Reason Writers Around the Country: Radley Balko Speaking at Netroots

On Friday, Reason senior editor Radley Balko will give the libertarian perspective on a panel about the drug war and law enforcement at this years Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh. Details:

Establishment support for the drug war is eroding on the left and the right. On the left, the Netroots has pushed liberals to reconsider hardline policies forged in the '80s. On the right, a shrinking Republican party is returning to small government roots. On the ground, cities such as High Point, N.C. are experimenting with pragmatic approaches. What will a new drug policy look like, and how can the Netroots help bring it about? This panel addresses it from four perspectives: academic, liberal, libertarian and law enforcement, highlighting the unusual new political convergence.

Comments

[WWJGD]

Into the lion's den, eh? Good luck. I believe it'll be broadcast on CSPAN so I should be watching eagerly.

[SugarFree]

On the right, a shrinking Republican party is returning to small government roots.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Is the whole talk going to be stand up comedy?

[Kyle Jordan]

Give em Hell Balko! And just remember...

Crush your enemies
See them driven before you
And hear the lamentation of their women

[David Weigel]

My God, he's worse than Dave Weigel!

[Nick]

Academic=Liberal=Law Enforcement vs Radley. Kick ass, Balko.

[Nick]

That should have read: Kick some statist ass, Balko. But I guess it works either way.

[Xeones]

Wait, so "small government roots" means "militaristic theocracy?" No wonder my Democrat friends give me such strange looks when this stuff comes up!

[Warren]

Uh guys. If you RTFA (or in this case Panel Participants Pedigrees) you'll see that there's no debate here. It's a panel discussion of four guys that want to end the WOD. They just have different motivations.

It's nice that we can put together such a panel. I suppose that is progress. Still the WOD is alive and well and costing us billions when we can least afford it.

[Pro Libertate]

I'm on a Republican Liberty Caucus e-mail discussion group or two, and there's a lot of internecine fighting going on between the RLC and the "conservative" leadership of the GOP. At least there is in Florida. I suspect that the GOP powers fear a move towards a more limited government philosophy, figuring that it would marginalize the GOP. Which is rather sad, and, I think, also inaccurate.

[Rich]

Until the, um, powerful (have to) admit in public the extent of their (family's and staff's) drug use I am concerned WOD foolishness will not end.

[Steel City Libertarian]

I'd love to go but $50 is too rich for my blood. Sorry Radley.

[Brandybuck]

There is internecine fighting *within* the RLC as well. Libertarians, Minutemen, C4Lers, and conspiracists are battling it out over here. As a libertarian, I am most definitely in the minority. And that's just the state executive board! Codewords pour out like syrup. County parties are condemned for not acting "Constitutionally", candidates are condemend as not being "Patriots", the state party leadership is a "Cabal", etc. A common goal is, and I quote, "Take over the GOP and throw the RINOs out!" The cognitive dissonance reverberates.

[Pro Libertate]

Brandybuck,

Agreed. Just the battles between pro-Paul/anti-Paul groups are bad enough. And the RINO term is silly when applied to limited government proponents. It's supposed to refer to people like, say, Arlen Spectre, who are (well, were in his case) Democrats who were members of the GOP, not to people who believe in limited government.

[John Thacker]

I suspect that the GOP powers fear a move towards a more limited government philosophy, figuring that it would marginalize the GOP. Which is rather sad, and, I think, also inaccurate.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it's inaccurate, other than all of our wishful thinking? I agree that it's sad, but sadder still I think that it's accurate. Any libertarian inclinations among people are overwhelmed by their desire to "do something" about the latest scare, or their other biases. In addition, by their feeling that libertarianism is voluntary disarmament when the other side is going to use government to win favors.

[John Thacker]

It's supposed to refer to people like, say, Arlen Spectre, who are (well, were in his case) Democrats who were members of the GOP, not to people who believe in limited government.

Yes, and causing him to leave the party really worked out well, didn't it? His voting, bad as it was before, has become worse now that he has a D after his name.

[Pro Libertate]

John Thacker,

Oops, I misspelled Spector's name, didn't I? Oh, well.

I think the GOP could make good hay out of a limited government platform, especially when government expansion seems almost out of control. However, you're right that there are plenty of competing interests in having the government be the default nanny for all our ills.

[Rhayader]

Asked this a couple times at The Agitator and couldn't get an answer: what exactly has High Point done?

High Point is relatively local to me so I find the mention interesting; I just can't find much online in the way of drug policy reform or any "pragmatic approaches" in the area.

Help?

[Paul]

Establishment support for the drug war is eroding on the left and the right.

I don't believe it. If a single substance which is currently illegal, is legal by... I'll give you the end of the Obama administration-- even if it's eight years long... if even one currently illegal substance is made legal, I'll concede your point.

Oh, some clarifications: I'll even ignore (because I'm just that charitable) substances which are currently legal and made illegal (which I guarantee you more shit will be illegal after 8 years of Obama). I'll just give you that, gratis. Free. A mulligan, if you will. Oh, and minor technical lifting of restrictions on Medical marijuana at state levels don't count.

The meter's running.

[Rich]

If a single substance which is currently illegal, is legal by... the end of the Obama administration ...

Paul, would phlogiston count?

[Paul]

I uhh, never heard of this Phlogiston so I had to look it up. I now know you're being funny. And thankfully I didn't have to concede any points 5 minutes in. How embarrassing that would have been.

[Rich]

I wish I *were* being funny.

This is the *Obama* administration, remember?

[Joel]

I think the GOP could make good hay out of a limited government platform, especially when government expansion seems almost out of control.

I still remember the lies and broken promises of the "Contract with America" back in Gingrich's short heyday. I seem to recall the last Republican prez campaigned on "compassionate conservatism" and a "humble foreign policy," and delivered perpetual war, legalized torture and the PATRIOT Act. If the GOP suddenly agitated for 'limited government' again, would anyone actually buy that bullshite given their megagov record? Anyone at all?

Oh...wait. We're talking about American voters, aren't we? I think I saw their pictures in my dictionary twice, right next to the definitions for "stupid" and "forgetful." Never mind.

[Pro Libertate]

Joel,

Yes, the rhetoric and the reality don't quite match up, do they? However, they did behave better in Congress prior to Bush. In other words, a GOP with limited government rhetoric coupled with divided government seemed better than monolithic government.

[John Thacker]

If the GOP suddenly agitated for 'limited government' again, would anyone actually buy that bullshite given their megagov record? Anyone at all?

Only because the Democrats seem intent on proving to all the libertarians/limited government fans who said that "it can't be worse" that "yes it can."

[Brandybuck]

If the GOP suddenly agitated for 'limited government' again, would anyone actually buy that bullshite given their megagov record? Anyone at all?

Because the Dems say they want massively larger government, and the Libs are content with no one voting for them. Which leaves, unfortunately, the GOP as the only currently viable option to turn back the growth of the state.

The trick with the GOP, as I see it, is to give them a majority in congress, but keep them the fuck away from the white house.

[Paul]

"compassionate conservatism" and a "humble foreign policy," and delivered perpetual war, legalized torture and the PATRIOT Act.

I agree with everything except the last part. The PATRIOT act was a largely bipartisan affair. And still is. I don't see this administration or congress or senate rushing the gangplank to demand a repeal. No one on the big D's is even talking reform. And if they are, it's not getting press. I wonder why that could be? Probably found a way to temper their dislike for it and embrace it. You know, like No Child Left Behind?

[Brandybuck]

Also, the Dems that are in control aren't doing anything to stop the perpetual war, and only paying a mumbling lip service to ending the legalized torture.