Barreling Down and Fully Loaded: The NRA

Today's underdog: Taking on the NRA

Taking on the NRA feels for many like taking on the "Big Brother" of George Orwell's 1984, a seemingly omnipotent power present in all aspects of life. Whenever opposition to the National Rifle Association, or its views, arises, that opposition is quickly suppressed, through flooding our airwaves and Congress's hallways with money and promises of support. Whether or not you agree with the NRA, and its goals, you can probably agree that as far as organizations and lobbyist groups go, the NRA is one of the strongest and most influential in the country. In this post, I will explore how today's underdog, someone taking on the NRA in favor of gun regulation, can succeed in his goals.

To start, what makes the NRA so strong? Business Insider takes this question on from a business perspective, explaining how the NRA is actually split into four main operating organizations, allowing different groups to concentrate on different goals: from recruiting members to promoting legislation to prosecuting legal cases. Furthermore, these divisions expand the NRA's reach; the organization is so powerful because it is involved in so many different aspects of society. According to the article, in 2010 the National Rifle Association of America, the central group of the four divisions, had over $200 million in revenue. And in the federal elections this year, the legislative group of the NRA (the NRA-ILA), spent $32 million. The NRA can persuade almost anyone to do what it wants because of the wide reach and high spending employed as a finger of its powerful hand.

So then, how does one take on such a powerful organization? For a politician, who has perhaps the greatest potential to take meaningful action, taking on the NRA is essentially political suicide. Or to flip that around, teaming up with the NRA essentially guarantees victory. For an individual, the resources to combat with that $200 million are often lacking. But while complete victory in taking on such a powerful organization may be impossible, a partial victory can be won.

This Washington Post article explores 12 facts about guns, 12 facts that counter what the NRA likes to think, and say. With these 12 facts in your arsenal, the NRA suddenly becomes human, and susceptible. One of those points involves a graphic that shows how all but 10 of US mass shootings in the last 30 years used illegal guns.

In other words, making more guns illegal could indeed decrease the number of mass shootings, since most of those shootings involve legally obtained guns, in stark contrast to the many claiming regulation would do little to curb the number of these shootings. Another point made by the article is that more guns do in fact lead to more homicides, a point once again counter to what some would argue, since it would suggest that decreasing the number of guns people own would indeed decrease violence.




And finally, another graphic shows how states with gun laws have less violence than states without gun laws. While this correlation does not have known causality, it suggests a relation many in the NRA would argue against, for it implies that regulation could actually make a difference. Why does knowing these facts help? Because these facts run against the prevailing philosophy of the NRA itself. With these facts available the underdog suddenly has an advantage, inconvenient truths to challenge the NRA's power.


But perhaps an even better approach to a fight with the NRA is focusing on what can be done with the least congressional support and what could be done that most agree on. The previously mentioned Washington Post article shows widespread support in America for background checks and banning guns for felons and the mentally ill. So why not start there?

Adopt the proposals most agree on, and save the argument for the more controversial issues. And this CNN article explores how Obama, should he choose to, could, without any need for Congressional support, direct the surgeon general to evaluate the health effects of gun ownership and direct the Senate to evaluate the gun industry to make suggestions on standards to be adopted for guns (as done in Massachusetts, along with a few other states). If Congress can't be persuaded, given the NRA's incredible influence, then perhaps Obama can be. And those two directives could lead to further support for gun regulation, the former with the potential to discredit claims of effective use for self-defense, and the latter to help create safer guns, such as ones that don't shoot when dropped and smart guns which only work for certain users. Such directives wouldn't require Congressional support, and thus, would require less from an underdog, while still creating the possibility for significant regulation down the road.

Taking on the NRA is extremely difficult. Its reach is extraordinary, its influence far-reaching. But for those who wish to take on the NRA, there are a few facts and steps that will help ensure at least partial victory. The question is whether this partial victory is enough, and if a complete victory will ever be possible. But at least, if you so choose, you could look down the barrel and give it a shot.

Singing Boyle

Today's underdog: Susan Boyle

American Idol. The X Factor. America's Got Talent. The Voice. There has been an explosion in TV talent shows, in contests for the average person wishing to overcome the odds and become famous. We all have that fantasy, of suddenly being thrust into the world's spotlight of fame. But as we dabble in this delightful dream, we judge these contestants' chances rather viciously. Often, we converse over the likely failure of certain contestants. This was never more true than when Susan Boyle stepped out on the stage of Britain's Got Talent to sing. The world expected that for her, the fantasy would fall short. But Susan Boyle defied the odds. Susan Boyle's fantasy didn't fall short. Susan Boyle sang, and in her first performance, she wowed.

