The ongoing war on rot

Reviewing Rush Limbaugh's CPAC speech, John Hawkins warns the conservative movement that losing the next election might be more devastating than what has already happened:

Conservatives have better solutions than either the left or the moderates in our own party can come up with -- ready to go, ready to improve the lives of Americans -- but very few people on the right are promoting those ideas.

Sure, it's possible we could win in 2012 on the same old stale agenda. But what if we don't? What if we run a conservative like Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama just manages to squeak out a victory, not over a squishy RINO like John McCain, but over a real conservative?

That would create a crisis of confidence in our movement. And that is why we can't afford to be complacent about our agenda, technology, or the grassroots.

As Rush said, we do need the "right candidate." However, we also need to improve our political agenda to show the American people that not only are conservatives philosophically superior to liberal Democrats, but that they have relevant, intelligent policies that will make a positive difference in their lives.

Forgive me for sounding cynical, but I see more than a hint of of a subtext there, and naturally, I find myself wondering whether John Hawkins revealed what's a sort of third rail issue for the Republicans.

Let's face it, right now, no matter what "side" anyone is on, the GOP is still in a losing streak phase, and the mood of the party is dominated by doom-and-gloom, fatalistic thinking.

So I'm wondering about something. If continued losses in the next election are seen as inevitable, might the game become one not of winning, but of who gets positioned to lose next? Seen this way, it's not so much of whose turn it is to win, but whose turn it is to lose.

A game of musical chairs -- in which the "loser" nominee ends up taking the blame, and ultimately whoever did not win nomination gets in position as the ultimate "winner" the next time around.

Social conservatives would want to have a RINO or libertarian lose so they could play "I TOLD YOU SO!", while libertarians could do the same thing if social conservatives lose. I've noticed that people are already trying to analyze the last election this way, but it isn't so neat and tidy, because there's no consensus on which side "caused" the loss. Was it the RINO side (epitomized by McCain)? Or was it the conservatives and Sarah Palin? Personally, I don't think any Republican could have won the last election, because the amazing timing of the economic crash dovetailed perfectly with Bush fatigue, but that won't stop the "sides" from pointing the finger at each other.

I'm not here to live up to anyone's label or standards, and whether I'm considered a "real" conservative, a "real" libertarian, or a contemptible RINO -- that stuff is for other people to worry about, and it should not influence what I think, or why I think it. Labels are annoyances. So are party platforms, obligatory talking points, and demands that I agree with certain ideas and principles or else not be "real" enough.

I don't know to what extent Rush Limbaugh is in charge of the GOP (or "conservatism"), but because he's at the center of John Hawkins' analysis and many people respect him, I'd like to look at something else he was quoted as saying, which Hawkins properly describes as "punishingly effective criticism of the Democratic Party":

(T)ake a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government.

What's the longest war in American history? Did somebody say the war on poverty? Smart group. War on poverty. The war on poverty essentially started in the '30s as part of the New Deal, but it really ramped up in the '60s with Lyndon Johnson, part of the Great Society war on poverty. We have transferred something like 10 trillion, maybe close to 11 trillion, from producers and earners to nonproducers and nonearners since 1965. Yet, as I listen to the Democratic Party campaign, why, America is still a soup kitchen, the poor is still poor and they have no hope and they're poor for what reason? They're poor because of us, because we don't care, and because we've gotten rich by taking from them, that's what kids in school are taught today.

Excellent. I agree wholeheartedly with everything in that analysis, with one exception.

I don't think the answer to the question "What's the longest war in American history?" is "the War on Poverty."

It's the War on Drugs, dammit.

Drug war and the accompanying hysteria date back to the turn of the 19th Century, and it led directly to the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, the failings of which led to tougher laws and more Hearst-fueled hysteria in the 20s, then to the Reefer Madness hysteria, Harry J. Anslinger and his witch hunts, outrageous persecution of addicts and physicians alike, and finally, the formation of a truly malignant federal agency (the DEA). The worse the problem got, the louder grew the demand for ever harsher laws, and ever more prisons to put people for the dubious crime of self harm.

