News from Washington State


A political milestone has been passed in the state of Washington: affirmative action has gone down. Voters have rejected Referendum 88, a measure to relegalize racial preferences in state employment, education, and contracting.

This is an issue that speaks directly to libertarians. We think in terms of individuals. In our view, justice requires that government treat individuals of different races by the same rules. To us, “affirmative action” is an Orwellian term for a policy of preferential treatment, which amounts to institutional racism.

Libertarians may disagree on a number of things, but I think we all agree on this.

In Washington, racial preferences in state and local government had been banned by law since November 1998. This is the way it happened. The state legislature, Republicans included, never would have passed the original law. They didn’t have the courage. But a couple of policy entrepreneurs, inspired in 1996 by California’s Proposition 209, started a signature drive to put the issue on the ballot. Their measure was called Initiative 200; it was opposed by all right-thinkers in government and the media, and in November 1998 it swept the state with 58% of the vote. Only King County, which contains Seattle, voted in favor of preferences.

To libertarians, “affirmative action” is an Orwellian term for a policy of preferential treatment, which amounts to institutional racism.

This time around, the defeat of racial preferences has been a much closer thing. The public vote was on Referendum 88, a measure to bring back affirmative action. As I write (November 12), 98% of the votes are in, and Referendum 88 is being rejected by 50.41% of voters. In only four of the state’s 39 counties are voters approving it. The highest percentages for approval are in King and San Juan counties — metro Seattle and the San Juan Islands — which are Washington’s two counties with the highest median personal income and the strongest propensity to vote left. (The third most leftwing county is Jefferson, which contains Port Townsend, the former home of Liberty. The magazine’s founder, Bill Bradford, would not be surprised that Jefferson County, 91% white, also supported racial preferences.)

Washington is a Democratic state. Our Democratic politicians believe deeply in the moral necessity of treating people of different races differently in the pursuit of equal results. They have wanted to bring back the practice for 20 years. For a long time they dared not do it, but in 2019 they slipped it through.

Apart from referendums (explained below), Washington has two kinds of voter-initiated ballot measures: initiatives to the people and initiatives to the legislature. Under the first kind, the people collect signatures to put a measure on the ballot, and if they pass it, it becomes law. Under the second kind, the people petition the legislature to adopt a law they propose. If they collect enough signatures, the legislature has three options. It can pass the measure into law, refuse to pass it and let it go to the ballot, or pass an alternative measure and let both of them go to the ballot.

The signature drive to bring back racial preferences, which was called Initiative 1000, was an initiative to the legislature. As a result of the “blue wave” of 2018, the Democrats hold both houses in Olympia. On the last day of the spring 2019 session legislators passed Initiative 1000 straight into law. All the Democrats except for one in each house voted for it, and all the Republicans voted against it. Initiative 1000 became law without a vote of the people.

Our Democratic politicians have wanted to bring back the practice for 20 years. For a long time they dared not do it, but in 2019 they slipped it through.

Washington also has the right of referendum, which allows the people to petition to put a brand new law on the ballot. Another political entrepreneur did just that, by collecting signatures for Referendum 88, which offered the voters the chance to vote “Accepted” or “Rejected” on the words of Initiative 1000.

That particular troublemaker was Kan Qiu, an immigrant from China. There was a reason the fight against preferences was being led by an Asian. In the state universities, Asians, whether immigrants or native-born, are the group most obviously threatened by racial quotas. Asians make up 7.8% of the resident population of Washington but 24% of undergraduates at the University of Washington. And that’s not counting foreign students. If racial preferences were allowed, the student body would probably not mirror the population exactly, but it’s a sure bet that “overrepresented” Asians would have to jump a higher hurdle.

Kan Qiu and his supporters wanted the people to vote “Rejected” on Referendum 88. Their argument in the Voter’s Pamphlet is clear: “Referendum 88 allows the government to use different rules for different races . . . That’s wrong. And it divides us further apart.”

But the description of Referendum 88 in the Voter’s Pamphlet, which is supposed to be non-biased, painted a different picture. It called Referendum 88 a measure to “allow the state to remedy discrimination for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public education, employment and contracting.”

If racial preferences were allowed, it’s a sure bet that “overrepresented” Asians would have to jump a higher hurdle.

The red-flag words are “as defined.” The original Initiative 1000, and Referendum 88, which restated it for the voters, defined preferential treatment as using race or group identity “as the sole qualifying factor to select a lesser qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate.” Race could be a factor, but not the sole qualifying factor. In other words, as long as the state could point to one other factor, it could discriminate by race.

This is defining “preferences” as a box so small that nothing will fit in it.

The opponents of preferences pointed out this tendentious definition every chance they could, but it was in the Voter’s Pamphlet, approved by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Democrat. The supporters of preferences made the most of the official words, claiming over and over that Referendum 88 would not allow preferences. Those supporters included Washington’s leading newspapers and three former governors, including Gary Locke, who is Chinese American — and also a Democrat.

In Washington we have never had to register as Democrats or Republicans, so I can’t say how many of each there are, but the people do mostly vote Democrat.

Most of the rest of the candidates blew through the $150,000 donation limit. So Democracy Vouchers didn’t actually limit anything.

Not this time. This was a Democratic measure, and it failed — barely.

And barely counts.

Unfortunately, the same applies to municipal elections.

I had hoped to report to Liberty readers that the voters of Seattle had finally tossed out their Trotskyite councilwoman, Kshama Sawant. But Sawant, first elected in 2013, has been reelected again, along with most of the progressive-left candidates to the Seattle City Council.

Money was a big issue. Seattle has won praise (from Andrew Yang, for example) for its Democracy Vouchers program, which was supposed to “take money out of politics.” The program gives each voter $100 in vouchers to give to candidates that stayed within donation limits. But Sawant never signed up for Democracy Vouchers, arguing that she was going to be targeted by the corporations and would have to raise all the money she could. And most of the rest of the candidates blew through the $150,000 donation limit. So Democracy Vouchers didn’t actually limit anything.

I threw my vouchers away.

Sawant was right in her predictions about money from business. In mid-October, Amazon, which is based in Seattle, dumped $1 million into the city council campaigns. The Left had its union money and Sawant had her socialist money from around the country, but it was Amazon’s money on the other side that became the talk of the town. Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders tweeted from afar:

Jeff Bezos and Amazon think they can buy elections. They spent $1 million to stop City Council candidates @d1forLisa, @TammyMoralesSEA, @VoteSawant and @ElectScott2019. Show Amazon that they can't buy our democracy and that their corporate greed won't stand. Get out and vote!

