|
There is
nothing more startling than the sudden perception of the obvious.
The other day I had such a moment. It involves two items that
have been in the news quite a bit lately: drugs and gasoline.
Most of
us are familiar with the rising price of gasoline. In the Midwest
especially, prices rose dramatically over a very short period
of time, prompting Federal investigations into possible price-gouging
by big oil companies. Only the recent promise of a price reduction
by the Saudi government has staved off legislative remedies, for
the time being at least.
While all
this has been going on, Congress found the time to pass an ''emergency''
spending bill that among other things allocates $1 billion to
help Colombia reduce its coca crop, which accounts for 90 percent
of the cocaine and about two-thirds of the heroin that reaches
the United States. The idea is to give the Colombian government
the means to more aggressively patrol the coca growing regions,
regions which are under the control of rebels who rely on coca
as a source of income to finance their military actions against
the Colombian government.
Here's where
the sudden grasping of the obvious comes into play. The availability
of gasoline and drugs is a simple matter of supply and demand.
Reduce the demand for gasoline and reduce the demand for drugs,
two things will happen. First, the price of gasoline will drop
as supplies of crude rise. Second, the reduced demand for drugs
will lead to smaller crops, thereby reducing the income of the
rebels.
Simple enough.
But as we saw with the Gulf War and now in Colombia, the United
States is much more willing to go after the supply side, even
if it means sending American men, money and machines abroad. Why
is that?
Why won't
this country tackle the demand side? Wouldn't the money we are
ready to spend in Colombia be better spent providing cures for
those who are already addicted to drugs and preventing the addiction
of those who are not? Wouldn't it be better to produce even more
fuel-efficient cars and to make the use of public transportation
even more attractive and affordable?
Instead,
we choose to deal with the problem on foreign soil instead of
our own. The answer lies in the politics of the two problems.
It would
take a brave politician to tell America's middle class that in
the midst of unparalleled prosperity your country was asking you
to make the ultimate sacrifice by driving a smaller, more fuel-efficient
car. ''GIVE UP YOUR SPORTS UTE" is not a winning slogan. I can
see the bumper stickers now: ''You can have my Ute when you pry
the steering wheel from my cold dead hands.''
And is it
realistic to expect the Republicans--who couldn't even see it
in them to approve a harmless program like midnight basketball,
and who think the answer to the drug problem is to build more
jails--is it realistic to think they will suddenly fund major
programs to reduce addiction, to treat addicts instead of imprisoning
them, to give inner city and suburban kids better education and
more opportunity so that drugs don't look like the only way out?
It is much
simpler for the politicians to send a billion dollars to Colombia
so they can burn coca crops. It is much simpler for the politicians
to blame OPEC for pumping up the price at the pump.
The recent
move by the Saudis is an interesting gambit. Saudi Arabia suddenly
broke ranks with its fellow OPEC members and announced that it
was increasing production of crude oil, with the aim of driving
the price down from $30 a barrel to around $25 a barrel. It said
the move was in the best long-term interests of the oil-producing
cartel.
Now why
do you suppose that is so? I think the Saudis displayed a shrewd
understanding of the American mindset. As Americans, we are addicted
to our pleasures, licit and illicit, and addicts won't voluntarily
give up that which they are addicted to unless under extreme duress.
Knowing
this, the Saudis made a calculated decision that it is better
to lower the price so that we remain hooked on their commodity
rather than letting high prices drive us to the desperate measure
of finding an alternative. Our politicians don't want to face
the political consequences of conservation measures that might
inconvenience voters, and the Saudis, who are completely reliant
on oil revenues to maintain their hold on power, are willing to
let the price drop to maintain market share. All in all, it a
perfect marriage of convenience between the dealer and the enabler.
The politics
of the "drug war" are equally squalid. Addiction to drugs is an
illness, just like alcoholism or cigarette smoking. Funny thing,
though. We don't send alcoholics to prison for getting drunk in
their own home. We don't put you in the slammer for having a cigarette.
But smoke a joint or use cocaine or crack or heroin and you become
part of the largest prison population of any nation on the planet.
Politicians
who have made a career out of decrying the evils of drugs aren't
about to come out and say that the junkie on the corner isn't
really that much different from your Uncle Al who pounds back
a six-pack of brewskis every night. Politicians who have made
a career out of sending junkies to jail aren't about to turn around
and start coddling them with treatment programs.
So let's
send $1 billion to a bunch of generals in Colombia. Let's send
helicopters and advisors, and let's kid ourselves that the Colombian
Army and the right-wing militias won't use them as a cover to
go after their political rivals.
Let's keep
doing what we have been doing. Let's turn our gaze outward rather
than inward. Let's search the globe for scapegoats and surrogates.
Sooner or later it may get bad enough to where we Americans have
to face the problem. Until then we will do what we always do.
We will buy our way out of it.
Copyright
© 2000 G.J. Lau All Rights Reserved
G.J. Lau
toils deep in the bowels of the Washington bureaucracy. A long-time
observer of American politics and mores, he now edits his own
e-zine, Singleminded, which can be found at http://www.singmind.com/singleminded/
.
comment?
discuss this article on our discussion
board
|