Bill Humphrey

About Bill Humphrey

Bill Humphrey is the primary host of WVUD's Arsenal For Democracy talk radio show and a local elected official.

Thoughts on Connecticut

First, this was a deeply upsetting event, and it’s hard to grasp or process mentally. It would be anyway, but it’s especially hard as a native of New England — we have a lot of regional solidarity and closeness. For example, my mother texted me to remind me she and I had stopped right near that school this past May to get lunch while traveling between Delaware and Massachusetts.

Second. The bulk of the people who tell us not to “politicize” mass shootings are invariably gun advocates. They are aware that this *is* a political issue, whether in or out of the heat of the moment, and that if they can delay any immediate reaction when momentum in favor would be highest, that it’s even less likely any gun control legislation will be introduced, let alone passed. The rest of people who say not to politicize it are usually sincerely trying to keep the focus where it ideally would be, on the loss of life and the mourning families — but they are, in fact, enabling the other side, by silencing the gun control advocates who have been on the losing side for a decade. Silence is a de facto advantage to the gun lobby, since they are in the dominant position in the American political system. In the past two years, there have been at least a half dozen horrific mass shootings, and the gun lobby has effectively prevented the introduction or consideration of even modest, reasonable measures to tighten up legal acquisition of guns, restrictions on the types of guns sold to civilians, or the extended clips/magazines made legally available. They even managed to force people to stay silent in the aftermath of an attempted assassination of an elected member of Congress, which was quite obviously political, by telling people not to politicize the tragedy. Simply put, our government generally responds to problems only when there is broad public attention on it and a demand for solutions, particularly after crises hit, and gun violence problems are no exception — which makes it *necessary* to discuss this immediately, instead of waiting until everyone not immediately connected to a given tragedy has had time to “forget” till the next incident. It’s amazing seeing the comments about how we “can’t jump to conclusions” or be overly hasty because don’t know all the details yet, as if this weren’t something that was happening every few months, as if we can’t generalize that there’s a problem we need to act on. This isn’t some unprecedented and unforeseeable event, it’s something that keeps happening over and over. Other industrialized nations don’t have this problem (to the same level or frequency, even with the 3 unprecedented major incidents in Europe in 2011) because they have pretty strict controls — so much for the If Guns Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Guns platitude — as well as a lack of a “gun culture” (and yes better health care systems that help people struggling with mental illnesses get adequate help). Here, this is something that now seems to be accepted as an unavoidable part of our reality, that every few months a dozen or more people will be killed at once inexplicably (or that random gun violence will happen on city street corners daily, or that some number of wives and children will be shot dead in their homes by abusive husbands and fathers). Telling people not to talk about it at the time when something happens is, whether intentional or not, effectively an endorsement of the view that this will be our continued reality and that we should just accept it and shouldn’t do anything about it. If we don’t accept this premise, we *have to* talk about it and we have to talk about policy and political solutions, because this *is* a political issue, like it or not. If it weren’t, the NRA wouldn’t spend so much money each year on elections. Honestly, I don’t really think anything will come of this either, because the gun lobby has secured their position so strongly, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it or be quiet about it or wait until it’s faded from the news cycle. I’m tired of being silenced on gun control because I’m supposed to only be joining the collective mourning. I’m capable of holding more than one thought in my head at a time, and so are the rest of Americans. The gun advocates just don’t want that to happen because then they might actually have a fight on their hands in the halls of power.

My first book is out

williambhumphreyebookcover-smallMy first book, over a year in the making, is now on sale at Amazon for $2.99 for Kindle! Get yourself ready for the Republican and Democratic National Conventions by learning about the importance of American Dream rhetoric in past presidential nomination acceptance speeches.

 

 
I Accept Your Nomination: American Dream Rhetoric in Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speeches, 1932-2008: William Humphrey: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

Note: That link goes to the U.S. Kindle store but if you are overseas and search for the title in your country’s Kindle store, you should be able to find it without any trouble.

Abstract

Since 1932, Democratic and Republican presidential nominees have delivered speeches in person at thirty-seven conventions, accepting their parties’ nominations for that election.

These speeches occur at the official nexus of primary and general election campaigns, and they are delivered to live audiences of supporters and millions of undecided voters from across the spectrum watching at home. They have developed into their own internally consistent and self-referential genre within American political rhetoric, filled with shared motifs, themes, and components.

Despite that, there has been only limited academic research on the speeches so far. This project examined, in particular, representations of the common motif of the American Dream across the genre in an effort to answer part of the question of how American political candidates (specifically presidential nominees in this case) appeal to ideas (such as the American Dream) in the American political culture.

Most references in the speeches to the American Dream, however, are oblique or indirect. I therefore conducted a content analysis and identified seven distinct “vehicles” that the nominees have used to introduce the concept into the speeches and define it. I argue that these references communicate information to voters about ideological positions and disposition of the nominees, which help voters form impressions to use when casting their votes.

It is hoped that this work will have both campaign and academic applications, and I conclude by suggesting some possibilities to that end. It is additionally hoped that this book will be accessible to general audiences.

“AFD Ep 29 – The Sixties, Welfare, and Society Since”

Bill and Anna start off with a speculative discussion about the relationship between social and economic libertarianism from the 1960s onward (based off Kurt Andersen’s dubious NY Times column), which transitions into a discussion of the money woes of cash-strapped cities selling ads on public services, and then into a report on the tax hikes on the rich that the French Socialist government has just proposed. After the break, they discuss Rep. Joe Walsh’s latest outrageous offense, as well as a story about the border patrol arresting a former governor of Arizona. They close out with a mocking look at the impending fiscal meltdown of the Creationism Museum as the Noah’s Ark project hits the rocks.

“AFD Ep 25 – The Generation War”

Bill, Kelley, and guest host Anna from ONTD_p discuss the policy implications of a worsening generation gap between Millennials (and the next generation after them) and Baby Boomers, especially now that White births are no longer a majority in the United States. Eventually Bill gets really angry about Harry Reid’s failure to reform the Senate filibuster rules in January 2011 now that Reid has come around to see the wisdom of the “young” Senators who proposed the change.

“AFD Ep 18 – Let’s Talk About Uganda”

Bill and Kerry take advantage of the pre-emption of the FM broadcast to record an extended discussion of several important stories of the week. They break down the facts and controversies surrounding the ‘Kony 2012’ video, cover Rush Limbaugh’s contraception freakout and loss of dozens of sponsors, look into a drug-running scandal in the Afghan Air Force, and they speculate on Mitt Romney’s options for securing the nomination without winning a majority of the delegates. Kelley is out this week.

“AFD Ep 17 – Sen. Tom Carper Interview”

Bill interviews United States Senator Tom Carper, Democrat of Delaware, asking him about jobs, youth/young adult and minority unemployment, student loans, poverty, and his role at the center-right Democratic Leadership Council in pushing the Democratic Party away from the Left. After that there was 20 more minutes of great discussion with Kerry and Kelley, but it was accidentally deleted right after the show, so unfortunately Bill could only briefly re-summarize the topics and end the show.