They did, and the Left took every seat it wanted except one. In that one, the Left’s candidate was another avowed socialist, but without the name, the panache, or the district Kshama Sawant had. And he got 47.6% of the vote.

“Our movement has won,” Sawant crowed, “and defended our socialist council seat for working people against the richest man in the world.” Her next goal will be citywide rent control (which would require a change in state law) and another tax on business. The Seattle Times’ photo of her victory rally shows her supporters raising clenched fists behind a huge banner that reads, “TAX AMAZON.”

In mid-October, Amazon dumped $1 million into the city council campaigns.

The fight had started with a tax on Amazon. In 2018 the Seattle City Council voted to impose a “head tax” — a flat tax per employee — on large for-profit employers, with the money to be spent on the homeless. The Left made a point of saying that the tax would hit only the top 3% of employers, which was supposed to show how reasonable it was. The tax would have cost the city’s largest private employer, Amazon, tens of millions of dollars a year. When Amazon and other companies began bankrolling a voter petition to put the tax on the ballot as a referendum, and a poll showed that the voters would kill it, all but one of the Democrats on the council quickly voted for repeal. Sawant, the lone Marxist, condemned them as cowardly, which they were. She also led a public demonstration in front of Amazon’s headquarters and condemned CEO Jeff Bezos as “the enemy.”

In 2018 it did seem that the voters of Seattle were ready to sweep Sawant and her allies off the council. And this year, when seven of the nine council members were up for reelection, several of them declined to run. The council member in my district was one of them — but, alas, he has been replaced by another much like him.

The candidate chosen to run in Kshama Sawant’s district was a political novice named Egan Orion, a man best known for organizing PrideFest, a gay celebration. By any national standard he was pretty far left himself, but this is Seattle and Sawant’s district is the leftiest part of it.

Sawant, the lone Marxist, condemned them as cowardly, which they were.

There were things a nonleftist might like about Orion. Being known for a celebration made him less of an irritant than someone known for screaming at Jeff Bezos, or for the $15 minimum wage. Sawant was for rent control — and on Orion’s web page was an article about how rent control would hurt small landlords. In the county’s Voter’s Pamphlet, which has statements from all the candidates, Orion said he wanted to “expand all types of housing,” which was a politically correct way of saying he was not against builders of market-rate housing, which the Left blames for displacing the poor. Orion also said he wanted the city government to help women, gays, and people of color to start businesses. Passing over the intersectionality stuff, I perceived that he was in favor of people starting businesses. He also promised to “focus on outcomes, not ideology,” which seemed to be a nice way of saying he was not a fan of Leon Trotsky.

The state of Washington runs elections by mail, so that election day is really start-counting-the-ballots day. On the first count, Orion was ahead, with Sawant polling only 45.6%. Though she had come from behind and won in an earlier election, her supporters were worried. Socialist Alternative, the national newspaper of Sawant’s party, wrote,

Seattle is experiencing its own local variant of the right-populist wave which elevated Trump to power. Middle-class anxiety in the face of growing economic insecurity and social decay is exploited by big business and the rich, who are waging a ferocious struggle against the rise of socialist ideas and movements demanding limits to their wealth and power.

The chief evidence of a “right-populist” wave in Seattle was a local TV documentary about homeless encampments called “Seattle Is Dying.” (It’s on YouTube.) There are some right-wingers in Seattle, but you’d have to hire a detective to find them. In 2016 Trump got 8% of the vote here. Bernie Sanders could take this city easily. If he does, he will have a comrade on the city council who has just been reelected.

Share This

The Great Panic


I have long been a fan of the Panic of 1893, which is the usual name for the great depression of the 1890s. When I say “great” I mean it is comparable by all available measures (business losses, unemployment, political turmoil) to the Great Depression of the 1930s — with two exceptions. First, the depression of the 1930s lasted for more than ten years, ending only with the start of the Second World War in Europe; the depression of the 1890s lasted less than half as long. Second, in the 1930s the federal government intervened massively to try to end the depression, whereas the government of the 1890s did as little as it could.

These two exceptions are closely related. In 1893 and after, President Grover Cleveland had the political and above all the intellectual courage to allow prices to sink until recovery could begin. He devoted his best efforts to stabilizing the dollar, so that sound money and real prices could beget confidence, and confidence could beget reinvestment. This happened. But in 1929 and after, Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt were guided by the economic ignorance and sheer quackery of their times (and ours); they intervened to keep prices up and bail out bad investments — using money, of course, extorted from the people who had made good investments. Roosevelt’s subsidies extended to the destructive political ideas of his time; he encouraged political action to fulfill the borderline-crazy terms of his first inaugural address, in which he announced:

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

The result was not only chronic political turmoil but a failure of reinvestment caused by a chronic absence of confidence in the nation’s economic and political prospects. Money, as R.W. Bradford used to say, wants to be invested, but it didn’t during the 1930s, when for a series of years there was actually “negative investment” in the economy.

In 1929 and after, Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt were guided by the economic ignorance and sheer quackery of their times (and ours).

So you see one reason why I am a fan of the depression of the 1890s — it provides clear and persuasive economic, political, and, if you will, spiritual lessons. But another reason is that the economic and political controversies of the 1890s are a lot of fun. Communism is dull stuff, no matter where it appears, and in the 1930s it manifested itself in remarkably dull, stupid, pompous, and oppressive forms. Compared with that, the nostrums of the 1890s are bright, delusive rays of sunshine. You just have to smile at Jacob Coxey’s plan to save the country by a complicated scheme for the federal government to print tons of paper money and use it to give free loans to local governments so they could create jobs in public building programs — a plan he implemented in the first of the great marches on Washington, the march of Coxey’s Army. The march culminated in Coxey’s arrest at the Capitol, for walking on the grass.

And who wouldn’t have fun trying to follow the logical permutations of the Free Silver idea, the notion that the American economy would be perfected if the federal government would simply produce unlimited quantities of silver dollars (and paper instruments representing them), priced at 16 silver dollars for one gold dollar, when the market price of a gold dollar was much higher than 16 silver dollars? This was a recipe for outrageous inflation, yet in 1896 it captured the Democratic Party and could have led to the election of the Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, he of the stirring Cross of Gold speech:

You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

It’s a good speech, and some of the books and pamphlets written in favor of Free Silver are immensely clever complications of an argument that is clearly wrong but has a way of starting to look right if you don’t take a step backward and remind yourself of what it’s really about.