I'll spare readers a long rant about the rank stupidity and (IMO) downright evil nature of the drug war, but you all know I consider it a war on freedom. I don't blame Republicans any more than the Democrats, for both parties have perpetuated it, for it obviously suits the common needs of people who want power.

Of all people, I would think that Rush Limbaugh would have come out against the Drug War by now. But no; the last time I turned his show on, he was railing against a California proposal to legalize marijuana so it could generate tax revenue. Here's what he said:

Do you know what the largest crop in California is? What is the largest crop in California? Brian? Marijuana is exactly right. No, and listen to the numbers. And I'll tell you why this is important, because the state of California has got this $42 billion budget deficit, and the assembly realizes they're getting no tax money for it. They're considering decriminalizing it for the purpose -- this is how it all happens. This is how you get rotten socialist economic policies, which lead to the cultural rot of a society....
I don't use marijuana, but some of the most talented and creative people I know do, and it increases their productivity. I do not consider it "cultural rot." Nor does it cause "rot" on a personal level anywhere near the rot caused by alcohol. But what business of anyone is it? Rush Limbaugh's? Why? His drug habit was not my business, so how does someone's marijuana use become his?

As to how "rotten socialist economic policies" "lead to the cultural rot of a society," I think that argument is better applied to the welfare state than marijuana. Rotten socialist economic policies did not create the demand for California marijuana; they only fuel the government's need for new sources of revenue. The demand for marijuana will be there whether the state is run by socialists or capitalists, whether the state taxes it or not. I think Rush assumes that legalization and taxation will somehow increase demand (or that increased supply will translate into increased demand), and that this increased supply and demand constitute "cultural rot" brought on by socialism.

By the same reasoning then, the end of America's War on Alcohol (accomplished by legalization and taxation) must have brought on cultural rot, along with all the rotten livers and brains...

FWIW, I think wars on freedom waged by a country that purports to be free constitute cultural rot.

If that makes me a detestable RINO, so be it.

posted by Eric on 03.02.09 at 10:01 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/8034






Comments

I do think marijuana use is emblematic of "cultural rot." Whenever I learn of anyone over the age of 25 smoking the stuff, I question their judgment and maturity.

But so frickin' what?

Limbaugh's unbending position on the War on Drugs is completely at odds with the message of his CPAC speech, in which he claimed that the Republicans were the party of freedom. Us R's have no problem saying that people have the right to make bad investment decisions, bad home purchase and mortgage decisions, bad health care decisions, and the like, and leave it up to the bad decision-makers to undo their damage. Well, people have the right to make (what I deem to be) bad decisions on the use of intoxicants and hallucinogenic drugs in the privacy of their own homes.

If Republicans are genuinely to be the party of freedom and liberty, this too must be part of it.

Get this done and next we can talk about legalization of prostitution.

Rhodium Heart   ·  March 2, 2009 11:15 AM

(Laughs out loud.)

"You had me at hello."

Then you lost me with the drug war. I'm all for sending free heroin and meth to those who would like it. Free crack. But what about free angel dust? Doesn't it cause violence due to its psychotropic effects? So, again, should "some" drugs be legal and "some" drugs remain illegal?

Should steroid use be legal? Should putting lead in paint be legal? Or, are there substances for which strong argument can be made that their illegality is a benefit to society as a whole?

Once the parsing begins, where do we stop?
.

OregonGuy   ·  March 2, 2009 11:29 AM

Free?

Just as there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's no such thing as free heroin or free angel dust. Or free rat poison or free lead.

You want poison, you have to pay for it.

As to whether putting lead in paint should be legal, why not? It's already in the ground, and if people want to buy it, let them. (I used to play with lead toys, soldiers, sinkers, and I'm still alive.)