Were you wowed? Because I was so wowed, that two returns and a new paragraph and that performance still didn't sit in. I find the faces in the audience as well as those of the judges demonstrate how truly surprising Boyle's performance was, as well as providing a mirror to many watching at home. But why is she an underdog? Why did that surprise us? Why, when Susan Boyle walked out on that stage to seek the same fantasy so many of us long for, did we laugh instead of cheer?

To start, Boyle had a rather difficult childhood (more here). She was deprived of oxygen as a baby long enough to cause brain damage, leaving her with a learning disability. Through school she was often bullied, and despite her talent for singing, found little success. She auditioned on other talent shows, but did not find fame, and then, after her father's death, had to take care of her ill mother. Soon thereafter her sister died. Then, her mother followed. Susan was crushed, and stopped singing for two years. She was finally convinced to try out for Britain's Got Talent in 2009, and what followed is encapsulated in that incredible performance given above. Given her roots and her struggles, Boyle's success was not going to come easy, and thus her status as an underdog is unquestionable. But is that why we, the audience, were shocked by her talent? Is that why we, who had no knowledge of Boyle's childhood, surprised? Of course, not.

More likely, Susan's looks caused the audience to expect failure. Let's be honest. If you had listened to Boyle with your eyes closed, who would you expect to be singing? What would she look like? When you did watch, and you saw that odd woman walk out, were you expecting such a great performance? Boyle's greatest shock was that her incredible talent wasn't met with the looks and character associated with famous musicians. But perhaps, once her talent was realized, it was this contradictory fact that propelled her to fame. She was what others weren't. Talented, but a little different. In this fact, we can extrapolate a little for our cause of the winning underdog way. While talent may be a prerequisite, sticking to your own ideals and ways can serve you better than conforming to the standard. At least that's what Susan Boyle's incredible story shows us. So go sing in the shower. Your underdog fantasy may be the next to be fulfilled.

The Dark Horse Workhorse

Today's underdog: Adrian Peterson

As a proud Minnesota Vikings fan, I have followed the comeback of one of the NFL's greatest current players religiously. Like many though, I expected the comeback to be far less incredible than it turned out to be. The running back, Adrian Peterson, or All Day, as he has been referred to (because he goes all day), surprised the world, or at least the NFL, with a comeback year for the ages. Let's break it down.

Adrian Peterson tore both his ACL and MCL on December 24, 2011, and as Bleacher Report informs us, this is a potential career-ending injury. The recovery time is around 7-9 months, assuming one returns to normal activity. Given Adrian Peterson was hoping to return to the football field, 7-9 months was incredibly optimistic. Even if he could return in that amount of time, to expect him to have a good year would put you in the minority. In fact, in this article, the author argues you shouldn't expect a running back to have a good season until two years after a major injury. Of the 17 running backs listed, every single one had a worse season the year after a major injury than the year before the injury. Every single one. And not only worse, but in most cases significantly so.

But Adrian Peterson didn't mind being the underdog. Adrian Peterson did come back in 9 months, returning for week one of this 2012-2013 season. In his first month back (September), Peterson had 332 yards, for an average of 4.2 yards per carry (see source for stats). That average over the course of the season would've left Adrian with 1,328 yards (assuming the same amount of carries). That average would have beat his solid 2010 season (1,298 yards). But Adrian Peterson wasn't done. In October, he increased his yardage to 443 yards for the month, an average of 6.2 yards per carry. He followed up in November with 461 yards, and closed the regular season with a whopping 861 yards in December. This image shows the profound improvement over the course of the season. His season total of 2,097 yards left Adrian Peterson 8 yards short of tying Eric Dickerson for the single season rushing record. Read that again. Returning from an ACL and MCL tear, a major injury that some wouldn't ever have come back from, Peterson fell 8 yards short of becoming the league's single season record holder. But it gets more incredible. Peterson had over 1,000 yards after contact, almost as much as his total yards in 2010.