Compared with the remarkably dull, stupid, pompous, and oppressive forms of communism that manifested in the 1930s, the nostrums of the 1890s are bright, delusive rays of sunshine.

Now comes Bruce Ramsey, author of the book I am reviewing and — all cards on the table — senior editor of Liberty and a good friend of mine. Bruce is a tireless researcher of the events, theories, and movements of the 1890s. He knows their importance. He knows they reveal important truths about the ways in which economies function, and in which people function within them. And he knows they’re fun. The only problem is that the vast majority of Americans have simply forgotten about the depression of the 1890s. They forgot about it almost as soon as it was over. (I have an essay about this in Edward Younkins’ Capitalism and Commerce in Imaginative Literature [Lexington Books, 2015].) In the popular imagination, the decade of desperation was soon transformed into the Gay Nineties.

There aren’t a lot of good treatments of national politics and economics in the 1890s. Allan Nevins’ biography of Cleveland (1932) remains the best. And there are few decent treatments of the effects of the depression on individual men and women, in their local communities. That’s the vital part of the story that practically nobody knows. And that’s what Ramsey gives us in his brilliant new book about the state of Washington during the Panic.

In writing such a book, Ramsey faced one of the hardest challenges a writer of history can encounter. A straight-line narrative of national political and economic events would capture only part of the picture. So would an exclusive concern with one particular locality, such as Bruce’s home state, Washington. So would concentration on certain personalities, as in the cheap, tangential approach to history that one sees in the Ken Burns films. What Bruce needed to present was the full tapestry of local people and local events, rippling in the strong winds of national affairs; he needed to capture not only the big patterns but the individual figures in the tapestry, and he needed to show those ripples of history too. But he was equal to the challenge.

The vast majority of Americans have simply forgotten about the depression of the 1890s. They forgot about it almost as soon as it was over.

Bruce Ramsey is a quick but colorful narrator. He provides the pungent detail and the suggestive episode and then moves briskly onward to the next significant picture, whether it’s the portrait of an interesting man or woman, an array of statistics, a sketch of political developments nationwide, or a tale of something that’s too ridiculous to be true, but is. Did you know that in 1893 the Populist governor of Kansas tried to use the state militia to oust the Republicans (who happened to be in a majority) from the House of Representatives in Topeka? (If Dorothy wanted adventure, she could have stayed right in Kansas.) This absurd drama — one of many in Ramsey’s book — offers some perspective on the absurd politics of the present era. To say that Ramsey’s political narrative is entertaining is itself absurd; it’s an absurd understatement.

Here are thousands of stories, small in the number of words that Ramsey, a thrifty narrator, allots to each, but large in drama and implication. We see people who are found talking gibberish in darkened hotel rooms because their bank deposits of $256 had been lost to the panic. We see government officials who steal money, and lose it, and then escape to Argentina, or to a place off the coast of Washington called Tatoosh Island, thence to change identities and be discovered working as mowers in Idaho. We learn of a government official who is acquitted by a jury that doesn’t believe that bribery is against the law. We listen to a contractor for the Northern Pacific railway who says he “had put white men at work at $2 and gradually raised their wages to $2.50, although there was no time when [he] could not have employed Chinamen at 80 cents” (p. 51). We meet mayors who work in shingle mills because their cities can’t pay them a salary, and unionists who resort to riot and terror to keep their salaries from being cut.

The sheer number of stories that Ramsey tells is remarkable; still more remarkable is his unfailing ability to integrate them into larger contexts of meaning. Here’s one of the general patterns he sees. Businesses and banks that made it through this great depression often did so because they backed each other up. Seattle, where the spirit of cooperation was strong, suffered many fewer losses than such competing communities as Tacoma and Spokane. Seattle’s bankers went so far as to refuse deposits from people who had withdrawn them in panic from other banks. This was individual action, but it was mutually supportive. It was a kind of spontaneous order, and it often saved the day.

We see people who are found talking gibberish in darkened hotel rooms because their bank deposits of $256 had been lost to the panic.

Here’s another pattern. Led by President Cleveland, the federal government disclaimed responsibility for helping individuals — whether bankers or street sweepers — get out of their financial jam. Most public opinion seems to have backed him up. Newspapers in the Pacific Northwest counseled their readers to take responsibility for themselves — and above all not to hurt business by fleeing to some place with a marginally better economy. Their message was “stay here and keep pitching.” A Baptist potentate cautioned against giving money to the poor indiscriminately; this was “a selfish act, done to make the giver feel good” (83). Some local governments acted in what they regarded as the spirit of community and provided employment on public works projects, and some of them went broke doing it. But charity ordinarily began at home. As Ramsey observes, very perceptively, “In a world with little free public food, people tend to be generous with their private food” (93).

A darker side of community spirit was the almost universal feeling that if anyone was going to be without a job, it shouldn’t be someone white. Everywhere Asians were fired from jobs or prevented from getting any, and mobs formed to destroy Chinatowns throughout the region. It was only a temporary rescue when the wife of a local missionary faced down a mob that came for the Chinese people of La Grande, Oregon: “She appeared with a Winchester and announced that the first man to enter the house would be shot” (79). Most of the Chinese left town anyway; and although 14 rioters were arrested, none was convicted. Oregon’s Progressive governor haughtily rejected President Cleveland’s request that he protect the rights of the Chinese.

A darker side of community spirit was the almost universal feeling that if anyone was going to be without a job, it shouldn’t be someone white.

Much of Ramsey’s book is devoted to racism and progressivism during the depression. It’s quite a story, and again, it’s a gift of perspective: then as now, the predominant individualism of America was too much of a burden for many Americans to bear.

Obviously, the implications of Ramsey’s stories go far beyond the Pacific Northwest. The stories of that region cannot be explained without reference to the bigger stories of the nation’s money policy, its “reform” and “progressive” movements, and its national elections. Ramsey devotes lively chapters to all these things. If you don’t know the 1890s, this is the book for you, wherever you live. If you do know the 1890s, you know a lot about America, and this book will help you learn even more.

The Panic of 1893 is beautifully illustrated, with fine contemporary pictures, and backed by years of patient research. It is a distinguished and compelling book.

Editor's Note: Review of "The Panic of 1893: The Untold Story of Washington State’s First Depression," by Bruce Ramsey. Caxton, 2018, 324 pages.

