Saturday, March 10, 2012

Strange bedfellows...the case for bipartisanship

If I were to pick one person on the political scene that I disagree with the most, Pat Robertson would certainly be a contender. And yet this week he re-affirmed something he's said in the past that I agree with.

“I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol,” Mr. Robertson said in an interview on Wednesday. “I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”

On the other hand, if I were to pick the person on the political scene I most often agree with, President Obama would be tops on that list. And yet, on this one issue, I am more in agreement with Pat Robertson than I am with him.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs later clarified Mr. Obama's position: "The president opposes the legalization of marijuana…he does not think that's the right plan for America."

What does that tell us?

First of all, it points to the danger of single issue politics. I can't imagine anything much more disastrous than Pat Robertson in the White House. On the flip side, I can't imagine anyone better than President Obama right now.

But secondly, it also tells us that we never know where allies on single issues might come from. The truth is that as long as people like Senator McConnell remain committed to total obstruction all the time, there aren't likely to be any bipartisan successes when it comes to legislators. But as this one demonstrates, we never know when opportunities might arise elsewhere.

6 comments:

  1. It tells me that Robertson is probably telling the truth and that Obama is telling the "political" truth. A serious presidential candidate cannot come out in favor of the legalization of weed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. But if Robertson can influence the fundies in the US to advocate for stopping this silly war on drugs, that political truth might change.

      Delete
    2. That political truth will change in about 10 years. By then the right wing influence will have weakened enough to where legalization can be pushed on the federal level.

      Vic78

      Delete
  2. While I do favor the legalization, it is worrisome that even then there are unscrupulous purveyors who taint the product. We all know from the experiences with capitalist greed overall this happens in the conventional marketplace. It's foolish to think it can't or won't happen with marijuana. Until we can also REGULATE the product, legalization is risky to us, our health, our kids - capitalists simply cannot be assumed to be good folks no matter what they sell. It's going to take more than Pat's prayers to keep us all safe from greed. And BTW - the fact he 'gets it' just means that even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The infrastructure to grow your own has been in place for decades. There is no way that a company like Montesanto can change that. There will be more than enough local sellers to where you won't even have to worry about Wal-Mart blunts. The Wal-Mart weed will be cheaper for sure.

      Vic78

      Delete
    2. True, but it's impossible to regulate an illegal product. One of the strongest arguments for legalization of marijuana, prostitution, etc. is that that would make it possible to regulate them and thus make them, not perfectly safe (nothing is) but as safe for all concerned as other legal goods and services are, which would be a vast improvement over the present situation.

      Delete