If Adrian Peterson had had an average season, it would have been incredible. Or look at it another way. If Adrian Peterson had not been injured, and had the season he did this year, falling 8 yards short of tying Dickerson, it would have been incredible. But he did that all with an ACL and MCL tear in the back of his mind. The hard work Peterson, or All Day, put in, ensured his underdog success. By not allowing history and trends to dictate his comeback, Peterson ensured his underdog success. Peterson provides an example for other underdogs. Perhaps an underdog can simply rely on hard work to overcome odds. This is rather comforting, since hard work is mostly in our control. But perhaps Adrian Peterson's comeback also depended on his natural ability, his body's injury response, or some other factor out of our control. Either way, hard work certainly had an impact. A workhorse mentality can overcome any dark horse position.

The Minority on the Pedestal

Today's underdog: Asian-Americans

The other. He sits in the shadows, defined not by what he is, but by what he isn’t. He is stuck in the shadows, limited to a lightless existence in the corners of our society. But what if he rises? What if he climbs, slowly and tirelessly, out of the shadows, revealing his true colors in the light of all our society has to offer?

What do you know about the other and the other’s rise? The other refers to the group of people who don’t fit into the mold of common society, the other group of people in society. This link shows us who may be classified as the other, and one such group is who we will look at today: Asian-Americans. Today, we associate Asian-Americans with success, but it hasn’t always been so. Asian-Americans have a history with persecution, as this NPR article discusses in brief. That Asian-Americans used to be part of the other is clear, but is it as clear that Asian-Americans have risen out of the shadows of persecution? It appears so. The Pew article referenced in the article mentioned above demonstrates the success of Asian-Americans, who lead the country in education, income, and work ethic. So it seems safe to say that the once persecuted minority group of Asian-Americans has achieved success. An underdog has won. But before we can declare that Asian-Americans have left the position of being in the other, we must examine another term.

The term model minority refers to a minority who has achieved wider success than other minorities. Asian-Americans are often referred to as the model minority, especially when considering stats like the Pew article’s. But this model minority mindset is a myth. This article explores how we need to explore more telling stats. Asian-Americans are underrepresented in political careers and placing them as a model minority essentially keeps them as an other, just one on a different end of the spectrum. Many Asian-Americans have risen out of the shadows. But Asian-Americans are still the other, just a different kind. Has this underdog really won?

There is another area of exploration pertinent to our discussion: forced vs. selected immigration. These aren’t technical terms, just ones I have dubbed for our sake. We can think of forced immigration as immigration that occurs when home conditions become unbearable and emigration is the only path to survival. Selected immigration on the other hand is much more like moving, a person leaving the country of birth for any number of reasons, but not explicitly for survival. Given this division, can we identify differences in a group of immigrants based on which category the group falls into? Unfortunately, here the internet proves to have a limit, but we can postulate. Isn’t it reasonable to say a group of immigrants who, for the most part, chose to immigrate into the U.S. are more likely to be motivated to achieve success than a group forced into coming to the U.S.? Perhaps this could explain why it seems, as a group, Asian-Americans have achieved more success.

Given that the underdog status of Asian-Americans is questionable, as is the perceived success, I will limit my evaluation of how underdogs win and keep it general. The major step required for a member of the other to achieve success is to redefine the other’s image. Unfortunately, this is no easy task. But in beating the expectations and breaking the stereotypes, a member of the other can ensure that that image is changed to better reflect the truth. This point can be broadened by changing “redefine image” to “challenge expectations”. If a basketball team, for example, was an underdog, playing in a manner inconsistent with a losing or underdog team could ensure success. Not living up to the predefined image can ensure winning. So whether you are the other or some other person, consider what you want your image to be, because the choice has the potential to define your future.

A Stool for Standing

Today's underdog: Activists 

Margaret Mead, a cultural anthropologist who passed away in the '70s, once said, "never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." Indeed activism is at its core a small group of concerned individuals banding together in a common quest of changing the status quo. Now, what makes these individuals underdogs is in how their small base manages to garner widespread change. Since activism is such a wide category, let's consider a few examples within one genre, documentary. I have chosen documentary simply because there is a wide array of subject matter and the impact of the activism is easier to identify than many other forms of activism.


