The Global Commission on Drug Policy recently released a report which, in no uncertain terms, declares the War on Drugs a complete failure. The report goes so far as to say that the United States (and United Nations) "War on Drugs" has served to fuel organized crime, increase violence and has caused thousands of deaths.
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/06/2011636534486947.html
To many, the report comes as no surprise. I have heard many of the same arguments from legalization activists for years. The Federal government spent over $15 billion in 2010 on the War on Drugs, and to what end? Drug related violence in Mexico and all over the world seems to be increasing every year, with more than 22,000 dead in Mexico alone since 2006. That is absolutely a staggering number.
I think it's time that we grew up a little bit and got over the Reefer Madness perspective that dominates the religious right's arguments against legalization. While I, personally, believe that legalizing marijuana is a fairly high priority issue, I would settle for decriminalization. If the United States decriminalized marijuana and ended the phony war on drugs, there is no doubt that we would see the positive impacts far outweigh the negative. It is the prohibition of drugs that enables violent cartels to gain so much power. It is the prohibition of drugs that is causing prison populations to swell to global highs. And how difficult is it to get a job or a home loan or a good education when you have a criminal record? The fact is, most drug offenders are non-violent and have every desire to be productive members of society.
In related news, earlier this week the State of Arizona denied the first application for a medical marijuana dispensary. The voters of Arizona passed a ballot measure last November to allow medical marijuana. Just last week, the State of Arizona filed a lawsuit against the Federal government to clarify whether compliance with the Arizona law provides protection from federal prosecution. The lawsuit was the result of a letter from the US Attorney in Arizona saying that saying violations of federal law (which still prohibits any growing, selling or possessing marijuana) will be prosecuted.
Now, maybe I'm just an optimist but I see this as a huge opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to come together and actually make something happen. The timing could never be better for a compromise across the aisle. With the federal budget looming on every politician's mind, the recent report by a commission of former heads of state on how the "War on Drugs" has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars and a lawsuit by the uber-conservative state of Arizona over an issue of states' rights, it is the perfect storm for real reform on drug policy. Some have argued that the lawsuit by Arizona is a stalling method to prevent the law from ever really taking place, but like I said, maybe I'm an optimist. I think the state wants nothing more than to stick it to the federal government. What better way than attacking a federal policy that puts Arizona citizens at risk for following a law they themselves approved at the state level? That should serve to excite the tea party and traditional conservative bases. While the failure of the war on drugs, the increase in drug violence and soaring prison populations, made up of non-violent offenders, should serve to excite the liberal base. The impact on the budget deficit and the national debt that would result from the billions saved on the war on drugs and the costs of imprisoning millions of people should serve to excite liberals, conservatives and independents alike. This could be the trifecta that we need to achieve real reform on drug policy.
The biggest hurdle is the power of the pharmaceutical and alcohol lobbies, the two biggest lobbies in opposition of legalization/decriminalization. How to overcome that hurdle is a mystery to me but I am hopeful.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Lesson for the Left: Message Delivery
As I sat in my cubicle this afternoon reading some headlines in Google News, I came across a few concerning the Supreme Court ruling on an Arizona immigration law. Several of the headlines celebrated the ruling and read something like, "High Court's Immigration Ruling Shines Light On E-Verify" (KGTV San Diego) while others were a bit more reserved, reading "Supreme Court Upholds AZ Law to Go After Businesses" (abc7news.com). Either one of these headlines can be taken as a positive, negative or fairly neutral depending on how you read them. But the disparity in tone between some of the headlines got me thinking.
One of the biggest problems that liberal politicians have in the political arena today is their ability to form a message and deliver it effectively. Despite all of the criticism of the "liberal media" being too far left, the second biggest factor contributing to the success of the Republican message machine, close behind the loyalty to party over all else, is conservative talk radio and Fox News. Politicians develop and deliver a message, never deviating from the message for fear of being outcast from the party, then the talk radio and Fox News guys put that message on repeat for the next few days. They ram it down our throats until we learn to like it. Much like Obama, Pelosi and Reid rammed healthcare down our throats. Wait, where have I heard that before?