Share This

Satanic Discourse


R.W. Bradford once told me that he read an article that had been written by Alger Hiss, the communist spy, when Hiss was president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “I wanted to find out how a communist would write,” Bill said. “What I found was that he wrote exactly like a modern liberal.” Of course, Hiss was pretending not to be a communist, but there was no reason to believe that he was using language that was not his own.

I had similar feelings when I read a statement written by the now-famous Rachel Dolezal. It’s her resignation letter (published June 15) as president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP. Dolezal, as you know, is the woman who was born to white parents but pretended she was black. She is also the woman who claimed in an interview with a highly credulous reporter that she was born in a teepee; that she and her family lived by hunting with bows and arrows; that her mother and (alleged) stepfather then transported their children to South Africa, where they abused her darker-skinned siblings by punishing them with a “baboon whip”; that her ex-husband, who is black, abused her and their young child; that a wealthy mentor victimized her with a “date rape drug”; that in adult life she was continually victimized by hate mail and racist threats; and other claims unlikely to be true.

If Dolezal lived in my neighborhood, or yours, and it became known that she was “born white” but said she was black, everyone would shrug her off as a harmless crank.

“Rather than becoming bitter,” the interviewer said, “Dolezal chooses to empower others.” She then quotes Dolezal as saying, “It’s really painful from my mom and, you know, everybody that’s pretty much said they loved me at some point or were there for me, has betrayed me in a pretty significant way.” That’s what you say when you’re empowering others.

I’m not the least bit interested in Dolezal’s lie about being black. Probably nobody is, except for extreme racists on either side of the spectrum, and a few college professors who don’t have anything better to “publish” about. If Dolezal lived in my neighborhood, or yours, and it became known that she was “born white” but said she was black, everyone would shrug her off as a harmless crank. The problem for me is her other declarations, declarations that have had the consistent object of exalting herself and maligning other people.

While she was still white, Dolezal attended Howard University, the venerable African American college, which she proceeded to sue for discrimination, because it neglected to give her, a white woman, the jobs she wanted. (Howard had actually erred on the side of generosity by giving her a scholarship.) When she discovered that she was black, she went deeper into the grievance industry, procuring such roles as chair of the Spokane Police Ombudsman Commission (a law enforcement oversight agency), positions from which she could agitate more authoritatively against the imaginary sins of other people. The word “Satan” means “adversary” and, in its biblical contexts, “accuser.” Dolezal became a professional Satan.

So it’s interesting to see how a professional Satan writes while pretending to be a professional angel of light. Let’s consider the resignation Dolezal submitted to the Spokane NAACP.

The epistle starts with a sickeningly familiar tactic, much used by politicians and other people who live by manufacturing enemies. It suggests that Dolezal’s own failings, the ones that motivated the letter, are in fact unimportant; what’s important is the failings of the Other Side:

Many issues face us now that drive at the theme of urgency. [I know, I know; what does that mean? But proceed to the next sentence, please.] Police brutality, biased curriculum in schools, economic disenfranchisement, health inequities, and a lack of pro-justice political representation are among the concerns at the forefront of the current administration of the Spokane NAACP. And yet, the dialogue has unexpectedly shifted internationally to my personal identity in the context of defining race and ethnicity.

The language is “academic” — that is, preposterously complicated and elitist. It requires decoding. Readers familiar enough with pseudo-intellectual jargon to perform that operation will discover that the “current administration of the Spokane NAACP” is actually (guess who?) Rachel Dolezal, doughty warrior for truth, “enfranchisement,” and “pro-justice political representation.” That last phrase also appears to signify herself, Rachel Dolezal, the same woman whose “personal identity” has unfortunately come to overshadow her distinguished leadership of a righteous cause.

Dolezal attended Howard University, the venerable African American college, which she proceeded to sue for discrimination, because it neglected to give her, a white woman, the jobs she wanted.

But why has that happened? No reason is given, but responsibility clearly rests with the forces of the enemy: “police brutality, biased curriculum, economic disenfranchisement, health inequities.” The author is careful not to blame the many members of the NAACP and the African American community who wanted desperately never to hear her name again. To them she extends condescending recognition:

I have waited in deference while others expressed their feelings, beliefs, confusions and even conclusions — absent the full story. I am consistently committed to empowering marginalized voices and believe that many individuals have been heard in the last hours and days that would not otherwise have had a platform to weigh in on this important discussion.

The cliché is appropriate: truly, it’s all about her, even though she remembers to stipulate, later in the document, “This is not about me. It's about justice.” But when you think about it, it has to be about her; it couldn’t be about the Other, the great Accused. How could she possibly have lost her job with the NAACP because she opposed a biased curriculum (where, by the way?), police brutality (again, where? in Spokane, or some other place?), economic disenfranchisement (meaning what, exactly?), or health inequities (is she upset that some people are healthy and others are not?). If she was so concerned about these things, why couldn’t she define her terms, point to examples, clarify her solutions? But again, why bother? It is indeed all about her.

The reason she lost her job was that she told ridiculous and embarrassing lies about herself. Her own phrase for being caught telling lies is a “shift” of “dialogue” to her “personal identity in the context of defining race and ethnicity.” Virtually all human language means something, but this language is an exception to the rule. It is a perfect example of the kind of academic jargon that starts off meaning almost nothing and soon arrives at total emptiness. Dolezal, the part-time teacher of Africana Studies at Eastern Washington University, turned, in her hour of need, to the inane phrases of the faculty of Harvard. Where could better obfuscations be found?

The epistle starts with a sickeningly familiar tactic, much used by politicians and other people who live by manufacturing enemies.

In an essay in the New York Times, Charles M. Blowmakesa cogent observation about the second-handedness of Dolezal’s words. He quotes a remark she made about herself in a television interview: “This is not some freak ‘Birth of a Nation’ mockery blackface performance. This is on a very real, connected level.” Then he comments:

Full stop. Let’s just marvel at the efficient catchphrase saturation in those sentences. She takes the whole universe of possible attacks and issues them in her own tongue as a method of neutralizing them. It is a clever, if calculated, bit of argumentation, the kind that one might practice in a mirror.

I disagree only with the adjective “clever.” Dolezal’s words are not clever. They’re stupid. They’re nonsense. But they’re educated nonsense — educated in the sense that they have been learned and repeated from a purportedly higher source.

