Her tactics are clever. However whacked her agenda might be, she’s chosen an intelligent tactic to move it forward.
Behold — the debut of another Disney filmmaker. Abigail Disney is grandniece to Walt himself, and she’s launching her first project.
This one is, drumroll please, a Gun Control documentary. How inspiring and groundbreaking. Someone else lecturing us about the horrors of gun ownership.
But, rather than taking the more obvious approach of calling in experts, victims and celebrities to lecture us on how bad gun ownership is, they went with a message that carries more rhetorical bite. They found someone who told his own story. He’s an Evangelical pastor.
According to the trailer, he began as a solid fan of conservative views, including the Second Amendment, and — due gun-related deaths within his circle of influence, he has undergone a conversion to the opposing view.
Even in the trailer, he picks up some of the pro-gun arguments that Christians themselves might use, and frames them in a way to advance his message. Again, the rhetorical impact is potentially quite strong, regardless of whether his claims are true.
The film sets up an either/or dichotomy between gun ownership and faith, and also between faith and political affiliation. [Which makes the mistake of assuming Evangelicals lean politically right because they love Republican positions, rather than just finding them less repugnant than the alternatives.]
The trailer even has the audacity of suggesting that you cannot be both pro-life, and pro-gun. (Note: your last name is Disney — when shall we expect the documentary outraged that Walt’s family-friendly company now funds Planned Parenthood’s slaughter of innocents? )
Oh right. They’re only “pro-life” when it suits them politically. Hypocrisy is perfectly ok when they do it.
Even the title: “Armor of Light” quotes scripture, and is intended to play upon Christian emotions.
I hope conservatives are paying attention, for two reasons: First, because this tactic cuts both ways. Second, and more urgently, while you’re focussed on trying to tweak the laws of the land, their side is focussed on persuading the hearts of the people who can come together and demand changes to those laws.
Which approach do you really think has the long game in mind?