The first documentary filmmaker who comes to my mind is Morgan Spurlock. Spurlock, an ordinary documentary film maker, gained fame with his film Supersize Me. In exposing the health risks of McDonald's and other fast food restaurants, Spurlock changed the world. McDonald's took the "supersize" option off of the menu days before the release of the movie and added more healthy options. And some argue that the movie inspired many other health movements, most notably Michelle Obama's. Spurlock relied upon a low budget film to actually affect change. Spurlock was the underdog, and won.

Next on my list is Michael Moore. Moore grew up an ordinary life, born to blue-collar workers in Flint, Michigan. But as Moore made several documentaries, his humble roots became insignificant as his work affected great change. Moore's films, from Bowling for Columbine to Sicko to Capitalism: A Love Story, expose many uncomfortable aspects of our society and suggest a plan of action. While controversial, his films always generate buzz and thus generate a high potential for change. Moore is an underdog, given his attacks on establishment and his humble roots, and he is winning.

To keep this post short, I'll conclude with a third example. That third example is Louie Psihoyos. Another man of humble roots, born to an immigrant escaping communist occupation of his homeland, Psihoyos gained a reputation for great photos. After his experience with National Geographic (as a photographer), Psihoyos decided he wanted to create change in the world. The release of The Cove accomplished this goal. Starring another dedicated activist, Ric O'Barry, the film, directed by Psihoyos, has had a profound impact. This article says that the film may have even caused the total cessation of the annual dolphin slaughter focused on in the movie. Rather than killers arriving this past September, Japanese cameras came ready to roll. Here once again, an underdog took on large powers, this time even breaking the law, and won.


So how do activists manage to win? They usually target a large establishment who has superior resources and can knock the activists down. Activists are usually very small in number. And they often come from humble roots. So how do they win? One key way is dedication, an attribute that in some form or another we have seen effective now in all cases explored in this blog. Dedication ensures perseverance in the face of failure and large walls blocking the path. Another key way an activist wins is by telling the story in such a way as to garner support. By telling the story the "right" way, an activist can create large support despite a small base. This idea of story spinning as a method for success was also seen in the election example explored here, which demonstrates that this method of winning may be a common method. Finally, activists win by taking risks. The risks taken by the participants in The Cove were immense, including imprisonment and injury. Moore's risks were more related to his image, but still potentially threatening. And Spurlock took risks to his own personal health. By taking a risk, an activist can take a top dog by surprise and knock him down from his pedestal, ensuring success.

Trapped

Today’s underdog: Pakistan

Pakistan is in trouble. This is a fact. Pakistan is in trouble because Pakistan is in the “bottom billion”. Coined by Paul Collier in The Bottom Billion, the term “bottom billion” refers to the lowest one billion people in the world, whose countries are the only ones left who haven’t developed or aren’t developing. Collier identifies four traps that help characterize why these nations are stuck in the bottom billion: conflict, landlocked, natural resource, and bad governance. How does Pakistan fit into these traps?

Collier argues that a landlocked nation is dependent on its neighbors for exporting its goods, and if there are bad neighbors, those goods may be too expensive to export--the landlocked trap. Pakistan is not in this trap, because while Pakistan is surrounded by bad neighbors in Iran and Afghanistan, Pakistan has access to the sea. The natural resource trap, which refers to inadequate control of large quantities of resources leading to economic woes, is also absent for Pakistan. Pakistan has fewer resources than those nations in the trap like the Democratic Republic of Congo (world resources), and better control of the resources it does have.

But Pakistan is in other traps. First, Pakistan is in the trap of bad governance, or poor leadership resulting in economic stagnation or decline. Consider the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment from the World Bank, the same index Collier uses. Most of the areas examined by the index place Pakistan in the middle of the scale. But, speaking generally, these values have declined over the last seven years. And two numbers are particularly low: gender equality (2 out of 6) and transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector (2.5). Let’s consider the same index, but for Chad, a nation Collier identifies to be in the trap, in order to get a good comparison. The ratings are lower for Chad than Pakistan, but not by a large margin. And when we consider the fact that Pakistan’ economic growth from 2005-2008 has largely ceased, it is hard to argue in favor of Pakistan’s government. In fact, in this blog post, Professor Ashfaque Khan blames the decline largely on Pakistan’s government being unprepared to deal with the global financial crisis beginning in 2008. Based on this observation and the data presented, Pakistan is in the bad governance trap.