You see this in Dolezal’s aforementioned list of enemies. Certainly, police brutality is real. It exists. It isn’t just a bunch of meaningless syllables. I give her a pass on that. But the rest of it is what we commonly hear in what passes for political or “cultural” news — just so many talking points, spoken by politicians, written by consultants, concocted by pressure groups from ingredients assembled by academic “researchers” determined to prove what their stakeholders already assumed. In their world, and it is a very small one, economic disenfranchisement is established simply by the failure of some people to get paid as much as others; the researchers feel no need to consider such things as cartelized union wages, income and property taxes, a regressive Social Security tax, or the “health and safety” regulations that prevent any ordinary man or woman from opening a business in an inner-city neighborhood. They don’t feel the need, and neither do such activists as Madame Dolezal, who apparently assume, like their mentors, that it is more important to sound as if you were doing good than actually to find out how to do it.

The funny thing about terms that are accepted rather than analyzed is that they are much more likely to be used by bad people, to do bad things, than they are to be used by good people, to do good things. Satan himself is a second-hander, always latching onto phrases that are supposed to mean something, even when they don’t. He once offered Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them” — meaning what, exactly? Power and empire? Or abject service to Satan, the granter of subsidies and special entitlements? Today, by the grace of unanalyzed terms, conscientious parents are denounced for “child abuse,” because they spank their kids. Gun-rights advocates are accused of murder, because someone, somewhere, has used a legal or illegal gun to kill another person. Pastors are picketed for “bigotry” because they fail to approve of gay marriage. Journalists are accused of racism and covert membership in the Know Nothing Party because they oppose unrestricted immigration. The list is endless, but you get the point.

The reason she lost her job was that she told ridiculous and embarrassing lies about herself.

(For the record [what a cliché!], I fully approve of homosexuality; I am bored by guns but fully support the Second Amendment; I believe that a few pats on the butt are an appropriate punishment for delinquent five-year-olds; and I vigorously oppose unrestricted immigration. If this be treason, go ahead: arraign me in the court of public opinion. But please don’t try to begin a dialogue around my personal identity in the context of defining libertarianism. That would be too much to take.)

Dolezal rounds out her resignation letter in the way in which politicians normally round out their confessions of sin — by not confessing to any sins. She resigns with a list of supposed achievements. All of them are bureaucratic placeholders for actual accomplishments:

It is my hope that by securing a beautiful office for the [NAACP] organization in the heart of downtown, bringing the local branch into financial compliance, catalyzing committees to do strategic work in the five Game Changer issues, launching community forums, putting the membership on a fast climb, and helping many individuals find the legal, financial and practical support needed to fight race-based discrimination, I have positioned the Spokane NAACP to buttress this transition.

. . . the transition, which thoughtful members of the NAACP doubtless welcome warmly, from her administration to the next.

As I have noticed before in these pages, there is a big difference between being intelligent and being verbal. Rachel Dolezal is a perfect example. She’s as dumb as a stone. Yet she can read. By reading, she has gained access to a couple of hundred expressions that are accepted as meaningful by certain figures in academic or official positions (most of whom are no brighter than she is). By parroting these sounds, even when they are literally meaningless (“catalyzing committees,” “strategic work,” “positioned to buttress”), she can, like the college professors who first emitted them, appear to be intelligent, significant, and worth being paid.

I return to Bill Bradford’s comment about Alger Hiss. The words Hiss used — and he used a lot of them; he was highly verbal — were so lacking in substance as to be suitable both for communists and for anti-communist modern liberals, so long as the latter weren’t actually thinking but were just repeating words. When you consider how many other people operate in the same way, you can acquire some sympathy for the much-maligned conspiracy theories of American politics. When you listen to a speech by President Obama, can you tell whether he means to maintain the republic or is determined to establish a Huey Long-style autocracy? The same essentially meaningless words could be used for either purpose. Or, to choose a homelier example, when you listen to a speech by any of the Republicans now campaigning for the presidency, can you tell whether the candidate believes in individual liberty or is merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

Satan himself is a second-hander, always latching onto phrases that are supposed to mean something, even when they don’t.

But here’s the really Satanic thing, the thing that goes far beyond momentary political conflicts. In most generations of American history, the kind of discourse I’m considering — wordy but not intelligent, personal but not original, moralistic but in no way respectful of the truth, overtly humanitarian but covertly cruel, irresponsible but implacably self-righteous — in most generations, this kind of discourse has been a potent weapon of accusation and official persecution.

  • Having inherited a stock of religious phrases, a coven of girls in Salem, Massachusetts accused their neighbors of bewitching them, and had 20 of them executed.
  • During the Civil War, people accused of being Copperheads (Northern men with Southern sympathies) and Abolitionists (Southern men with Christian sympathies) suffered a similarly unjust fate, though usually not such drastic punishment. Some brave talker had discovered that, in today’s language, they fitted the profile of the opposition group.
  • During World War I, being German was often enough to incite the leading talkers of a town to run you out of it, and pseudo-intellectual language about Americanism, sedition, and consorting with the enemy was never far to seek.
  • From the 1970s on, false accusations of child abuse have been used to ruin many lives, often on evidence kept secret because of its “horrific” nature. False evidence can always be supported by expert testimony to the effect, for instance, that children don’t lie about such things.

Virtually throughout American history, Satanic allegations of homosexuality were sufficient to disgrace inoffensive men and women, destroy their means of livelihood, and send them to jail. After all, didn’t the experts say that homosexuality was an epidemic that must not be allowed to spread to our children? The same expert language, and the same pattern of accusations, characterized the anti-drug hysterias of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. The language of unanalyzed guilt and hysterical accusation continues in the current diatribes against climate change deniers, homophobes, maintainers of white privilege, and other perverts.

There has always been a Satanic cohort in American society, a set of people who find it impossible to be happy except when they are accusing others, and diligent in finding things to accuse them of. The impulse is the same; only the targets differ (although the frequent presence of sexually connected targets remains to be explained). These people — the Rachel Dolezals among us — never go away. The most serious problem is the rest of us, the people who are at least momentarily convinced that there must be something in the accusations, because otherwise no one would be able to put them into words so confidently.

In the book of Job, God points out the difference between being verbal and being intelligent. “Who is this,” he asks, “that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” And he asks a more troubling question, “Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?” Unfortunately, we in America need not look very far to see the gates of death. They are right there, right behind the perky little smiles of Rachel Dolezal and the many others who resemble her.

Share This

Who Rules the Republic?


Some years ago, in an interview with Mike Wallace, conservative commentator Fulton Lewis, Jr. stated that the federal government was run, not by elected representatives, but by the civil service; that policy was made, not by secretaries or assistant secretaries, but by non-appointed officials. He said further that the president should have authority to appoint people to agencies at whatever level policy was made. I saw the original telecast — on February 1, 1958 — and recently found it online, preserved by the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin.

