As announced earlier, historian, software engineer and Second Amendment activist Clayton Cramer is running for Idaho State Senate (District 22).The author of numerous books and publications, Mr. Cramer played an instrumental role in proving that "Arming America" by Michael Bellesiles was based on fraudulent research, resulting in revocation of the Bancroft Prize and Bellesiles' resignation from Emory University. Cramer's work has been cited in RKBA-related legal cases, such as Emerson, and he recently devoted his knowledge and research skills to the current Heller case,partnering with attorneys David T. Hardy and Hamline University's Joseph E. Olson on the brief filed by Academics for the Second Amendment.
WarOnGuns caught up with Cramer to discuss his political campaign. Here's what we discussed:
DC: So--why in the world are you subjecting yourself to this? Has representation for people with conservative and libertarian leanings really been so poor in the 22nd district?
CC: Senator Corder, while in some respects somewhat conservative, has made some votes and introduced some bills that just make me scratch my head in amazement. The one that caused me to run against him was his sponsorship of S.1323, which proposed adding "sexual orientation and gender identity" to Idaho's employment discrimination law. I often describe myself as a conservative with libertarian leanings. Here was a bill that managed to offend both sensibilities at once. What consenting adults do in private should be none of the government's business--and it doesn't matter if it is employment or sodomy.
I've developed a grudging tolerance of anti discrimination laws based on race and sex because for decades, both federal and state governments either directly discriminated, or required private businesses to do so. Read Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the case that made "separate but equal" the law of the land. It was a Louisiana law requiring railroads to discriminate against blacks--and "the refusal or neglect of the officers, directors, conductors, and employees of railway companies to comply with the act" would leave them personally liable. I can give you many other examples of such laws requiring racial discrimination against Asians. Similarly, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) involved a Washington State law that set working conditions for women specifically to drive them out of the workforce.
With this history, I can grudgingly accept the argument that anti discrimination laws served a useful purpose for destroying discriminatory presumptions. I get a bit less comfortable with adding "sexual orientation and gender identity" to the list--especially with this week's freak show event, the "pregnant man" in California.
Senator Corder also voted against making English the official language of state business (which should be a no brainer), and against adding a protection of the right to hunt and fish to the state constitution. Right now, these are not in danger--but if enough anti hunting sorts move here, that could be a problem. Best to get those protections in place now.
DC: Why you? What does Clayton Cramer bring to the job that makes you the most qualified candidate?
CC: There's only one other candidate in the Republican primary! Part of why I moved to Idaho is that it is a very conservative place--a good place to raise kids, and a good place for gun owners. I want to keep it that way. I'm afraid that Senator Corder is in danger of Californicating this state.
DC: You say your opponent is rated C by NRA. That's pretty poor for an Idaho Republican. Why such a poor grade?
CC: When I received the NRA ratings in 2006, he was listed as a C. When I spoke to someone at NRA-ILA recently, they indicated that he was a D in 2004, a C in 2006--and seems to be improving. I wasn't able to get a detailed description of what gave him such a bad grade in previous years.
DC: If you're elected, give some examples of "gun rights"-related legislation you would be a leader on, including new measures you would propose or existing laws you would fight to modify or repeal altogether.
CC: One of the issues that a lot of states are grappling with right now is parking lot bans. Most large companies (including my employer), have bans on firearms at work. I can understand their reasoning, at least in the buildings. You can't just walk in the front door where I work. There are significant security barriers that would significantly prevent a spree shooter from entering the building, so there's really not much reason for anyone to need to be armed in the building. But the parking lot creates a different set of problems. There are people who have significant drives to and from neighborhoods where having a gun available is perhaps a good idea. I see no good reason for any employer to prohibit a person with a license to carry from having a gun in their car in the parking lot, and I see some good reasons why some employees might want that gun there.
At the same time, I am reluctant to have the state government passing laws that get unnecessarily in the middle of the employer/employee relationship, or interfere with private property. I think the strategy that might make the most sense is to see what can be done about creating a carrot and stick approach with respect to liability: statutorily exempt employers from any civil liability for injuries caused by a licensed employee having a gun secured in a car in the parking lot (which is effectively zero risk); create an obligation that an employer has for injuries that a licensed employee suffers because they were unable to protect themselves on their way to or from work.
