Taming the Public Temper (op-ed)
Hawthorne wrote: The public is despotic in its temper. (Meaning: When morally outraged the public will support extreme measure for an instant remedy of a social ill.)
Recently President Barack Obama commuted the sentences of 46 non-violent drug offenders. Then at the NAACP annual convention he said, “Long mandatory minimum sentences that are in place should be reduced -- or discarded entirely.”
“Low-level drug dealers,” Obama continued, “Owe a debt to society, but not a life sentence or a 20 years prison term.”
Historian Michelle Alexander has referred to long mandatory minimums as “The New Jim Crow” and stated, “The drug war was motivated by racial politics … it was launched as a way of trying to appeal to poor and working class white voters, as a way to say, “We’re going to get tough on them, put them back in their place.”
Is this true? Black Americans have a proud tradition of protesting unjust laws. When was the march on Washington against the drug war? Alexander’s remark is revisionist history only accepted in the United States of Amnesia. Because the moral outrage of the black community initiated these policies not white efforts to put blacks in their place.
The black community declared war on drug before the Reagan administration.
In 1970 Ebony magazine published an article titled, “Blacks Declare War on dope.” It stated that most community groups agree that the first offensive must be against black pushers and distributors. The previous year 224 New York teen-agers died from heroin overdoses or drug-related infections.
In 1973 New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller announced laws that set the standard for tough sentences for low-level non-violent drug offenders. Rockefeller was joined at the podium by prominent black leaders of New York City. The leader of the Harlem based People’s Civic and Welfare Association said, “Our young people are dying, they’re being destroyed, and unless you back this bill New York is doomed.”
In the 1980’s crack-cocaine hit American inner cities, and the violence associated with that drug trade led to black leaders becoming despotic in their temper and in 1986 the majority of the Congressional Black Caucus supported federal legislation that enacted extreme mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Charles Rangel a prominent member of the Black Caucus wanted harsher penalties.
In 1989 Ebony published another article. It featured Charles Rangel. The magazine saluted Rangel as “The Front-line General in the War on Drugs.” Rangel accused President George H. W. Bush of not doing enough to stop drugs. Rangel said, “We need outrage. I don’t know what is behind the lackadaisical attitudes toward drugs, but I do know that the American people have made it abundantly clear: They are outraged by the indifference of the US government to this problem.”
Obama doesn’t want to be lackadaisical and urged congress to pass a sentencing reform bill by the end of the year. But reducing sentencing only remedies the long term consequences of congressional extremities. (Taming the temper tantrum caused by a previous temper tantrum.) The underlining issue is cutting cost. Today, there are over 1.5 million inmates in federal and state prisons costing $80 billion a year.
But if saving money is the priority what happened to the initial moral outrage? America has grown tolerant of drugs. And if moral outrage has turned into moral relativity then congressional leaders need to discuss legalization not reform.
Legalization is not establishing a dangerous precedent. Drugs were legal before the 1914 Harrison act. Then in 1919 alcohol prohibition was enacted, which led to the rise of mobsters like Al Capone, but Prohibition was eventual repealed, which sent the Capone types searching for another illegal substance that had the same demand as alcohol.
When Ronald Reagan was asked about the war on poverty he said, “We fought a war and Poverty won.” When Obama is asked if there is still a war on drugs I wonder if he’d say, “No, drugs won.” Or “Yes, but the Congressional Black Caucus lost.”
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 7/22/15
Recently President Barack Obama commuted the sentences of 46 non-violent drug offenders. Then at the NAACP annual convention he said, “Long mandatory minimum sentences that are in place should be reduced -- or discarded entirely.”
“Low-level drug dealers,” Obama continued, “Owe a debt to society, but not a life sentence or a 20 years prison term.”
Historian Michelle Alexander has referred to long mandatory minimums as “The New Jim Crow” and stated, “The drug war was motivated by racial politics … it was launched as a way of trying to appeal to poor and working class white voters, as a way to say, “We’re going to get tough on them, put them back in their place.”
Is this true? Black Americans have a proud tradition of protesting unjust laws. When was the march on Washington against the drug war? Alexander’s remark is revisionist history only accepted in the United States of Amnesia. Because the moral outrage of the black community initiated these policies not white efforts to put blacks in their place.
The black community declared war on drug before the Reagan administration.
In 1970 Ebony magazine published an article titled, “Blacks Declare War on dope.” It stated that most community groups agree that the first offensive must be against black pushers and distributors. The previous year 224 New York teen-agers died from heroin overdoses or drug-related infections.
In 1973 New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller announced laws that set the standard for tough sentences for low-level non-violent drug offenders. Rockefeller was joined at the podium by prominent black leaders of New York City. The leader of the Harlem based People’s Civic and Welfare Association said, “Our young people are dying, they’re being destroyed, and unless you back this bill New York is doomed.”
In the 1980’s crack-cocaine hit American inner cities, and the violence associated with that drug trade led to black leaders becoming despotic in their temper and in 1986 the majority of the Congressional Black Caucus supported federal legislation that enacted extreme mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Charles Rangel a prominent member of the Black Caucus wanted harsher penalties.
In 1989 Ebony published another article. It featured Charles Rangel. The magazine saluted Rangel as “The Front-line General in the War on Drugs.” Rangel accused President George H. W. Bush of not doing enough to stop drugs. Rangel said, “We need outrage. I don’t know what is behind the lackadaisical attitudes toward drugs, but I do know that the American people have made it abundantly clear: They are outraged by the indifference of the US government to this problem.”
Obama doesn’t want to be lackadaisical and urged congress to pass a sentencing reform bill by the end of the year. But reducing sentencing only remedies the long term consequences of congressional extremities. (Taming the temper tantrum caused by a previous temper tantrum.) The underlining issue is cutting cost. Today, there are over 1.5 million inmates in federal and state prisons costing $80 billion a year.
But if saving money is the priority what happened to the initial moral outrage? America has grown tolerant of drugs. And if moral outrage has turned into moral relativity then congressional leaders need to discuss legalization not reform.
Legalization is not establishing a dangerous precedent. Drugs were legal before the 1914 Harrison act. Then in 1919 alcohol prohibition was enacted, which led to the rise of mobsters like Al Capone, but Prohibition was eventual repealed, which sent the Capone types searching for another illegal substance that had the same demand as alcohol.
When Ronald Reagan was asked about the war on poverty he said, “We fought a war and Poverty won.” When Obama is asked if there is still a war on drugs I wonder if he’d say, “No, drugs won.” Or “Yes, but the Congressional Black Caucus lost.”
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 7/22/15
Comments
Post a Comment