What brought the interview to mind was Professor Angelo M. Codevilla’s recent book, The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It. The author complains of the administrative state, rooted in the New Deal — a federal government in which “bureaucrats make, enforce, and adjudicate nearly all the rules.” He labels as the Ruling Class those who populate the federal bureaucracy, along with elected representatives devoted to big government and hangers-on from the private sector who profit from government or who trade campaign dollars for access and favors. They are the power elite, the statist minority that rules the republic. By contrast, the author refers to the majority of Americans, those who live in the private sector and represent traditional America, as the Country Class.

These two classes represent the fundamental political division across the country. Members of the Ruling Class occupy the “commanding heights of government,” convinced that they own the secret of our deliverance and hungry for power to prove it. This class constitutes a “machine” that transfers “money, jobs, and privileges” to its clients. The results of its domination are an extension of the culture of dependency, an assault on the family, on religion, and on conventional morality. This class has bent science and reason to the service of power. It has placed public schools beyond the reach of parents, filled our cars with inscrutable gadgets, and thrown away billions on economic bailouts. And worse, it has led us into a procession of wars, expensive in blood and treasure but without clear purpose or outcome.

Codevilla covers the spectrum of complaints about big government — the problems of public education, the Kelo decision, the global-warming necromancy, the absurd regulatory minutiae, crony capitalism, alliances with labor unions (especially those of government workers), the abetting of family disintegration, and the complexity and favoritism in our laws.

Still, the author sees hopeful signs. The discontent of Republican voters with their party suggests that the Country Class is getting restless, and the Tea Party movement is stark evidence of its discontent. Many of its members want to “restore a way of life that has been largely superseded.” For Codevilla, the “signature cultural venture” of the Country Class is the homeschool movement. It represents the reassertion of parental prerogatives and, I might add, a back-of-the-hand to public education, which Mises warned must inevitably become indoctrination. But why haven’t Republicans — members of America’s “conservative” party — acted to expose the incompetence of the Ruling Class? Author Codevilla answers — they’re “salivating” to join that class.

That the Tea Party movement elevated the anxieties of the American Left wasn’t surprising, but the response of prominent Republican David Frum to Codevilla’s book was troubling. Reviewing The Ruling Class on Frum Forum, he referred to the author as a “grumpy old man,” neglecting the possibility that there was something to be grumpy about. He faulted the book for being short on substance. But clearly, it was intended to raise an alarm rather than provide a paradigmatic analysis. Frum worries about the Republican Party. He frets over the loss of the young and educated, never suspecting that their education may be to blame — that academics tend to produce Democrats. Professor Codevilla perceives the relationship between the universities, the power elite, and its preferred political home — the Democratic Party.

Why haven’t Republicans — members of America’s “conservative” party — acted to expose the incompetence of the Ruling Class? Because they’re salivating to join that class.

But he isn’t traveling a fresh path. Consider a comment from Democracy in America. In the chapter discussing European governments, de Tocqueville added a footnote, which I quote in part: “As the functions of the central government are multiplied, the number of officials serving it increases in proportion. They form a state within each state, and since they share the stability of government, increasingly take the place of the aristocracy.” Earlier in the same masterpiece, I find the following: “When I arrived in the United States, I discovered with astonishment that good qualities were common among the ruled, but rare among the rulers.” Codevilla refers to the Ruling Class as a bunch of “pretentious, incompetent, losers” — in other words, they lack good qualities.

In Free to Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman warned us of a new power elite: “The new class, enshrined in the universities, the news media, and especially the federal bureaucracy, has become the most powerful of special interests. The new class has repeatedly succeeded in imposing its views, despite widespread public objection, and often despite specific legislative enactments to the contrary.”

Earlier, James Q. Wilson had described the history and development of the federal bureaucracy in his essay “The Rise of the Bureaucratic State.” He identified the fundamental problem — the transfer of authority from elected representatives to an “unaccountable administrative realm.” In the process, client relationships develop between certain sectors of the economy and government agencies. Regulatory agencies gain broad powers derived from the need to make “binding choices without clear standards of choice.” Thus the “new class” forms bureaucratic alliances with and gains power over the private sector. Wilson pointed out the fact that all democratic regimes tend to enlarge the administrative side of government and move “resources” from the private to the public sector. This is the very centralizing tendency in democratic governments that so concerned de Tocqueville.

Perhaps, before we decide on an anti-Ruling Class strategy, it might be a good idea to consult another critic of government, the late John T. Flynn. In The Road Ahead: America’s Creeping Revolution (1949), he foresaw what now so obviously confronts the republic — a conspiracy to increase the size and power of government. Flynn saw the conspirators as American versions of the British Fabian Socialists. He drew up a list of ten imperatives that he believed necessary to halt the drift toward socialism. I present them here without the author’s elaborations, though the latter are well worth consulting. All are contained in the final chapter of The Road Ahead. In the 60 years since this remarkable chapter first appeared, America’s creeping revolution has crept on and on, with much of the country either indifferent to, or benefiting from, the encroachments of government. This, in Flynn’s words, is how to stop them:

I. We must put human freedom once again as the first of our demands. There can be no security in a nation without freedom.

II. We must stop apologizing for our Capitalist society.

III. Not one more step into socialism. Hold the line for the American way of life.

IV. Get rid of compromising leaders.

V. We must recognize that we are in the midst of a revolution — that it is war — and that we must begin to fight it as such.

VI. We must put an end to the orgy of spending that is rapidly bankrupting the nation.

VII. We must put an end to crisis government in America.

VIII. We must stop “planning” for socialism and begin planning to make our free system of private enterprise operate at its maximum capacity.

IX. We must set about rebuilding in its integrity our republican system of government.

X. We cannot depend on any political party to save us. We must build a power outside the parties so strong that the parties will be compelled to yield to its demands.

Any questions?

Flynn, John T. The Road Ahead: America’s Creeping Revolution. New York: Devon-Adair, 1949.
Friedman, Milton, and Rose Friedman. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. New York: Avon, 1981.
Frum, David. “How the Elites Became Tea Party Enemy #1.” Frum Forum (Sept. 19, 2010).
Kurtz, Howard. “Conservative David Frum Loses Think-Tank Job After Criticizing GOP.” Washington Post ( March 26, 2010)
“Mike Wallace Interview: Fulton Lewis, Jr., 2/1/58.” The Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas at Austin.
Mises, Ludwig von. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, 3rd. Revised Ed. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1966.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Trans. George Lawrence. Ed. J. P. Mayer. New York: Anchor, 1969.
Wilson, James Q. “The Rise of the Bureaucratic State.” National Affairs (Fall 1975).

