The difference in Bush's behavior in response to Red Lake versus the Schiavo situation is clear, undeniable and very instructive.
I think the obvious explanation of this difference is political opportunism, pure and simple. Intervening in the Schiavo case was perceived to have an immediate political payoff from his base constituency of conservative Christians, whereas making a political statement about Red Lake would have offended the gun lobby, which is another important political constituency.
Conservative Christians have been vocally calling for intervention in the Schiavo case. However, the gun lobby, in the voice of the NRA, said in response to Red Lake:
Quote:
|
"It seems callous to talk about politics or to try to push a legislative agenda on the back of this heart-rending crime," the NRA's chief spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, said in response to the Minnesota shootings.
|
However, it is ridiculous to say that any political response would be "callous".
For example, Bush could call for funding of school-based mental health counseling grants that are authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act. These are currently completely unfunded, partly because conservatives believe that psychological problems should be handled by families and churches, and not by professional psychiatrists.
Or he could call for funding of state grant allocations from the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The purpose of these grants is to put together programs that reduce youth violence. But again conservatives are opposed to these programs for a variety of reasons.
Neither of these responses would be the least bit "callous."
If Bush really believes in the "culture of life" there is a lot that he could at least propose that would do more to support and encourage such a culture in our schools. Clinton did as much within a few days of the Columbine shootings.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ck=1&cset=true