Matthew McConaughey did not call for gun control this week in Washington, DC, but the way the media and Democrats used his fame and good name, you would never have known it.
When McConaughey delivered his impassioned plea for action after the senseless slaughter of young children in his hometown of Uvalde, Texas, I have no doubt his heart was in the right place. Indeed, his heart seems to be as big as his native Texas, and his desire to use his celebrity to inspire legislation that might stop the next heinous mass murder can be commended.
However, this is Washington.
McConaughey naively believed that his emotional speech would be seen as common sense and bipartisan and wouldn't be manipulated and used for divisive, partisan purposes. He was wrong.
The first problem is his message was delivered at the podium of the White House briefing room. He was standing in the same place Jen Psaki and Karine Jean-Pierre stand to literally speak on behalf of President Biden and his administration. By delivering his remarks there, it immediately took on the appearance that he was not speaking for himself but for Biden.
Big mistake.
The Oscar-winning actor made a multi-faceted argument for a comprehensive solution to the phenomenon of these school shootings, which included many different approaches that went well beyond your typical gun grab.
"We need to invest in mental health care, we need safer schools, we need to restrain sensationalized media coverage, we need to restore our family values, we need to restore our American values and we need responsible gun ownership," McConaughey said.
That's right... a pretty impressive list of issues that I think a vast majority of Americans would agree on with regard to the horrific and serious issue.
Look again at what he advocated for in his dramatic appearance:
- Mental health care.
- Safer schools.
- Restrain how the media sensationalized these events.
- Restore family values.
- Restore American values.
- Responsible gun ownership.
Do you disagree with any of that? Do you know any reasonable American who would disagree with any of that?
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
And this is where Matthew McConaughey made a terrible miscalculation. He actually seems to have believed that the media, the president, and the Democrats would listen to everything he had to say and respond to the entire package of ideas he put forth.
Instead, just look at the way this speech was covered:
"Actor Matthew McConaughey makes emotional plea for gun laws at White House" - Reuters
"Matthew McConaughey at the White House on gun reform" - Politico
"Actor Matthew McConaughey gives impassioned speech for gun reform in White House briefing" - CNBC
"Matthew McConaughey makes emotional plea for gun control legislation" - CBS
"Matthew McConaughey makes powerful appeal for gun control at White House" - Yahoo
All the media focused on was a portion of his remarks focusing on age limits and red flag laws. Everything else was ignored. By design.
He was used.
He wrote an op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman Monday that specifically called for responsible gun ownership, not gun control.
“There is a difference between control and responsibility. The first is a mandate that can infringe on our right; the second is a duty that will preserve it. There is no constitutional barrier to gun responsibility. Keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people is not only the responsible thing to do, it is the best way to protect the Second Amendment. We can do both.”
His message was co-opted for political purposes.
To be sure, he did put forth a handful of proposals that would restrict the ease of obtaining certain rifles and for certain age groups. I don't agree with every measure he proposed, and I expect some serious constitutional conflicts with many of his proposals.
But, a reasoned and intelligent examination of his gun regulations balanced with some serious attention paid to mental health services, school security measures and meaningful examination of our cultural rot will not happen now.
His performance at the White House, despite his best intentions, was immediately commandeered by the most cynical, political actors and became a weapon in the same old partisan fights that keep this town stuck in the cycle of incompetence and irrelevance.
He is a good man. He deserves better. His message deserves better.
If he really wants to make an impact and make a difference, he needs to not rely on the barracudas swimming in the White House press pool. They're as trustworthy as a Hollywood agent.