Editor's Note: Review of "The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It," by Angelo M. Codevilla. Beaufort Books, 2010, 147 pages.

Share This

Victories Against the War on Drugs


Washington and Colorado have become the first states to pass laws legalizing marijuana. In the election just ended, Washington's Initiative 502 and Colorado's Amendment 64 each are passing by about 55% of the vote. A similar measure in Oregon is failing, with only 45% of the vote. Massachusetts became the 17th medical marijuana state by passing Question 3, with 63% support.

Why Washington and Colorado? Was it because these were the two states in which Libertarian nominee John Hospers made the ballot in 1972? Probably not.

Washington and Colorado were among the earliest medical marijuana states, with ballot measures passing in 1998 in Washington and in 2000 in Colorado. They were not the first, however. California was first, with a ballot measure for medical marijuana in 1996. California voters were offered a legalization measure in 2010, and they rejected it.

Each case comes with specific reasons, and I can speak only for those in Washington, where I live. Medical marijuana has come out of the closet here, with open "dispensaries" all over Seattle. Police shut them down in Spokane and some other cities, but in liberal Seattle they thrive. We have a "Hempfest" here — a huge public music-and-weed celebration, every August. In the middle of the last decade, Seattle voters approved a measure making marijuana possession the lowest priority crime, and the new city attorney, Pete Holmes, stopped prosecuting simple possession cases in 2010.

Still, legalization was a battle — though not so much with the supporters of prohibition. Two more radical efforts to legalize, in 2010 and 2011, didn't get enough signatures to make the ballot. These measures would have repealed all state marijuana laws affecting people over age 18 and replaced them with nothing. The sponsors said the measures were bulletproof to federal challenge, because they created no law. They simply erased. But to Seattle liberals, having no regulation of the private marijuana market was too radical, and the sponsors could raise almost no money.

Then came the mainstream effort for I-502. It was not full legalization. It legalized possession of one ounce for adults over 21, continued the ban on private growing, and ordered the state to set up a system of licensing commercial growers, distributors and marijuana shops. The measure was backed by City Attorney Holmes, a Democrat; the former George W. Bush-appointed US Attorney in Seattle, John McKay, a Republican; travel entrepreneur Rick Steves, who has written extensively about Amsterdam; and the ACLU of Washington. The effort raised lots of money, got on the ballot, and was cheered on by the state's largest newspaper, the Seattle Times.

Mainstream politicians, however, were wary of it: Gov. Christine Gregoire, Democrat, opposed it, as did the Democrat and Republican candidates to replace her — because the measure conflicts with federal law.

Legalization was a battle — though not so much with the supporters of prohibition.

Initiative 502's most vocal enemies were the sponsors of the more radical measures of the two years before. Their beef was that 502 creates a "per se" standard of intoxication of 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood. They noted that the Colorado initiative did not have this. They said the standard was unscientific, and would cause medical marijuana patients to lose their right to drive. These opponents had support in the medical marijuana community, part of which was against marijuana prohibition but for a "no" on 502.

The more mainstream supporters of 502 argued that the 5 ng/ml standard was not the main issue, and that legalization was. Vote for legalization, they argued, and if 5 ng/ml is the wrong standard, we'll fix it later.

The conservatives' argument against 502 was that smoking marijuana is bad, and that legalizing it for over-21 adults would encourage more people, especially more teens, to smoke it. They didn't spend any money on ads. And they lost.

The Colorado and Washington initiatives both appear to conflict with federal law. Now we shall see what the federal government does about it.


Share This

Toward Prohibition’s End


Marijuana prohibition is coming to an end. I see it in my neighborhood, as a storefront is vacated by an architect and occupied by a purveyor of medical cannabis. I see it politically. Legalization is coming, though exactly when and how is not yet clear.

Washington, my home state, is one of 16 medical-marijuana states (and one of the five that have allowed it since the 1990s, the others being California, Oregon, Alaska, and Maine). That leaves 34 non-medical-marijuana states. Still, the list of medical-marijuana states keeps growing: Arizona in 2010, as well as the District of Columbia, and Delaware in 2011.

The opponents of medical marijuana argue that it is a step toward full legalization, and they are right. Politically it is. But the next step is a tricky one.

The problem is the federal law. When California legalized medical cannabis in 1996, it set up a conflict of federalism. Under the Constitution, particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, there ought not to be any federal law about marijuana, but there is. The Controlled Substances Act exists, and the courts uphold it.

In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled on the federal claim of power over marijuana as medicine. That was the Raich case. A prominent libertarian legal theorist, Randy Barnett, argued at the high court against the federal position, and he had a fine argument. But he lost. There were sharp dissents by justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas, but the court sided with the government.

Having pushed aside the Constitution, however, the Bush administration failed to press its advantage in the field — at least, not for a decisive victory. Then, in 2009 came the Obama administration. In October of that year, the Justice Department said there would be no federal prosecutions of doctors or patients who were following their state’s medical-cannabis laws.

That was taken as more of a favorable signal than it was. In California, storefront dispensaries were opened with big images of marijuana leaves and green crosses in their windows. But the memo had not made any promises to suppliers of marijuana. By 2011 dispensaries had opened in several states, and US attorneys drew the line. They sent letters warning that any business in marijuana would not be tolerated.

I can report what happened in Washington state. It had one of the earliest medical marijuana laws, but it was a law with holes in it. Some of the holes favored the users. For example, the law allowed a provider to serve only one patient. Dispensaries had opened, some of them serving hundreds of patients, on the bold assertion that they were serving one patient at a time. The state law was just vague enough to make this plausible.

No matter what the Obama people privately believe about marijuana, their priority is his reelection, which means not being branded as the Dope Smokers’ President.

The law had another hole that was dangerous for users. It allowed them to raise a medical defense at trial but said nothing about protection from arrest. There was a case about this: State v.Fry. In Colville, a small town in the state’s rural northeastern corner, the cops had come to the door of one Jason Fry, a man who had been kicked in the head three times by a horse. Fry had anxiety attacks and smoked marijuana to calm himself. The cops had heard about it, and at his doorstep they could smell it. Fry showed them his doctor’s letter giving him permission to use it, but they phoned a judge, got a warrant, searched his home, and busted him for having more plants than the state Department of Health allowed.

