Why Does This Matter?
Updated
Why is it news that someone was arrested (did not do time) for peddling an extremely small amount of marijuana in the 70s -- and why does that make him persona non gratis in politics today?
Ex-Con, screams ABC. Are you really an "ex-con" if you never serve time? And who in his right mind truly thinks 11 pounds of maryjane is even worth calling "dealing"? Oh, right, a nation where DEA agents arrest people for medical marijuana, despite state laws making such use legal.
Is this "news" because Fred Thompson (R) is a "law and order" presidential candidate? Is this "news" because the Republican party launched the "war on drugs" and Philip Martin (the druggie "ex-con") is giving time and money to a Republican candidate? In other words, party hypocrisy?
Is this "news" because Republican officials and candidates (the party?) often take the position that felons who have served their time do not deserve to regain their right to vote?
"Only Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia, which all happen to be former Confederate states, cling to lifetime bans that can only be changed through individual appeals," according to the Boston Globe.
"Felon disenfranchisement has long given Republicans a considerable boost at the polls in Florida; if the state's ex-cons had been allowed to vote in 2000, George W. Bush would now be the commissioner of baseball," according to Salon. To whit:
"In 2000, thousands of people who were qualified to vote were turned away from Florida's polls because their names were erroneously purged from voter rolls; they weren't felons, and were possibly model citizens whose only crime was having a name similar to that of someone else who'd once committed a felony. In 2004, the same thing nearly happened again. Nevertheless -- or maybe as a consequence -- Jeb Bush, Crist's predecessor in the governor's office, remained a strong believer in restricting felons' rights."
Is it "news" because "drug crimes" (and, thus, an associated stigma) have mushroomed since the Reagan era? More from the Globe:
The number of drug offenders in jails and prisons has grown eleven-fold since 1980 to 450,000. The imbalance has reached unconscionable levels. In federal prisons, only 13 percent of inmates are there for violent crimes compared with 55 percent who are there for drug offenses. In 1980, only 25 percent of federal inmates were drug offenders.
Or is it "news" simply because political discourse today consists of personality, not issues?
Update
Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice reminds us that this "gotcha moment" reflects America's media (and blogger) fixation on past statements, past personal history: doesn't matter whether it is or is not a "huge political deal." Gandelman says "smart" politicos know and plan for this. By that logic, Clinton and Giuliani are in the same "coulda been smarter" boat as Thompson.
I still think that media or opposition focus on "gotcha" moments trivializes the political process and undermines civic engagement.
Comments
Good question! I’ve been wondering why this is considered newsworthy myself. Our last two presidents both smoked pot–our current president could have conceivably bought it from this guy back in ‘79, for all I know.
But then in some ways this just goes to show how ridiculous the war on drugs is. I can’t imagine why this will hurt Thompson.
It matters that Mr. Martin broke the law, but what matters WAY more is that he is said to have cleaned his act up and turned his life around.
He should be commended for that, not thrown to the wolves.
I wouldn’t have voted against Mr. Thompson because of Mr. Martin’s past, but I would consider the fact that Mr. Thompson didn’t do right by him as a negative if/when considering why I should or shouldn’t vote for Mr. Thompson.
Charles Whealton
Hi, Tom – Thanks!
Hi, Charles – do you think Thompson did not “do right” by Martin? I thought he remained pretty darn loyal. What did I miss?
I’ll keep it as short as I can – because I could go on for weeks about this.
Mr. Thompson should have NEVER accepted Mr. Martin’s resignation.
Mr. Martin has cleaned up his act, and as long as he’s breaking no laws in doing so, is entitled to take part in the political process.
I consider “the media” highly unethical for even using this as a story, but I fault Mr. Thompson for basically letting them (”the media”) do it without standing up for the guy.
He could have sent a much more memorable message by NOT accepting his friend/colleague’s resignation.
Instead, he sent a message that says it’s OK to continue kicking a person even after they’ve paid their debt to society. How many years later?
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree he was loyal.
Charles Whealton