One of the frequent refrains among the crowds at the March for Our Lives in Washington DC and across the country was “Vote Them Out” – a throaty articulation of the determination to translate the anger and passion of a remarkable day of student-led protests into political action.

As was also often mentioned from the stage, there were 227 days until the November 6 midterm elections, with warnings that a continuation of inaction on gun violence would be considered unacceptable by this newly-empowered and emboldened generation.

The Guardian featured contributions from the staff of the student newspaper at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, as guest editors for the weekend. “Change is within reach,” Rebecca Schneid wrote. And as this movement coalesces from the unifying simplicity of a rejection of senseless murder to a strategy for creating change, what we are witnessing appears to be nothing less than, as Emily Witt writes in the New Yorker, a “radical new model for youth protest.”

Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post wrote that “The sense of amazement among adults, including jaded members of the media, was palpable — both because supposedly sophisticated adults had not pulled off this kind of change in attitudes about guns in the decades they’d been trying and because the teenagers shredded the talking points, the lies, the cynicism and the indifference that we’ve become accustomed to in our politics.”

But the challenge for most single-issue campaigns quickly becomes how to bring about that change most effectively, in a contentious and divided environment where, beyond the starting point of agreement, there emerge myriad options for practical action.

Among the many moving and powerful speeches by survivors of gun violence – including Emma Gonzalez’s aching silence (which media professor Jeff Jarvis described as the bravest thing he’s ever seen on television) – David Hogg, her fellow Parkland student, told the crowd: “To those politicians supported by the NRA that allow the continued slaughter of our children and our future, I say get your resumes ready.”

With what seems a Congress perpetually divided on the issue, that strategy – the specific targeting of politicians who are recipients of NRA contributions – could be the potentially most resonant battleground on which the next phase of the campaign will hinge. Along the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue on Saturday, there was a row of state-by-state flags with pictures of each elected representative and how much in NRA money they have taken. They were a powerful reminder of the reach of money in politics and a juxtaposition to many of the signs among the crowds.

The NRA’s wrong-footed reaction to the march and the movement was probably best summed up when a spokesman told the Parkland kids “No-one would know your names” if their classmates were still alive, one Twitter response was, simply, “I’m pretty sure they would prefer it that way.”

If you go up against woke teens on social media, you’ll usually lose. And statements like that probably only helped drive more people to the voter registration efforts that accompanied the weekend’s marches. As well as an ideological divide, there is also undoubtedly a definite generation gap in thinking; and remarks by politicians like Republican former presidential candidate Rick Santorum will have done nothing to help bridge that.

But of course – even with a new Fox News poll indicating a greater broad consensus on the need for increased gun control measures – there are two sides to every argument; even if in this particular argument there are many, many more, from the constitutional to the commonsensical. For example, one pro-gun narrative from the weekend pointed to the “irony” of the marchers needing armed police to protect them. Meanwhile advocates for more guns in schools pointed to the recent incident in Maryland where an armed school security officer shot and killed a 17-year-old shooter.

While the inclusiveness of the marches this weekend served to highlight the disproportionate effect of gun violence on communities of colour, the debate over the police shooting of Stephon Clark in Sacramento last weekend serves to show a perpetually tragic cycle that seems unbreakable.

Even voices on the right have acknowledged the difficulties and contradictions with gun laws in practice. After Charlottesville, for example, David Frum wrote in The Atlantic that the open carrying of firearms was “America’s most unequally upheld right.”

On the guns themselves, perhaps one sign that a tide – whatever it may be – might be turning came in the financial world, when the day after the march, one of America’s biggest firearm manufacturers, the 200-year-old Remington company, confirmed a previously-planned filing for bankruptcy protection, amid falling sales, debt, and lawsuits.

Bloomberg reported:

Remington’s fortunes took a hit after the election of Donald Trump, a self-proclaimed “true friend” of the gun industry. Gun enthusiasts traditionally stock up on firearms at times when political winds suggest tighter gun control lies ahead. But Hillary Clinton’s defeat erased those fears, leaving retailers stuffed with unsold inventory.

As for a practical electoral strategy in such a politically polarized environment, former Democratic Congressman Steve Israel wrote in the New York Times on Saturday: “You don’t have to win every district. Replacing just a handful of incumbents in districts that are highly competitive while also offering a vivid contrast in positions on guns could bring the larger change you need and deserve…

“March not left, nor right, but right up the middle, into those moderate competitive districts where high school students, people at the coffee shops and diners, and soccer moms and dads shake their heads at the intransigence of a member of Congress who won’t support enhanced background checks, No Fly, No Buy” and other reforms.” 

Conscience of the nation

Above all, after the heightened passions of this weekend, one is left with an overwhelming feeling of tremendous sadness that this sort of outpouring should even be necessary. But also with a deep admiration for such a positive response and determination to address an issue that is imperative to the country as a whole, just as its effects are felt in individual communities.

In a letter to the Parkland students the former first couple said, “Not only have you supported and comforted each other, but you’ve helped awaken the conscience of the nation, and challenged decision-makers to make the safety of our children the country’s top priority.”

However this movement eventually plays out at the polls, this past weekend will be remembered as a tipping point; one which will lead either to an enhanced connection between public opinion and political engagement that brings about actual change, or as a huge cross-generational opportunity lost to the power of politics as – what passes for – usual.

The Washington Post, in an editorial entitled “We Are The Change” said:

Washington has seen a lot of marches. And it is probably folly to expect action from a Congress so resistant to change. But it was impossible, listening to the students’ heartfelt stories and seeing the numbers that overflowed Pennsylvania Avenue and the streets of other cities, not to be encouraged and to hope that these young people will succeed where the adults have failed.

Previous stories at Northern Slant:

Generation Next? by Steve McGookin

Banning Guns Won’t Make The Problem Go Away by Sam Allen

Another Day, Another Shooting by Andréa Hanna


Also published on Medium.