Fundamental Rights

American troops are busy these days. A continuing presence in Somalia, preparations for action in Haiti and Bosnia. And now a possible new deployment--Washington, D. C.

Last week D. C. Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly asked for National Guard troops to help police her city. Her request was not a response to a temporary crisis, as was the call for troops in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots. Rather, Kelly petitioned for the Guard because of the continuing violence that plagues the nation's capital, violence so extreme that the city has garnered the distinction of "murder capital of the world."

The request from Kelly didn't get very far. President Clinton considered the unusual plea at a meeting with security advisers--and promptly turned it down. Not surprisingly, a sudden injection of federal troops into the nation's capital had little appeal to the president.

And to be honest, Kelly's request had a political dimension. She is engaged in a political battle in which law and order are, as always, hot topics. She no doubt expected that Clinton would reject the deployment, but figured she could gain some points by making the effort.

But politics aside, Kelly's request reflects a brutal truth: the United States is failing to protect its citizens. In almost every large American city, some people live in constant fear; some parents force their children to sleep in bathtubs to avoid stray bullets from armed gangs' ongoing gun battles.

To put our national epidemic of violence in greater context, there were 93 murders in Northern Ireland (home of the Irish Republican Army and Protestant para-military groups) in 1988, more than 375 in Washington. This year, the figure for D.C. may exceed 400.

America is justifiably proud of the many rights it has made fundamental for its citizens. But no right is as fundamental as the right to a safety. At its most basic level, society is intended to safeguard its members from the chaos of the state of nature. But can life in many urban areas really be described as anything other than "nasty, brutish and short?" In this context, it is hardly surprising that a whole segment of the population feels disconnected from society, a society that cannot or will not protect them.

Government basically has two options: suppressing the violence with force or removing the causes of the violence. It was the former that prompted Mayor Kelly's plan to deploy the National Guard. The presence of armed troops would no doubt have a sobering effect on those spreading havoc. Knowing that help was really around the corner would also embolden citizens of these areas and alleviate the siege mentality present in these urban areas.

But there are obvious downsides. The most salient is that urban areas would in essence become occupied zones. The thought of military control of American cities gives anyone the shivers. It is this image that no doubt prompted Clinton to dismiss Kelly's request with haste.

Yet as the violence continues, the necessity of stopping it is superseding the abstract fear of military involvement in civil society. The momentum towards suppressing crime with overwhelming force is understandable, but premature. We have yet to exhaust the possibilities of lessening the violence by removing its ingredients.

Curbing despair and hopelessness in inner cities is the long-term solution. A return to the basic family structure and a stable job market would go a long way toward rectifying the situation. Politicians are constantly paying lip service to this goal; unfortunately that's about all they're able to do. Restructuring the social fabric of urban America is a monumental task that will take decades. We can't wait that long to end the violence.

The other more tangible ingredient for violence is weapons. If the flow of weapons is seriously curtailed, the violence will ease. The fact that D.C. has one of the nation's strictest gun control laws demonstrates the futility of local legislation. It is increasingly clear that stiff nationwide gun control is the only way to reduce the number of weapons on the street.

Yet Congress has been completely paralyzed in its attempts to pass nationwide gun control laws. Opposition is almost insurmountable--the National Rifle Association has been able to postpone the Brady Bill, a very moderate proposal, for several years.

Gun control opponents argue that gun ownership is a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution (a debatable legal question). But the right to security is not debatable, and it is under attack every day in our cities. If the Supreme Court rules national gun control unconstitutional, then it is time for an amendment.

Hopefully, Kelly's request for troops will shake America out of its stupor. The shocking idea that we might need federal troops to patrol our cities should awaken us to the constant abuse of citizens' fundamental right to safety. And if the idea of the National Guard in D.C. is frightening, that's all the more reason to cut the flow of guns.