Because They are Not the Same Thing
2009 December 23
by David Swindle
Read Mary Grabar's original Pajamas Media article here.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/libertarians-need-to-rethink-support-for-drug-legalization/
Read David Swindle's NewsReal rebuttal here.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/12/23/2009/12/22/pro-drug-war-conservatives-need-to-rethink-er-remember-the-role-of-government/
Read Mary Grabar's NewsReal response here.
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/12/23/marijuana-conservatism-and-the-culture-wars/
Mary Grabar's response in our debate about drug criminalization has
clarified her opposition to marijuana legalization in an important
way. She concluded her essay with these words:
As I see it, this debate really is about more than whether or not
you smoke a joint in your living roomwhich for all practical
purposes neither I nor the cop on the street much cares about. What
I do care about is this one more capitulation in the Culture Wars.
Mary is certainly intelligent and reasonable enough to acknowledge
what is plainly obvious: marijuana is not functionally different in
its effects than alcohol or tobacco and we should not be too
concerned with adults using it responsibly in their own homes.
So why keep it banned? Why all the numerous arguments highlighting
marijuana's negative qualities? Simple: because in Mary's estimation
to allow legalization would be to grant a victory to the
counterculture. And, well, we as conservatives can't have that. Or can we?
Here's an argument that might be rather counter-intuitive:
conservatism and counterculture are in no way mutually exclusive.
I've blogged about this before here in talking about author Douglas
Rushkoff's brand of Robert Anton Wilson-influenced libertarian counterculture:
"Wait a second," some people must be thinking. "Isn't the
counterculture the same as the Left?"
Sort of. Not really. No. The Left as defined by Discover the
Networks and the Freedom Center is a political movement. The
"counterculture" is a cultural movement. The two frequently overlap
(they certainly did in the '60s when both had their heyday), and
countercultural thinkers and leftist thinkers are often friendly.
(Hence, Rushkoff frequently recruits feminist author Naomi Wolf to
write blurbs for his books.) Counterculturalists are more about
shifting the culture, not the political system. They promote their
art, music, film, drugs, sexuality, spirituality, and philosophical
ideas while often passing on the political sphere.
A good example of the difference is in the person of David Horowitz.
In the '60s he was a leftist, not a counterculturalist. He argued for
a Marxist political system while basically adopting the cultural
norms (nuclear family, no dope smoking) of American society.
Is the Conservative Movement a political movement or a cultural
movement? Is it about conserving the political ideas of the founders
or the Judeo-Christian, "traditional" culture of the founders? (This
is hardly an either/or decision.) And if it is about preserving a
traditional culture, is it going to use the tyrannical power of
government to do it? (And spend billions of taxpayer dollars?)
My answers to these questions should be obvious. I'm concerned about
defeating the Left's political machinations. And that should be the
primary concern of conservatives. It's not pot-smoking
counterculturalists that are sending Guantanamo detainees to
Illinois. The push for socialized medicine comes from leftists.
(Harry Reid and Howard Dean are in no way "counterculture.") And the
political fight against these problems can only be won by a
functioning coalition comprised of many peoples with many cultures
who are united by a common political understanding of the role of
government the one I articulated in my previous post.
Mary wrote in her rebuttal that,
We lost the last election because we lost the culture war.
No we didn't. John McCain lost to Barack Obama because of politics,
not culture. Obama was a more exciting candidate who ran a much more
effective campaign. It's that simple.
A conservatism that can win is one which understands itself and
defines itself as a political movement, not a cultural one. To do
otherwise is to begin to destroy a functioning coalition that has
been vital to defending America since Barry Goldwater, William F.
Buckley Jr., and Ronald Reagan brought it together in the 20th
century. Conservatism must take the same approach to culture as the
Constitution does neutrality. Such an attitude worked for the
document which has guided and protected our country for centuries and
it will work for the Movement who has the same objective.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment