By Jonathan Miller, on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
OK, The RP has gone ahead and done it. He’s crossed that sacred line that no columnist dares to even approach. His column this week for The Huffington Post touches on the one social taboo that is unthinkable for every true-blooded American. Read an excerpt yourself:
In my first full year as a recovering politician, I’ve capitalized on my newfound freedom to speak on the issues of the day without the restrictions of the typical partisan and special-interest handcuffs.
Best of all, I’ve finally been liberated to address — with detail, nuance, and unadulterated candor — some of the nation’s most controversial subjects: from gay marriage, to Middle East peace, to legalizing marijuana.
So today, I’m prepared to tackle the most polarizing subject of our modern era…Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow.
And I venture to do the unthinkable: try to convince liberals and progressives like myself to learn to love the latter-day poster boy of conservative Christian America.
Bruce Springsteen, the RP’s idol, has just released his latest song, “We Take Care of Our Own” from his forthcoming album, “The Wrecking Ball.”
And as is the case with many of the Boss’ recent work, it is a politically charged indictment of American politics:
Where are the eyes, the eyes with the will to see? Where are the hearts that run over with mercy? Where’s the love that has not forsaken me? Where’s the work that set my hands, my soul free? Where’s the spirits that will reign reign over me? Where’s the promise from sea to shining sea? Wherever this flag is flown, we take care of our own.”
Watch the powerful video below, and let us know what you think:
To Artur: If there is any message where there is common ground in this debate, it’s been the one you’ve raised — it is critical that we revisit discriminatory enforcement practices against minorites. We may not all agree that the drug should be legalized; but all people of good faith should insist that we treat all Americans equally in the criminal justice syste,.
To Jeff: There is no denying that you are right that we have lost the War on Drugs, and I agree that we need a cease-fire when it comes to marijuana. I just can’t go as far as you do when it comes to harder drugs. Society has to draw a line somewhere when it writes laws, and I simply think that the dollars we could save in reducing enforcement of harder drug use and distribution are not sufficient to countenance the lives that would be destroyed if the drugs are made more available.
To David: I appreciate your conflict on this issue as you apply your conservative values to this debate, and applaud you for understanding the need to revisit the harsh prison terms applied to marijuana users and distributors. And no question, we can never lose the message that marijuana is terrible for kids. Where I disagree is that I believe that it will be very easy for law enforcement to distinguish between the drugs that do great harm to society and those that don’t, as we have since Prohibition. I also don’t think keeping marijuana illegal will do anything to help law enforcement crack down on the sale and distribution of harder drugs. My ultimate point is that society can and must draw a line between soft and hard drugs and develop policies that protect people on both sides of the line.
To Don: I’m very grateful to you for sharing your obviously very passionate and educated views on the subject, as well as stories of how the War on Drugs has gone tragically wrong at times. I also am fascinated by the Portgual example and want to investigate further. However, for reasons I have elaborated in earlier posts and in my response to Jeff above, I feel strongly that we must draw a line between marijuana and harder drugs; that as a society, we cannot countenance legalizing a drug whose very use — not abuse, but simply use — causes harm to its user, and which has been demonstrated to dramatically increase the propensity to violence.
To the RP Nation: Thank you for joining us in what has turned out to be one of the most excited and most trafficked days of the site. I promise many more debates like these as the weeks progress,a nd I look forward to your opinions and input on topics.
(OK, OK, if you are too old or too young to get the reference, click here.)
As always, Jeff’s writing is lucid, compelling, entertaining, and reliant on first-hand knowledge due to his unique experiences.
But I strongly disagree. In fact, you help illustrate to me why marijuana legislation is such a moral issue, in stark contrast to the “harder” drugs you mention.
Part of having freedom is having the freedom to do harm to yourself.
First of all, I disagree with the premise: My communitarian philosophy, in contrast to your libertarian views, recognizes the moral dimensions of public policy, and sometimes requires members of the community to sacrifice certain freedoms for the common good. [Sorry for the big words and over-thinking, but if you’d like an excellent summary of the philosophical distinctions, click here, and if you want to read an incredible, very readable book on the subject, click here.]
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate Legalizing Marijuana: The RP Defends
I disagree with Artur’s balancing of the equities when it comes to marijuana legalization, but it certainly is a reasonable conclusion (one that I used to share), and there simply isn’t the data yet to demonstrate the relative health benefits versus the relative health risks.
That’s one reason that the California Medical Association had called for legalization, to provide the wider clinical analysis to once and for all determine whether marijuana use is more good than bad, or vice versa.
But the equally compelling reason that I support legalization is the impact on our system of corrections and criminal justice, and as a former federal prosecutor, Artur, I’d love to hear your perspective.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate Legalizing Marijuana: The RP Defends
Jason Atkinson makes a powerful indictment of legalized medicinal marijuana from his unique vantage point as a legislator in a state (Oregon) that has gone this route.
I couldn’t agree more. As I argued in my initial post, legalizing medical marijuana is a half-measure that while well-intention creates some enormous complications for law enforcement and extraordinary challenges for physicians. That’s why in another state that has legalized medicinal marijuana, the California Medical Association has urged its legislature to move to full legalization.
This illustrates one of the key lessons I’ve learned from the sausage-making factory that is lawmaking. The middle-of-the-road approach that might test best in the polls can often have unintended consequences that create a situation that is worse than the original status quo. Jason vividly illustrates the consequences that Albert Camus spoke of when he said, “good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”
Where I disagree with Jason is in his conclusion that the problems associated with medicinal marijuana suggest that full legalization would fail as well. Indeed, the horrible developments Jason outlines — “patients” gaming the system; medical cards being counterfeited; local law enforcement overwhelmed with violations; drug cartels moving in to handle the illegal traffic — all would be mitigated by full legalization.
If we implement a fully-legal, strictly-regulated domestic marijuana industry, we eliminate all of the crimes and frauds associated with trying to get around the proofs of medical need. No system will be perfect, and we will never be able to eliminate illegal activity. But the folks who fear legalization the most are the mobs and cartels who are getting rich as long as the drug remains legal. That’s the most important lesson the country learned in the Prohibition Era.
Jason does raise one concern that gnaws at me — the notion that marijuana is a gateway drug, a slippery slope to the use of harder drugs which I strongly agree must remain illegal. I’ve spoken to addicts too, and some suggest that the transition from pot to cocaine was made smoother by the fact that both were illegal — if I can handle one illegal drug, I can handle all. Under that reasoning, if we legalize cannabis, the connection is eliminated.
I concede I could be wrong about the gateway issue, and I would love to see some scientific evidence on the issue. But regardless, I still believe the equities fall in favor of legalizing the drug.
By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
Last week, we began a new tradition at The Recovering Politician: a great virtual debate among our recovering politicians; with provocations, rebuttals, responses, and defenses. This week, we ramped up the controversy level by tackling a highly explosive topic: legalizing marijuana. The RP starts off with his provocative article arguing the moral case for legalized cannabis. Tune in every half hour to read what other RPs have to say.
SPOILER ALERT: There will be fireworks.
This week, the contributing RPs take on The RP’s recent controversial call for legalizing marijuana in The Huffington Post. (As well as a Kentucky-centric version dedicated to Gatewood Galbraith, published in the Lexington Herald-Leader).
While a recent Gallup poll revealed that a majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana, and Ron Paul — a proponent — has run well in the early GOP presidential primaries, most mainstream politicians still refuse to touch the subject, and many journalists continue to refer to legalization as a “radical” position.
It’s no wonder. The loudest voices for reform usually come from the political margins: the “hippie” Far Left and the libertarian Far Right. And while emanating from different directions, the two extremes share a similar credo: An out-of-control government has no business telling me what I can ingest.
A politically-influential cross-section of Americans, however, disagree. Many associate pot advocacy with the “anything goes” counter-culture of the 1970s that they blame for the decline of personal responsibility. Others worry that the logical extension of the philosophy could lead to legalizing “harder” drugs, prostitution, even polygamy. All of them — liberals, moderates, and conservatives — believe that there must be some moral standards established to guide public policy.
I’m part of that moral majority. But unlike Jerry Falwell’s version, my values system is based on the multi-religious mandate to “love your neighbor as yourself.” I’ve even written a book, The Compassionate Community, which applies Bible lessons and other religions’ texts to advocate for progressive policies that promote the common good.