At the Washington Supreme Court, the question was whether the judge had probable cause to issue the warrant. Only one justice — libertarian Richard Sanders — sided with Fry, arguing that arrest protection was implicit in the measure passed by voters. The other eight sided with the state.

Under the regime of the past few years, in the liberal parts of Washington, particularly around Seattle, medical users have been mostly OK, and in rural counties they have had to take their chances.

The state senator from my Seattle district, one of the most liberal districts in the state, offered a bill to make sense of all this. It would have set up state licensing and regulation of growers, processors, and dispensers of medical marijuana, bringing them into the open. It also called for a voluntary state registry for medical users, to give them protection from arrest. The Democrat-controlled legislature passed the bill and sent to Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire. Then the US attorneys in Seattle and Spokane, both of them long-time Democrats, wrote to the governor, warning that under federal law any state employee who licensed a marijuana business would be liable to federal prosecution.

Nowhere had the federal government prosecuted state employees for following state medical-marijuana law. It was possible, but it would be a direct federal-state confrontation. Was the Obama administration ready for that? The press noted that the governor, who previously was the state’s attorney general, might have a personal motive to comply with the Justice Department’s request: she is in her second term, is set to leave office at the end of 2012, and might like a law-related job in a second Obama administration. Whatever her motive, she cited the threat and vetoed the parts of the bill for licensing of marijuana suppliers.

After her veto, the US attorney in Spokane ordered all dispensaries closed, and joined with Spokane Police to raid the ones that defied him. As I write, he has not yet charged anyone with a crime. In liberal Seattle, where voters in 2003 had made simple possession of marijuana the lowest priority for police, the US attorney has so far stood aside while the Democratic city attorney and the Republican county prosecutor — both of them elected officials — work to keep the dispensaries open.

Parallel to the push for medical cannabis has been a drive for general legalization. It has begun in the early medical-marijuana states, and using the same tool as was used in those states: the voter initiative.

The voters of California, who were the first to approve medical marijuana by public vote, had another such vote in 2010. It was Proposition 19, a measure to allow people over 21 to cultivate, transport, and possess marijuana for personal use, and to allow cities to license commercial grows and dispensaries. Prop 19 garnered 46.5% of the vote. It failed, but not by much: a switch by fewer than 4% of the voters would have put it over the top.

What will state and local politicians do if their constituents vote for legalization and the feds oppose them?

In any complicated measure such as Prop 19, there are many arguments to convince people to vote no. There was the argument about protecting kids, though marijuana is available on the black market now and the measure wouldn’t have legalized it for them. Always there is the argument that the measure is flawed, whether the principle is right or not. In California, Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposed the measure on the ground that it didn’t define an illegal THC threshold for drivers. In California, several arguments were made by recipients of federal money. A school superintendent argued that legal marijuana would prevent the schools from meeting the requirements for federal grants. Business interests argued that they would lose federal contracts because they could no longer guarantee drug-free workplaces. Thus federal contracts and grants become weapons in political campaigns.

In any case it was close, and in the matter of social change, it is common to fail the first time. If you want to win, you try again.

Washington state was behind California, but not by much.

In 2010, two marijuana defense attorneys wrote a voter initiative that would have repealed all state marijuana law for adults over 18. The measure had no regulations in it. The organizers explained that if it had regulations in it, the federal government could challenge them in the courts under the doctrine of federal preemption, and have the regulations and the repeal thrown out. But a simple repeal would leave nothing for the feds to challenge.

One of the attorneys, Douglas Hiatt, said that was how New York and some other states had undermined liquor prohibition. It had worked, and the smart thing was to do it that way again.

The strategy made sense legally, but politically it didn’t work. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which favors legalization, refused to back it because it included no regulations. The pro-legalization forces split. No prominent politicians stood up for the measure, the backers couldn’t raise any money to pay signature gatherers, and they fell short on signatures.

Also in 2010, a state representative from my district introduced a bill in the legislature to legalize and regulate marijuana. It died without a hearing.

In 2011, the two defense attorneys collected signatures for their initiative again, with the same result: they had too little money and fell short. My representative ran her bill again; this time it was endorsed by the state’s largest newspaper, the Seattle Times, which came out for full legalization. The bill failed once more, but it got a hearing, some respectable people testified in its favor, and they were covered in the press.

At the end of the legislative session, a well-connected group, including ACLU-WA, travel entrepreneur Rick Steves, and the former Republican US attorney in Seattle, John McKay, announced a legalization initiative aimed at the state ballot in November 2012. It has regulations in it, including a tight limit on THC in the bloodstream of drivers. But it is legalization for adults over 21 — and backing it are the names to attract money, and to assure wavering voters that it is OK to vote yes.

So it is in Washington state. According to NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), it appears that legalization measures will be on the ballot in 2012 in California and Colorado, and perhaps Oregon, Ohio, and Massachusetts.

These efforts are not welcomed by the Obama government. In the matter of civil liberties Obama has not led a liberal administration, and medical marijuana, or any marijuana, is not an issue he cares about. And no matter what the Obama people privately believe about marijuana, their priority is his reelection, which means not being branded as the Dope Smokers’ President.

So far, major politicians have mostly not supported legalization. California’s two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, opposed legalization, as did Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democrat who replaced him, Jerry Brown. Washington state’s two liberal Democratic senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, have given no support to legalization, nor has its Democratic governor. But what will politicians like this do if their people vote for legalization and the feds oppose them?

The smart ones will support their constituents. And that will start having an effect in Washington, D.C., where the endgame will play out.

This is now looking more and more likely. Voters in some state are going to pass a bill of legalization. And before that, the fight may come over state licensing of growers and dispensers of medical cannabis. Already the federal government is challenged by the dispensaries, and already it fights back, but cautiously and opportunistically. In the medical marijuana states it has been reluctant to haul in the proprietor of a storefront clinic, charge him with the federal crime of trafficking in forbidden drugs, and ask a jury to convict him and a judge to imprison him. If it is to win this battle, it will have to do that and make it the rule.

Generally the feds have acted where they have support from local politicians. But in some places, including where I live, they no longer have politicians’ support because they no longer have the public’s support. And where medical cannabis is legalized and used, support for prohibition erodes. It is gone among the young, and cannabis for people with cancer and back pain now erodes it among the old.

Expect fireworks ahead.

Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2020 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.