The employer can still have their parking lot rules if they wish, but the consequences of exposing employees to unneeded danger now fall on who put the employee at risk: the employer.
DC: What's it cost to do something like this? What's your plan to raise that much money?
CC: Unlike California, surprisingly little. The filing fee was $30. I've raised more than a thousand dollars so far, almost all through the website http://www.cramerforsenate.org/index.shtml, and it is quite common for members of the state senate to spend $7000-$10,000 in an entire election cycle. Remember that there are about 1.5 million Idahoans, and 35 members of the state senate. In the 2006 general election, about 10,000 people in my district voted for members of the U.S. House of Representatives. It's government on a small scale.
DC: Give us the timeline you're facing. When's the first contest? What do you need to do between now and then?
CC: The primary is May 27. I had something of a late start, since I made the decision to run the day before the deadline. (I was off in D.C. for the Heller case.) I'm still getting organized on this--putting together campaign flyers, organizing speaking events, filling out interest group questionnaires, and meeting with lobbyists. But at least they buy lunch!
The good news is that because the district is so overwhelmingly Republican, if I win the primary, winning the general election should be fairly easy. I won't say it is a walk in the park--the Democrat will work hard to defeat a political novice, and I expect that the many enemies that I have made over the years will pour money into the Democrat's campaign.
DC: Tell us about your rival--how much tenure does he have, how much of a machine? What are you doing to establish an organization with a realistic chance of competing? And as a follow-up, what benchmark milestones do you need to set up to make sure you're on track with campaign goals?
CC: Senator Corder was first elected in 2004. From conversations with a number of different Republican activists, it appears that Senator Corder has managed to upset much of what might be called the Republican machine. Some of the upset is personalities; I'm told that Corder used the phrase "knuckle-dragger" to refer to certain other Republican legislators, and this has not helped him. The sexual orientation bill has also produced a mixture of head scratching and irritation as well.
Benchmark milestones? Uh oh. I have lots of experience with lots of things, but this is not one of them! I have fourspeaking engagements set up so far; I've just started sending out press releases to newspapers (none of whom I expect will be supportive of my effort). The campaign website is up and accepting contributions. I'm just sending out my first mailing--one targeted to the surprising number of Federal Firearms Licensees in my district.
DC: A lot of Republican politicians run from the gun issue. Sure, they give platitudes, but that's mostly when cornered, and there's always that sense they're somehow uneasy talking about it--particularly not wanting to scare off the well-heeled and the contributions they represent. I've always felt that a true leader would take it on himself to initiate discussion and use the privilege of a public platform to educate and inform the electorate--you know, bringing light to darkness, replacing ignorance and fear with reason. What are your plans along these lines?
CC: This is probably one of the more gun-friendly districts in Idaho--maybe America? District 22 consists of Boise County (which doesn't include the CITY of Boise) and Elmore County. The biggest city in the entire district is Mountain Home Air Force Base. Mountain Home had 11,143 people at the 2000 census. Glenns Ferry has about 1600 people. Idaho City, Horseshoe Bend, Garden Valley--none of them are that large.
People hunt here. Getting my house built was greatly delayed by the start of elk season. I live just outside of Horseshoe Bend--which has a mandatory gun ownership law. Ponderosa Sports, a combination gift shop and gun store north of town has this rather unique vehicle in the parking lot. Yes, that's a Barrett Light .50 in the bed.
I don't think that I am going to be so much defending or explaining gun ownership to my district, as defending or explaining gun ownership to the more urban members of the Idaho legislature--if I get elected! And the worst Idaho legislators about gun control are generally not all that bad!
DC: Tell me about the demographics in your district--party affiliation, age, race, income, education...what importance does the "gun rights" issue play? Will there be much resistance in your district from those who consider guns a liability?
CC: Based on the 2006 general election results, it appears to be about 64% Republican voters. The population is overwhelmingly white, fairly normal distribution on age--although Elmore County, where the Air Force Base is located, is heavily male: 123 men for every 100 women. Household incomes are low: $35,000 per year in Elmore County, just under $39,000 in Boise County. My involvement in gun rights activism won't be a liability here--but an asset.
