What The Guardian Fails To Ask About 'Two Americas'

The United States of America is an odd nation in a lot of ways. While we’re one country, we’re made up of such different regional cultures that we could easily be any number of countries. Even the South with the antebellum mansions and southern sensibilities is quite different from, say, New Orleans which has a culture all its own.

So, when someone says we’re “two Americas,” they may actually be right in many ways.

However, at The Guardian, that phrase is used to describe the violence that is plaguing so many of our cities. The headline lays it all out. “Gun violence kills 160 as holiday weekend exposes tale of ‘two Americas‘,” it reads.

As the story proceeds, it tries to lay a finger for our current strife.

There are, of course, the obligatory claims of racism, of course:

Livingston called on Lightfoot to tackle racism and policing problems “head on”.

“There is an individual responsibility [among those shooting], but there are also conditions that create a climate of violence,” he said.

He accused the New York mayor, Bill de Blasio, of being “scared” of confronting racism in the New York police department. “There is no courage in city hall,” he said.

There’s also an attempt to tie the violence into the surge of gun sales we’ve seen in recent months.

The Trace, a non-profit news website covering gun violence in the US, which tallied the weekend toll of shootings in the US, reported that preliminary research from the University of California, Davis, has found a potential link between the rise in violence and a surge in gun-buying during the coronavirus pandemic, of more than 2.1 million more guns than usual between March and May.

Yet The Guardian missed one thing all of these cities have in common. It failed to mention that every single one of them is under Democratic leadership.

Why is that?

Well, I’m sure the writer would argue that she didn’t think it was particularly relevant, that instead a pastor’s claims of racism and a report that has questionable conclusions at best are far more important than the fact that every single city suffering from this violence are run by a single political party.

For some reason, if these were Republican strongholds, I can’t help but believe it would be quite relevant.

However, I do think the party in power in these places is kind of important. After all, these are the parties that ultimately control many of the states these cities are in. Their out-sized impact on state politics means there’s more likely to be gun control passed in the state, more likely to be any number of progressive policies passed by the state, and virtually none of the conservative or libertarian policies even being considered.

And yet, they want to make the case that the problem is, in part, guns? New York is one of the most gun controlled cities in the nation and they’re seeing a massive surge in violent crime. Chicago, by virtue of his impact on Illinois politics, is surrounded by anti-gun laws that make it difficult for citizens to purchase firearms.

No, there’s something else, but until the media has the guts to look at the leadership of all these cities with a critical eye, it’ll be passed over again and again. The violence will continue because no one is ready to slay the sacred beast that is Democratic control over our cities.

And I’m sorry, but I won’t allow them to place the blame on the rest of us simply because it’s convenient for them.