Finally, Pakistan and the conflict trap. The conflict trap asserts that a nation with inner conflict is likely to have continued conflict, and that conflict, specifically civil war, can cost upwards of $64 billion. Well, has Pakistan had conflict or coups? Here is a great resource that gives a summary on major Pakistani conflicts and coups. As the size of the list may imply, Pakistan has definitely had conflict. In fact, there have been two military coups, one in 1977 and another in 1999. There has also been civil conflict, and several incidents of fighting between India and Pakistan. Finally, Pakistan has had several conflicts with terrorist organizations (namely Al Qaeda) and the Taliban. With all this conflict, it’d be hard to say Pakistan wasn’t in the conflict trap. The military still has significant political influence and another coup is not out of reason. Ethnic tensions are still high and conflict with India is always possible. The conflict trap clearly limits Pakistan’s potential. Furthermore, the military coups have created worse governance through corruption and autocracy, reinforcing Pakistan’s other trap. The two traps also play into a sort of loop, bad governance ensuring limited effectiveness of conflict prevention, and conflict, namely coups, making bad governance worse.

These facts lend us to the conclusion that Pakistan is an underdog. Pakistan’s two traps not only ensure poor economic production and violence, but the two also reinforce each other, making it even harder for Pakistan to “win” and achieve economic and political success. So how can Pakistan win as the underdog? And how long will it take?

The Louder Shot

Today's underdog: The 13 colonies (maybe?)


The shot heard ‘round the world. It launched a war for the ages and, for 13 colonies, was the start of the quest for independence. The Revolutionary War (for a refresher, check out this link) changed the world and provides an incredible case study about the underdog. While I will begin by exploring how the Americans were the underdog in the Revolutionary War, using some information from this Smithsonian resource, I will also explore the other side, looking at how the British may have actually been the underdog. But first, the typical story.


The British army numbered 42,000 professional soldiers, and in addition, employed 30,000 German soldiers (considered some of the best in the world). The navy numbered 270 ships. The American army numbered 230,000 untrained men, but only 20,000 were fighting at any one time, and the navy numbered just 27. Furthermore, the British army was far better supplied. The British had a prospering empire with a large economy, while America was barely a nation. For most, this information would indicate that America was clearly the underdog.

Let’s look at the other side of the argument, though, with some information provided from this outline and this resource. First of all, the American side had superior leadership, with leaders like George Washington (for more info on Washington see here). And the United States garnered the support of the French, eliminating the British naval and military size advantage. And while Britain had a better trained army, it was fighting far from home. The colonials were fighting a defensive war, using guerilla tactics (for which the traditional British soldiers had not been trained) and knowledge of the land to gain an edge. In fact, over 70% of these defensive wars are won by the defender, like the United States, as explored by Ivan Arreguín-Toft in this report, mentioned in the first post of my blog (Arreguín-Toft refers to defensive wars as “asymmetrical conflicts”). So is it fair to consider the Americans the underdog, when the British were equally, if not more, challenged, and statistically, the United States had better odds? It seems Britain may have been the true underdog.

While I have made the case for Britain, this is a blog about how the underdog wins, and given that Britain lost, I’d like to evaluate how America won and consider the colonists the underdog (though I will come back to Britain). Are there any similarities in how Turkey has succeeded (see earlier blog post) and how America won? The two reasons for success identified with Turkey were a strong national identity and a departure from the norm. To a large extent, this holds true in this example. If we change “strong national identity” to “strong cause”, then we can see clearly how the American side had an advantage. By creating a strong cause, and thus a strong motivation for fighting, the Americans ensured victory. And the second reason, “departure from the norm” also holds true in the Revolutionary War. The Americans used guerilla warfare and knowledge of the geography, as mentioned, to wreak havoc on the British. This was a very unusual type of warfare during the time period and a definite departure from the normal fighting style. The two methods, strong cause and a departure from the norm, seem to hold true and thus hold merit, which we will have to continue to explore in depth in the next weeks.


To end, let’s come back to the point about Britain as an underdog. Unfortunately, no conclusive decision can be made as to which side was truly the underdog. This reveals the difficulty in labeling someone as an underdog; the decision is subjective. And perhaps this reveals that there is a difference between the perceived underdog (the United States) and the statistical underdog (Britain). Thus, the underdog isn’t always as he seems. I’ll keep these points in mind as we examine other shots heard ‘round the world in upcoming weeks.