DC: Where do you stand with the party? Are they going to resist someone going after their guy? Have you been meeting people and reaching out for allies?
CC: I am under strict orders not to say who asked me to run--let's just say that lots of people of considerable importance among Idaho Republicans personally asked me to run. So far, I am finding that not only do Republican activists around the state want me to unseat Corder, but so do ordinary citizens. One of the people here in town that I deal with on a regular basis knew that I had signed up, and I was pleased to find out that he knew about Corder's sexual orientation bill--and found it incomprehensible why he sponsored it.
DC: How about media contacts? We know you have plenty of interest within the RKBA Internet community, but are you making contacts and building bridges with established local media?
CC: There are two newspapers in the district; the Idaho World, which is a weekly--and the oldest continuously operating newspaper in Idaho (est. 1863), and the Mountain Home News. I have good relations with the reporters for the Idaho World, although I rather suspect that they are going to back Corder. The Idaho Statesman is the major newspaper in this state, based out of the capital city of Boise. While outside our district, we are close enough to cover. They have occasionally published opinion pieces by me--one about mental illness and mass murder just a few days before I filed to run. I'll be curious to see how they cover the race. Like most newspapers, they tend to lean liberal on social issues.
DC: So how do people help out? How do they join your campaign? How do they contribute?
CC: There's a contributions page on http://www.cramerforsenate.org. And if you live in the district, or you have friends or relatives in the district, it's amazing how little encouragement it takes to persuade people to vote for one person they don't know over another person that they don't know! I'm trying to get voters in the district to invite neighbors and friends over for coffee with the candidate, so that I can explain why I think I'm a better match for the voters than Corder.
DC: Anything else you'd like to say to WarOnGuns visitors before we open things up for their questions?
CC: Yes. I know that gun rights activists tend to be split between social conservatives and libertarians. I'm definitely a social conservative--although not quite as doctrinaire as some. For example, I think that those who want to dramatically restrict abortion need to spend a lot more time persuading their opponents before passing more laws. There is a strong case that criminal laws should reflect not just 51%, but a very overwhelming consensus. Trying to enforce laws when 30% of the population strongly disagrees produces enormous struggle--and accomplishes very little good.
----------
Thank you, Clayton Cramer. I appreciate your taking the time to provide these thoughtful responses.
Now comes the time when I promised I'd turn the questioning over to you, my site visitors. Before I do, I'd like to set the ground rules to keep everything on track.
First a caveat: Clayton and I do not agree on everything or on every approach, and that should not surprise anyone who knows me. We have disagreed in the past and will certainly do so in the future. And I don't adhere to all of his campaign issue positions. That's fine. It happens. That said, I have always held him in the highest regard as a person of formidable intelligence, accomplishment and integrity. So in short--if you disagree with something, please keep things respectful. I insist.
Second: Please look at the questions I have asked and the questions posed by others before you post so we are not covering the same ground twice.
Third: Please limit your questions and give everyone a chance--I'd really prefer not to have the same person taking over the thread with question after question or challenge after challenge. You can state your position, he can state his, and then let's please move on.
And of course, off-topic posts, spam and obscenities will be deleted without comment.
Finally, and this is important: Please ask him concise questions. We're here to hear him out, not post essays or engage other question posters in debate. Look at my questions as a general guide to requested length.
I'll be the final arbiter. If, based on my sole judgment I think it appropriate, I'll just hit "delete" and you can take it up with me by email [dcodreaAThotmailDOTcom].
Sorry if this seems rule-heavy, but I've learned I need to do this from past interviews to keep things running smoothly. If we keep things on track and just observe a few simple courtesies, we all ought to learn from this and have a good time.
One last note--I disabled CAPTCHA word verification on comment posts for the duration of this interview.
Ladies and gentlemen, the floor is open for questions.
QUESTIONING IS NOW CLOSED.
Mr. Cramer has left the building.
Thank you all for participating--I hope all found it worthwhile.
If you would like to know more about the Clayton Cramer for Senate District 22 campaign, or find out what you can do to support his candidacy, go to his website at http://www.cramerforsenate.org/index.shtml
Feel free to post a link to this interview and copy it entirely to forums and websites where you think it will help.