And I’ve recently concluded that these same enduring moral values compel me to support legalizing marijuana.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate Legalizing Marijuana: The RP Provokes
By Jonathan Miller, on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
My dad and I circa 1968
On this day of celebration of the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., we re-run this piece — in which the RP honored King, his father, and contributing RP Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s father — that first appeared at The Recovering Politician on April 4, 2011.
Today — as on every April 4 — as the nation commemorates the anniversary of one of the worst days in our history; as some of us celebrate the anniversary of the greatest speech of the 20th Century; my mind is on my father. And my memory focuses on a winter day in the mid 1970s, sitting shotgun in his tiny, tinny, navy blue Pinto.
I can still remember my father’s smile that day.
He didn’t smile that often. His usual expression was somber, serious—squinting toward some imperceptible horizon. He was famously perpetually lost in thought: an all-consuming inner debate, an hourly wrestling match between intellect and emotion. When he did occasion a smile, it was almost always of the taut, pursed “Nice to see you” variety.
But on occasion, his lips would part wide, his green eyes would dance in an energetic mix of chutzpah and child-like glee. Usually, it was because of something my sister or I had said or done.
But this day, this was a smile of self-contented pride. Through the smoky haze of my breath floating in the cold, dense air, I could see my father beaming from the driver’s seat, pointing at the AM radio, whispering words of deep satisfaction with a slow and steady nod of his head and that unfamiliar wide-open smile: “That’s my line…Yep, I wrote that one too…They’re using all my best ones.”
He preempted my typically hyper-curious question-and-answer session with a way-out-of-character boast: The new mayor had asked him—my dad!—to help pen his first, inaugural address. And my hero had drafted all of the lines that the radio was replaying.
This was about the time when our father-son chats had drifted from the Reds and the Wildcats to politics and doing what was right. My dad was never going to run for office. Perhaps he knew that a liberal Jew couldn’t get elected dogcatcher in 1970s Kentucky. But I think it was more because he was less interested in the performance of politics than in its preparation. Just as Degas focused on his dancers before and after they went on stage—the stretching, the yawning, the meditation—my father loved to study, and better yet, help prepare, the ingredients of a masterful political oration: A fistful of prose; a pinch of poetry; a smidgen of hyperbole; a dollop of humor; a dash of grace. When properly mixed, such words could propel a campaign, lance an enemy, or best yet, inspire a public to wrest itself from apathetic lethargy and change the world.
Now, for the first time, I realized that my father was in the middle of the action. And I was so damn proud.
– – –
Click above to watch my eulogy for my father
My dad’s passion for words struck me most clearly when I prepared his eulogy. For the past two years of his illness, I’d finally become acquainted with the real Robert Miller, stripped down of the mythology, taken off my childhood pedestal. And I was able to love the real human being more genuinely than ever before. The eulogy would be my final payment in return for his decades of one-sided devotion: Using the craft he had lovingly and laboriously helped me develop, I would weave prose and poetry, the Bible and Shakespeare, anecdotes and memories, to honor my fallen hero. In his final weeks of consciousness, he turned down my offer to share the speech with him. I will never know whether that was due to his refusal to acknowledge the inevitable, or his final act of passing the torch: The student was now the author.
While the final draft reflected many varied influences, ranging from the Rabbis to the Boss (Springsteen), the words were my own. Except for one passage in which I quoted my father’s favorite memorial tribute: read by Senator Edward Kennedy at his brother, Robert’s funeral:
My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.
Read the rest of… The RP: My Father, King, RFK & The Greatest Speech of the 20th Century
Our most popular writer, hands down, has been contributing RP and former Missouri State Senator Jeff Smith. Jeff’s first piece — the story of his rise into national celebrity, his dramatic fall that resulted in a prison term, and his hopes for redemption — put the RP on the national map, earning recognition from New York magazine’s “Approval Matrix.” Jeff’s followup — about love and sex behind bars — drew in nearly 100,000 readers, literally crashing the Web site. Jeff’s become a national sensation — expect much more from him in 2012.
