. He should be fired. Moreover, Sheriff Taylor should have to explain himself as well. The loss of 289 weapons indicates a more systemic problem than simply a hand full of poorly trained or negligent officers. At some point, someone has to take responsibility, and it should be the ones responsible for hiring, training, and setting rules for agents. A bland statement in a report issued by an office listing disciplinary actions taken simply serves to minimize the gravity of an issue. A simple recommendation that "tighter rules" by adopted may also be reassuring, but unless someone is held accountable and made responsible, it is likely that bureaucratic inertia and indifference will continue. A professional law enforcement agency, let alone a federal law enforcement agency, should not need tighter rules concerning keeping and storing firearms. Common sense should be enough. A rule against leaving weapons in restrooms and bowling alleys should be an embarrassment.

Blaming components and rules has become common in explaining errors and oversights. It allows blame to be assigned impersonally. But "components" are people. Rules are created by people. They are applied by people and they are followed by people. Moreover, those people are trained to create, apply, and follow those rules. If a system or rule fails or errs, it is not enough to simply reexamine the rules. Systems and rules do not fail on their own. They need help. If a "component" fails, it should be replaced. If enough components fail, the system is flawed and should be overhauled. The human element in creating systems and implementing rules should never be overlooked. Components and rules don't lose shotguns and leave side arms in lavatories. People do.

If tighter rules and better training are needed to keep federal agents from leaving their weapons on truck bumpers or from being left behind in rest rooms, fast food restaurants, and bowling alleys, God help us all.

Knee-Jerkers and Flip Floppers.

"As the Democrat's disregard voters' concerns and attempt to isolate Americans with divisive and partisan rhetoric, we recommend you stay on offense." So reads a memo from the NRSC communications director, Brian Walsh, suggesting campaign strategy for GOP candidates in the fall elections. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee issued a memo of their own in which they urged Democratic candidates to "frame their opponents early - and drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-style conservatives." Both parties are laboring to prepare "talking points" for their respective candidates. "Do you believe the $787 billion 'stimulus' bill worked?" is a question suggested to GOP candidates. The Democratic memo provided tips to create unrest in GOP camps. It recommends that Democratic candidates "trap" their GOP opponents into committing themselves on "polarizing issues" and using those statements to put their opponents in a corner. This trap would incite conflict and turmoil in the opponents camp and thereby fragment support for the candidate. Ideally, a dreaded "flip-flop" could be produced by provoking a statement conflicting with an earlier position taken by the candidate. Should a "flip-flop" be produced, it should be pounced on immediately and well circulated. The Republicans in turn, are counseled to paint their Democratic opponents as purveyors of the "knee-jerk politics that have kept Washington trapped in political gridlock for decades." The apparatchiks of both parties are staying busy propping up their candidates, making strategy, preparing "talking points", and working to undermine opponents.

It would seem that for many party professionals, it is not enough to nominate good candidates and put forward policies and positions for public consideration. The primary purpose of politics is to win. The preferred method is to traduce. Once victory is in hand, the victors can get on about implementing their agenda. "Partisan parlor games" are to be denounced, yet candidates are urged to "stay on offense" and "trap" their opponents. Certainly, an eye must be kept out for public disenchantment and an ear must be kept open to public opinion. Steps have to be taken to reassure the public that they are involved and have a say in policy. Nevertheless, when it comes down to it, parties are less concerned with the thoughts and opinions of the voter than they are in his vote. They are willing to go to great depths to get that vote.

The public is increasingly viewed as an accomplice to the political ambitions of a party, rather than a partner. The voter is to be lured, tricked, enticed, and cajoled. Better politicians might try to persuade. Very few will listen. Like a pushy car salesman, the parties want to sell the public a car. But they are less interested in what the customer is looking to buy, than what they want to sell. No one runs for office to follow. They run to lead, whether or not it is to a place the public wants to go. As the line between policy and tactics becomes ever more blurred, discourse becomes replaced by slogans and posturing. The public is at risk of becoming little more than a prize to be won or lost in a political contest.

If the parties succeed in their campaign strategy, in the upcoming elections the voters will have to choose, not between Republicans and Democrats, nor between liberals and conservatives. They will have to choose between knee-jerkers and flip floppers. However, in a nation where the highest ranked TV show is Dancing with the Stars, perhaps the parties don't bear all the blame.