Alaska Sen. Mark Begich has been trashed in the most vicious way during the past week for his vote against expanding background checks on gun purchases. Agree or disagree with his vote, he doesn’t deserve the abuse.

The ugly accusation is that Sen. Begich voted against the expanded checks for purely political reasons, to boost his prospects of surviving the 2014 election as a Democrat in a state that leans Republican. His most vociferous critics, mostly fellow Democrats, seem to believe that no rational person could oppose the proposed background check legislation because they themselves, as avowedly rational people, do not.

When Sen. Begich, the most prominent elected Democrat in Alaska, expressed such opposition, the self-righteous outrage at the betrayal blinded critics to any explanation beyond the most base: The senator is a coward pandering to paranoid Neanderthals and a greedy gun lobby.

Please. Give the senator’s skull credit for hosting a brain, not a weathervane. And what happened to all the voices encouraging independent, nonpartisan thinkers?

Arguments can be made against the wisdom of expanding background checks. The same can be found in favor of greater checks. Rational people fall to each side. Our values, experiences and thought processes cause us to reach different conclusions when we balance our perceptions of the crime-deterring efficacy of such checks against our perceptions of the hassles the checks would create for law-abiding people.

Sen. Begich, as he completed this balancing in his own mind, quite plausibly could have found himself personally opposed to expanded checks. In fact, that’s the most likely explanation of his vote. One assertion from his critics illustrates why.

The assertion is that about 90 percent of Americans support expanded background checks, so Sen. Begich betrayed the country, and likely his own constituents, with his vote. There are good reasons to question the accuracy of the 90 percent figure, and it’s not clear what the numbers are in Alaska. However, it wouldn’t be surprising to find a majority of Alaskans also support expanded background checks.

So, if Sen. Begich’s vote contradicted those desires, how could it help his re-election? How could he be pandering? It seems unlikely, at first blush.

Students of political science might make the more nuanced argument that the senator still might be pandering because expanding gun control is a highly salient issue to its opponents — meaning it influences their voting greatly. So even if a majority of Alaskans supports more background checks, the senator might have been politically wise to vote against the legislation, given that there is a very motivated minority that opposes such checks.

On the other hand, that minority is likely to vote Republican in the general election, regardless. So again, what’s the advantage to Sen. Begich of alienating his liberal base on the unlikely chance that he’ll lure substantial numbers from the conservative base?

The political analysis brings us to the land of “maybe.” Maybe the vote will help the senator’s re-election. Maybe it won’t. It’s not clear.

Sen. Begich cast a vote that he knew would receive a lot of attention and that he would need to defend before his core constituency with solid, rational arguments. Some of us will find his arguments convincing, others will not. Let’s focus on the arguments, and leave the name-calling behind.

— Fairbanks Daily News-Miner,

April 28


What others say: Obama took right tack on Cuba

There’s no solution to the half-century old Cuba problem that will satisfy everyone, but we strongly believe President Obama made the right decision to end the troubled “wet foot, dry foot” policy.

Read more

What others say: Obama’s legacy a mixed one

President Barack Obama leaves office Friday after eight years as the most consequential Democrat to occupy the White House since Lyndon Johnson. And unlike that Texan, whose presidency was born in tragedy and ended in failure, Obama will not have the ghost of the Vietnam War haunting his days and eating his conscience as LBJ did all the remaining days of his life.

Read more

Op-ed: Trump won the news conference

Donald Trump should do press conferences more often. Not for the country’s sake, certainly not for the media’s sake, but for his. He really shouldn’t have waited 167-plus days to hold one, because the man gives great sound bite. Although I’ve participated in probably thousands of these staged encounters as a reporter, they’re not my favorite way of getting news — you almost never get any. The guy at the podium controls the proceeding. He can get his message out with little challenge from the assembled journalists who are limited to a question and a follow-up, maybe. Politicians can bob and weave through that without any of us landing a blow. And that’s our job: to penetrate the canned responses to their version of the controversy du jour and get at whatever truth they are hiding. Besides, Trump — who uses contempt for the media as a weapon, his preferred way to discredit reporting that displeases him —has a wonderful forum to do that. At the very least he should hold these confrontations as a supplement to his Twitter tirades. And frequently. It’s his opportunity to hold the media hostage as they cover live his rain of abuse on them.

Read more

Good luck in Juneau

The 30th Alaska Legislature gavels in on Tuesday, and we’d like to take a moment to wish our Kenai Peninsula legislators good luck over the coming months in Juneau.

Read more