When Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice-President and face of the National Rifle Association, held a press conference in response to the Newtown tragedy and said: “The only, only people who can stop bad people with guns are good people with guns,” my reaction was “who is this guy anyway?”
What is his heritage, who were his parents and grandparents? What were the traditions and values in his home? Does he have siblings and what did they grow up to be? Is he married? Does he have children? What is his faith tradition?
I unearthed very little public information about Wayne LaPierre. I know where he went to college, and that he is married to someone who also works at the NRA. I know he and his wife each earn nearly one-million dollars a year at the NRA, but that is about it.
After some time on Google and Bing and Ask.com, I started to second guess myself. Are these fair questions? Does it matter who makes an argument? And does the person who makes the argument need to personally believe in it? I worried that my instinct was to be “ad homonym.” Didn’t I learn in school that this is not how we debate issues. Don’t shoot the messenger, as the saying goes.
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 the Washington Post ran an extensive profile and history of the National Rifle Association, including a review of Wayne LePierre’s influence and role in building the NRA into what it is today. The article included information about LaPierre’s role at the NRA, as well as comments similar to those he made after Newtown, but there was nothing about who is really is.
Recently, I had the chance to explore this question with the CEO of one of the leading groups that opposes the NRA. He assured me there was extensive information about Wayne LaPierre; I just had to go to the groups’ web site. I ran to my computer with great expectations. Once again, I found nothing really new, just a more detailed history of comments by Wayne LaPierre over the years.
Having thought about this issue, I do think it is important that we know more about people who are in public positions and engaged in important policy debates. True reconciliation of opposing views requires that people on opposite sides understand each other. It isn’t about being right or wrong – although some matters are factually and scientifically provable – it is about finding ways forward in a complex world where these different views exist.
In addition, I believe we each need to own our work and be responsible and accountable for the impact of what we do. In my discussion with the head of the “anti-gun” group, I was surprised when he said – “If you are asking if I think Wayne LaPierre personally believes in what he is saying, no I don’t.”
That took my breath away. I do not know if it is better or worse for me if LaPierre were simply paid to do this work and is just good at what he does. Does he go home and shake his head in sad amazement at the effectiveness of his own work?
Not long ago Ralph Nader wrote a column arguing that part of the problem in our financial markets is that the Wall Street financial traders don’t have “skin in the game” – that people playing with other people’s money are not as careful as they would be if it were their own money. A moral hazard, so to speak. There is no accountability if you don’t have something personally at risk.
I also believe that is true of policy advocates. While there are legitimate roles of paid advocates in the legal system, in the public policy world someone has to “own” the core position. NRA board and staff – just as the board and staff of AARP or AFL-CIO – have to be willing to personally own the policy positions.
The personal information and identity of our policy opposites isn’t definitive; there are data, science and other factors that are equally, if not more, important. Yet how do we persuade people, how do we impact them not only in their thoughts but in their heart? If we don’t know their heart as well as their head, can we really persuade them on anything? Perhaps one does not want to disclose this information to someone they oppose, for fear of giving their opponent the upper hand. But this is precisely why it is so important to know who a person is... This knowing creates real possibility for peaceful change in a civil society.