Of course, I'm still ticked that they're trying to outlaw the mercury in my teeth, so it's hard to take these things seriously...

Eric Scheie   ·  March 2, 2009 11:39 AM

War on Drugs, War on poverty. Obviously we are a nation that likes euphimisms. If we could get over name calling and actually talk about the subjects we could make great strides. We lump 20 related topics into one subject and anytime one of the topics is raised all 20 come with it, a logjam is the result and everyone drops it until the next time.

Blaine   ·  March 2, 2009 12:05 PM

Guys,

Illegal drugs fill the very same brain receptors prescription drugs fill:

Round Pegs In Round Holes

Can some one please explain why the medical cartel drugs should be legal but plants you can grow in your back yard should not be?

Something other than that criminals and terrorists need the support we provide by making the receptor fillers a black market item.

M. Simon   ·  March 2, 2009 07:20 PM

M. Simon: Off the top of my head, pharmaceuticals are evaluated by the FDA and prescribed under medical supervision. The plants growing in your back yard are not.

nash   ·  March 2, 2009 10:49 PM

Eric, it's hard to take anything seriously now. It's like we're living in a bizarro world.
As much as I dislike Limbaugh as a person, I wish his general message would resonate. But why can't the man indulge in a little introspection and realize that hypocrisy doesn't sell?
I guess those of us who were forced by circumstance to look inward should be grateful for the dose of reality thrust upon us.

Frank   ·  March 3, 2009 12:08 AM

What I got from listening to Rush's speech was Socialism=Serfdom and Capitalism=Liberty...I don't recall any mention of War on Drugs.

I'm all for California legalizing pot then using the high to tax its way of rock-bottom bankruptcy; pot really the thing of value California can produce anymore.

That said; I don't care who ran against the Democrat candidate there was no way America could compete with Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, Wallstreet, Foreign Donations, ACORN, The National Lawyers Guild and $100 Billion dollars worth of Hollywood funding Barack Obama's campaign coffers.

Now that President Obama signed the Stimulated $Trillion Dollar-plus '24/7 Get Out the Democrat Vote' plan it's going to be even harder to defeat the Democrat Party.

Hypocrisy aside; I do hope middle-of-the-roaders, moderates, Libertarians, Centrist try to remember that the Democrat Party holds all the power over your lives as well.

It just might be in your best interested to focus on going after the wildly corrupt and power-grabbing Democrat Party for a change because they are the people who are using the royal power of their pogo stick and shoving it far up your anal cavities.


syn   ·  March 3, 2009 04:47 AM

As a recovering libertarian, I understand the theory behind decriminalization, and I certainly would agree that the government's focus should be more on education and persuasion, and less on interdiction. But there is one rather strong argument against legalizing marijuana: it increases the risk of psychosis later in life by about 40%.

The Lancet backed away from a long standing position in support of decriminalization a couple of years ago because the evidence was so strong. It's a correlation, and so it isn't completely rock solid proof--but the direction of time was clear: marijuaana use preceeded increase in psychosis rates, and the psychosis rate increased proportional to use.

Unfortunately, most psychoses are lifelong. The costs to individuals, and the society as a whole, are huge.

Clayton E. Cramer   ·  March 3, 2009 06:32 PM

The only way for Republicans to recover now is to throw social conservatism under the bus. Face the facts: When careers are on the line, no one gives a damn about creationism vs. evolution or teenage pregnancy.

The correct way forward is to emphasize a platform of reason over emotion; a platform of economic common sense over socialist disaster; a platform of deterrence over appeasement.

As for the war on drugs, it's on the brink of failure. So I think it's no big deal to decriminalize pot as an experiment. Decriminalize it, and let the potheads come out of the closet to participate in studies on the long-term effects. If a significant percentage of them do go psycho, then you have concrete scientific data that you can use to convince the public that pot rots your brain. At that point, with hard data backing you, no one should complain if it's banned again.

mwl   ·  March 5, 2009 11:35 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



March 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits