|
(This article was originally published in
August 2000)
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 that 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 Republicanswho 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 jailsis 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/
.
|