The left should learn from this model of message delivery. If something happens that doesn't jive with your perspective and with the narrative you want to build, just make it work! It looks something like this - "Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Immigration Bill." It doesn't have to be 100% true and it really doesn't have to focus on the issue you're covering. By combining a deferral of blame on the "Conservative Court" with a reference to the negative impact on businesses, you can effectively convince your reader that the right wing is killing jobs, without ever addressing that those jobs are held by illegal immigrants and that eliminating them opens capacity for legal residents to step into those jobs. Then you have to stick to the message. Put yourself on every channel and news outlet and repeat those 6 words over and over and over again.
Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill. Gee I'm starting to believe it myself.
Now this all brings me to what I really wanted to point out. Here is the headline from foxnews.com
George W. Bush -- Father of the Modern Electric Car?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/26/george-w-bush-father-modern-electric-car/
The article talks about how the electric car subsidies in place today are not the result of the Obama administration but in fact were put in place by George W. Bush. Now, while this may be true, it is quite a leap to suggest that Bush is the "Father of the Modern Electric Car". But it doesn't matter. It advances the agenda, inciting support for the party on the right and disbelief on the left. Those of us in the middle simply find it to be hilarious at this point the extent that media outlets, both left and right, will distort fact to support their narrative. It also doesn't matter to those on the right that those subsidies reflect an increase in "footprint of government" under the watch of an alleged small government proponent. Nor does it matter to those on the left that at least a significant amount of credit should go to Bush for pushing an energy agenda in 2007.
One of the biggest problems that liberal politicians have in the political arena today is their ability to form a message and deliver it effectively. Despite all of the criticism of the "liberal media" being too far left, the second biggest factor contributing to the success of the Republican message machine, close behind the loyalty to party over all else, is conservative talk radio and Fox News. Politicians develop and deliver a message, never deviating from the message for fear of being outcast from the party, then the talk radio and Fox News guys put that message on repeat for the next few days. They ram it down our throats until we learn to like it. Much like Obama, Pelosi and Reid rammed healthcare down our throats. Wait, where have I heard that before?
The left should learn from this model of message delivery. If something happens that doesn't jive with your perspective and with the narrative you want to build, just make it work! It looks something like this - "Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Immigration Bill." It doesn't have to be 100% true and it really doesn't have to focus on the issue you're covering. By combining a deferral of blame on the "Conservative Court" with a reference to the negative impact on businesses, you can effectively convince your reader that the right wing is killing jobs, without ever addressing that those jobs are held by illegal immigrants and that eliminating them opens capacity for legal residents to step into those jobs. Then you have to stick to the message. Put yourself on every channel and news outlet and repeat those 6 words over and over and over again.
Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill, Conservative Court Upholds Job Killing Bill. Gee I'm starting to believe it myself.
Now this all brings me to what I really wanted to point out. Here is the headline from foxnews.com
George W. Bush -- Father of the Modern Electric Car?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/26/george-w-bush-father-modern-electric-car/
The article talks about how the electric car subsidies in place today are not the result of the Obama administration but in fact were put in place by George W. Bush. Now, while this may be true, it is quite a leap to suggest that Bush is the "Father of the Modern Electric Car". But it doesn't matter. It advances the agenda, inciting support for the party on the right and disbelief on the left. Those of us in the middle simply find it to be hilarious at this point the extent that media outlets, both left and right, will distort fact to support their narrative. It also doesn't matter to those on the right that those subsidies reflect an increase in "footprint of government" under the watch of an alleged small government proponent. Nor does it matter to those on the left that at least a significant amount of credit should go to Bush for pushing an energy agenda in 2007.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Paul Ryan - 2012's Goldwater? Not so fast...
David Frum, former Bush 43 speech writer turned "journalist" posted a piece this morning making the case that Paul Ryan may be the Barry Goldwater of the 2012 presidential election.
So the analogy between Palin, Ryan, or any other candidate in 2012, or for that matter 2008, 2004, 2000, etc., is simply not one that I understand. There has, thankfully, not been an analogous election scenario since then. But for the sake of argument, I think that Frum's point is more that Paul Ryan represents an ideology that is perhaps too far right, simply not popular among most Americans and would divide the Republican party. As for that argument, I would agree that his perspective on Medicare is not widely popular and he would hardly stand a chance in the primaries, much less a general election. However, maybe a better comparison to the late Goldwater would be Ron Paul. Goldwater was firm in his constitutional beliefs and is widely credited with shaping the libertarian movement to which Paul subscribes. One view on Goldwater's loss in 1964 attributes it to his vote against the Civil Rights Act on the basis of infringing on states' rights. This is a perspective that Ron Paul shares that is still very unpopular among voters. Although Goldwater is credited with the revival of the Republican party, helping pave the way for conservatives like Ronald Reagan, he was also a firm opponent of the Religious Right. Goldwater supported the legalization of medical marijuana, the legalization of abortion and even the right of gay people to serve openly in the military. These are all positions that Ron Paul supports and for which he is vilified in the media.
So to Mr. Frum I would say - when drawing comparisons between candidates today and a candidate of 50 years ago, first we should be sure to understand the historical context of each election, at least choosing the right candidates to compare. And Paul Ryan is no Barry Goldwater.
I used to worry that Sarah Palin would be the Barry Goldwater of 2012. My bad. Paul Ryan is the Barry Goldwater of 2012.For starters, it may serve everyone's interest to review how Goldwater gained his oft cited presidential election reputation. It's funny how little time it takes for a great distance to grow between objective historical record and glorified innuendo when it comes to politics. So let's recap. In the 1964 election, only one year after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Senator Barry Goldwater faced off against Kennedy's vice president Lyndon Johnson. Goldwater was annihilated, winning only 52 electoral votes in 6 states. Why did Goldwater lose? In a country still grieving the loss of a popular young president, did any Republican candidate really stand a chance? Kennedy only won 22 states in 1960 but a year after his death, his successor was able to carry 44 states and DC. Others might say that Goldwater was too extreme in his conservative views and that he divided the Republican party. The reality is that the country was simply not far enough removed from the tragedy of Kennedy's death to elect a third president in 13 months. As Goldwater said, "We would have lost even if Abraham Lincoln had come back and campaigned with us."
So the analogy between Palin, Ryan, or any other candidate in 2012, or for that matter 2008, 2004, 2000, etc., is simply not one that I understand. There has, thankfully, not been an analogous election scenario since then. But for the sake of argument, I think that Frum's point is more that Paul Ryan represents an ideology that is perhaps too far right, simply not popular among most Americans and would divide the Republican party. As for that argument, I would agree that his perspective on Medicare is not widely popular and he would hardly stand a chance in the primaries, much less a general election. However, maybe a better comparison to the late Goldwater would be Ron Paul. Goldwater was firm in his constitutional beliefs and is widely credited with shaping the libertarian movement to which Paul subscribes. One view on Goldwater's loss in 1964 attributes it to his vote against the Civil Rights Act on the basis of infringing on states' rights. This is a perspective that Ron Paul shares that is still very unpopular among voters. Although Goldwater is credited with the revival of the Republican party, helping pave the way for conservatives like Ronald Reagan, he was also a firm opponent of the Religious Right. Goldwater supported the legalization of medical marijuana, the legalization of abortion and even the right of gay people to serve openly in the military. These are all positions that Ron Paul supports and for which he is vilified in the media.
So to Mr. Frum I would say - when drawing comparisons between candidates today and a candidate of 50 years ago, first we should be sure to understand the historical context of each election, at least choosing the right candidates to compare. And Paul Ryan is no Barry Goldwater.
Monday, May 23, 2011
National Platforms Affecting Local Politics?
The idea of national political ideologies playing a role in shaping state and local policies has always been a big issue to me, personally. I find it interesting when conservatives, in particular, point to the rights of states to shape their own policies on social issues including healthcare, immigration and education (a position which I vehemently support) while criticizing candidates for national office for their performance at the state level, if that performance includes initiatives that they would not support at the national level. I do believe that there are some things that the federal government should not be involved in and that can, if the states should elect to do so, be tackled on a local, regional, and state level.
Take healthcare. During the debate over the Affordable Care Act in the summer of 2009, I wish I had a penny for every time I heard a conservative decry how the federal government was usurping power from the states by attempting to pass a one size fits all solution to healthcare nationwide. I can't say that I entirely disagreed with them. But for the hypocrisy.