Contributing RPMichael Steele was already a national sensation before he joined the site — you know him as the former Lt. Governor of Maryland, as well as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Now a regular contributor to MSNBC, Michael shared with RP readers his vision of the new American Dream, and assessed both President Barack Obama and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Over the next few days, Michael will report from the Iowa caucuses; and in the year ahead, he will share his lively take on politics — and other subjects as well.
Another familiar face at the site in 2011 was another former Lt. Governor of Maryland, contributing RPKathleen Kennedy Townsend. Kathleen elucidated her well-versed take on faith and politics, while slamming a then-ascendant Rick Perry for misusing faith, defended Sarah Palin(!), and shared her unique perspective as a member of the nation’s most iconic political family. Her most popular piece was on, of all things, home births. Expect the same kind of wide variety from Kathleen at The RP in the coming months.
One of the RP’s most prolific contributing RPs was former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis. Artur wrote a fascinating, insightful piece about political authenticity, plunged into the centuries-old debate on race and politics, and explored the Democratic Party’s faith gap. Some of his most popular pieces were book reviews, taking on new works about Harry Truman and Bobby Kennedy. Artur’s not been shy about controversy, angering conservatives by attacking his home state’s “ugly” immigration law, and riling liberals by supporting its new Voter ID law. Don’t expect Artur to pull any punches in 2012.
Contributing RP and former Missouri state House Speaker Rod Jetton is also one who is not a stranger to controversy. At the peak of his power, Rod was charged with ethics and criminal violations, and while he was cleared of everything, he stepped down to begin his second act. Rod’s 3-part series about his “Success, Scandal and Change” was one of the site’s most widely read, and he concluded the year with a touching 4-part series on his best friend, a fallen Marine. In the middle, he showed off a wry sense of humor in a video interview with his unlikely pal, contributing RP Jeff Smith (you have to see Rod’s imitation of Jeff).
Jason Atkinson, an Oregon State Senator and contributing RP, underwent a different kind of political recovery — he had to withdraw from a promising gubernatorial campaign after he accidentally shot himself while hunting. He writes about the experience — with graphic charts — in “A Real Political Recovery,” but also created an Internet sensation with short films he directed on more successful outdoor adventures fishing for trout in “Big Mo” and “Half Pounder.” He also showed off his own wicked sense of humor, imitating Abe Lincoln and citing the wisdom of Homer…Simpson that is.
Our newest contributing RP, former Virginia Congressional Democratic nominee Krystal Ball, has already generated considerable reader interest with her first piece about Why We Need More Women in Politics. Krystal should know; her first campaign for office was interrupted by a ridiculous media inquiry into pictures taken of her in college; PG-13 pictures that caused a mini-national-sensation only because of Krystal’s gender. As a regular contributor to MSNBC and here at The RP, Krystal will help us view politics in a much different way.
Finally, I feel very fortunate — and so is the RP Nation — to have convinced my good friend, contributing RP, and former Kentucky Secretary of State, John Y. Brown, III to share his incisive social and political commentary, along with his uproarious sense of humor, at The RP. John Y. helped set the theme and tone of the site with his early piece, “What Do We Do Now?,” in which he offered a 20-question quiz to help readers determine if they were in need of political recovery. More recently, we’ve launched a regular feature, John Y.’s Musings from the Middle, in which he shares his wit and wisdom on topics varying from fruitcake to the death penalty to Lindsay Lohan. We guarantee a lot of laughs, as well as thoughtful advice, in the year ahead.
Last week, we introduced a new tradition here at The Recovering Politician: The RP Debates, featuring our contributing recovering politicians — coming from all sides of the partisan and ideological spectrum — duke it out over a controversial issue. Last Monday’s battle addresses contributing RP (and former Kentucky Secretary of State) John Y. Brown, III’s provocative views on presidential leadership and the 2012 campaign. Click here to find links to all of the debate posts.
Tomorrow, the RPs will take on The RP’s controversial piece that he published in The Huffington Post, “The Moral Case for Legalizing Marijuana” (A Kentucky-centric version, “Gatewood Was Right” appeared over the weekend in the Lexington Herald-Leader.)
In my first full year as a recovering politician, I’ve capitalized on my newfound freedom to speak on the issues of the day without the restrictions of the typical partisan and special-interest handcuffs.