"Up-and-coming" Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) recently criticized fellow Republican and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney for his role in shaping the Massachusetts health care reform act, which resulted in coverage for 98.1% of residents, saying, "It’s not that dissimilar to ObamaCare. And you probably know I’m not a big fan of ObamaCare.” Does it occur to Rep. Ryan that Romney would support something for his state government that he would not support for the federal government to undertake? Regardless of your position on the Affordable Care Act, it is rather idiotic to support state's rights in such issues while denouncing those state officials that have the gumption to undertake reform on the state level.
It has occurred to me that voters generally will support candidates for state office who appear to support their ideology at the national level. It has also occurred to me that this is entirely counterproductive and will, in many cases, lead to dysfunctional state houses. A recent article in the Arizona Republic noted the rise of the Tea Party influence in the Phoenix mayoral election.
"Arizona tea-party members are now looking to plant their philosophies of limited government, fiscal conservancy and free-market values in Phoenix City Hall."
Now, I'm not sure what upsets me more about this - that Phoenix Tea Party organizers are trying to apply the national platform to a city election or that the only way voters can recognize a viable candidate is based on the national platform with which they are familiar. Either way, it bothers me that time and time again, we attempt to make our local and state politics mirror the positions of national ideals.
Fiscal conservativism on a state level should not look identical to fiscal conservativism on a national level. State policies should not mirror national policies. To be fair, I am not certain that the state policies supported by Tea Party mayoral candidates reflect the national Tea Party platform, or whether that would be a bad thing. Though I think I'm realistic enough to believe that a Tea Party mayoral candidate would not support reform that would expand the city's or state's role in social issues, such as healthcare or education. (on that note, special report on the state of education in Arizona forthcoming in the near future)
So the question that remains in my mind is why local and state politicians run on platforms that mirror those of candidates for national office, when the role of local and state governments are not designed to be identical, nor should we want them to be.
Take healthcare. During the debate over the Affordable Care Act in the summer of 2009, I wish I had a penny for every time I heard a conservative decry how the federal government was usurping power from the states by attempting to pass a one size fits all solution to healthcare nationwide. I can't say that I entirely disagreed with them. But for the hypocrisy.
"Up-and-coming" Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) recently criticized fellow Republican and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney for his role in shaping the Massachusetts health care reform act, which resulted in coverage for 98.1% of residents, saying, "It’s not that dissimilar to ObamaCare. And you probably know I’m not a big fan of ObamaCare.” Does it occur to Rep. Ryan that Romney would support something for his state government that he would not support for the federal government to undertake? Regardless of your position on the Affordable Care Act, it is rather idiotic to support state's rights in such issues while denouncing those state officials that have the gumption to undertake reform on the state level.
It has occurred to me that voters generally will support candidates for state office who appear to support their ideology at the national level. It has also occurred to me that this is entirely counterproductive and will, in many cases, lead to dysfunctional state houses. A recent article in the Arizona Republic noted the rise of the Tea Party influence in the Phoenix mayoral election.
"Arizona tea-party members are now looking to plant their philosophies of limited government, fiscal conservancy and free-market values in Phoenix City Hall."
Now, I'm not sure what upsets me more about this - that Phoenix Tea Party organizers are trying to apply the national platform to a city election or that the only way voters can recognize a viable candidate is based on the national platform with which they are familiar. Either way, it bothers me that time and time again, we attempt to make our local and state politics mirror the positions of national ideals.
Fiscal conservativism on a state level should not look identical to fiscal conservativism on a national level. State policies should not mirror national policies. To be fair, I am not certain that the state policies supported by Tea Party mayoral candidates reflect the national Tea Party platform, or whether that would be a bad thing. Though I think I'm realistic enough to believe that a Tea Party mayoral candidate would not support reform that would expand the city's or state's role in social issues, such as healthcare or education. (on that note, special report on the state of education in Arizona forthcoming in the near future)
So the question that remains in my mind is why local and state politicians run on platforms that mirror those of candidates for national office, when the role of local and state governments are not designed to be identical, nor should we want them to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)