In the mid-1800s, there were two issues that radical, Bible-thumping Christians were railing about, two practices which they said "would lead the nation into ruin." Those two issues were: alcohol and slavery. If the moral zealots of that era had been more considerate of the way average people thought, we probably could have completely avoided the whole debacle of prohibition. And yet, without their efforts, many of us would still own slaves.
As such, I would like to propose a simple but perhaps unsettling thesis: Even when we lament their zeal, our society needs the kinds of unpopular people who are extremely outspoken about public morality.
Were it not for the concerted and (let's admit it, John Brown) radical efforts of many 19th century moral zealots, much of our country's most shameful historical chapters would stretch right up to the present. Evil usually finds an advocate in all of us, and those willing to risk everything to rebuke us (if not always correctly) deserve our serious attention.
Ken Burns' fantastic and gripping new documentary on Prohibition (recently aired on PBS) has fuelled the conversation at our family dinner table ever since its debut. The story's complexity is (ironically) sobering. Burns paints a very vivid picture of the lives of those involved, and he never fails to give enough dirt on both sides to make you pause to think about the era in a new light.
Yet, I question a few of the (at least implicit) suggestions the documentary makes:
Prohibition is so fascinating because of the perennial dilemmas and conflicting worldviews involved in its genesis and later repeal. Was there ever, in fact, justification for some kind of "prohibition"? If so, how might it have looked if carried out more properly? Independent of any great answers to such questions, important conclusions present themselves about the complexities inherent in any moral reform.
At present, as at all times, legislation is rooted in conflicting views of morality. All legislation is in fact "legislated morality." It brings human nature squarely into the center of the debate, and no person or piece of legislation is therefore free from the challenges of appearing to have subjective moral rationale. James Madison, the chief architect of our constitution, famously said:
What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. ... [Thus] in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed.
How will we remember events like prohibition: as pithy, hypocrisy-filled, hyper-religious excess, or as well-intentioned, family-centric crusades to save society from its drunken stupor? I have no doubt there will be plenty of occasions to consider the true merits of the former option. As such, I humbly submit that, in trying to understand history on its own terms, the latter deserves our consideration as well.
Every nation, like every person, sins. And every nation falls short of where its potential might have carried it. The scary development in our midst now is not that we have become too hard on ourselves, but that we have become unwilling to be corrected. Whatever your thoughts on Prohibition, I think it's quite possible that what we need now, some hundred years later, is not more pubs, but more prophets.
Follow Ben Stevens on Twitter: www.twitter.com/benwstevens
'Prohibition', a Ken Burns Documentary on PBS - Review - NYTimes ...
Ken Burns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TV Weekend: The Bootleg Empire of Ken Burns' Prohibition - Tuned ...
Or how poorly laws against murder and theft were working.
But perhaps, and Burns sort of notices this in passing, the real goal of the Anti-Saloon League was not prohibition - but rather the destruction of the saloon culture (as their name implies). In this they were completely successful. And Burns emphasizes how drinking pattern changes. You might be cynical and say the whole purpose of the exercise was to allow women to drink in public.
The rise of organized crime was just an unfortunate bit of collateral damage.
"Mexican drug cartels’ US reach expanded over 300 percent in two years
Published: 12:02 AM 09/30/2011 | Updated: 9:42 AM 09/30/2011
By Nicholas Ballasy
Mexican drug cartels have expanded the scope of their U.S. operations over 300 percent in two years, from operating in at least 230 cities in 2008 to more than 1,000 cities in 2010, according to a comparison of the U.S. Justice Department’s National Drug Threat Assessments."
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/30/drug-war-mexican-cartels-u-s-reach-expands-over-400-percent-in-two-years/
As we saw in 1927, organized crime is the primary beneficiary of Prohibition and it almost acts as a direct subsidy to its operations. Fast-forward to 2011 and organized crime has gone global and Prohibition has had the notable side-effect of eliminating many of organized crime's competitors which subsequently has allowed them to grow richer and stronger than Al Capone ever could have imagined himself being.
Is the 'cure' actually worse than the disease?..
Not to be too much a grammarian, but the columnist misuses (twice) the phrase "as such".
Have you ever done anything objectively wrong?
Thanks for your interaction. Would you elaborate what you mean as I've not heard of the Washingtonians. All the best!
People become substance abusers as a way to self-medicate the pain in their lives. Making one substance unavailable only leads to adoption of another as self-destructive vehicle. If you want to ban alcohol because excessive consumption of it causes problems, the same argument can be made for food - the effects of obesity are killing more people than all drugs and alcohol combined (there are, indeed, food addicts out there too). The pursuit of healing of the pain provide an effective solution to compulsive behaviors.
I think you're right about your first point. On the whole, I wasn't really trying to address whether there should be drinking/no drinking, or Prohibition/no prohibition.
I was trying to say, "though it's annoying, no one has a perfect view on the present. And at least half the time, those who are most hated by the public today will be adored by the public later, and without such people the country would be even more scandalously off course than it is today."
Do you disagree?
Thanks for your interaction!
I'm a straight Christian pastor who strongly advocates in favor of GLBTQ rights. I not only speak in favor or granting equal civil rights, I also advocate the review of biblical interpretations that mistakenly put loving same-sex relationships under the "sin" heading.
I also advocate for legalization and regulation of most recreational drugs. The failed "War on Drugs" has lasted far longer than Prohibition of alcohol with results proportional to the length of the prohibition. We have more violence and more people incarcerated as drug usage continues. A study by the Rand Corporation in the early 80's concluded that education and rehab is 7 times more effective dollar for dollar than incarceration in reducing drug usage and 23 times more effective than interdiction of drug transporting - a conclusion that caused me to suggest that we could at least save time and aggravation by simply occasionally backing a truckload of case to the end of the pier and dumping it into the ocean.
What are the things which you think ought to be banned, if anything? Do you believe there are any substances or practices which are irrevocably harmful -- not just to the person themselves but inevitably to those around them -- that such things ought to be illegal?
Thanks for your interaction!
How high a death count can we tolerate, considering that the Civil War was the bloodiest America ever fought?
Are you of the mind that none of the "immigrants" (aren't we all) were concerned about the endemic public drunkenness (whether Prohibition was right or wrong)? I think that that would be historically unsustainable. It seemed messier than you make it sound. But I'd be open to hearing your thoughts to the contrary!
Anderson was not unusual. In the heart of Prohibition country, Ohio, my grandparents, immigrant Catholics, understood Prohibition as just another aspect of the Protestant, rural, Republican, Klan-Supporting, Nativist movement that was flourishing at the time. If you aren't familiar with the anti-Catholic Klan riots of the 1920s, I suggest you familiarize yourself with those too.
The best clue is the final sentence. "I think it's quite possible that what we need now, some hundred years later, is not more pubs, but more prophets." This article is just a call for religion, not a call for serious thought.
Sorry to disappoint :) What were the article's strengths in your opinion, and does your distaste for the ending lie in content or style? I'd love to finish the articles stronger in the future.
All the best!
Epicurus said (paraphrase) "All things in moderation." I believe he meant that one needs to apply their logic and personal morality to everything and only act when it is right.
Ex. Religion can be used to justify charity- and this goes along with good living practices. Religion can also be used to excuse bigotry and persecution. It is up to the individual to apply reason and determine a course of action.
Fundies fail in this regard as they will not apply any logic to their religious acts.
It seems like both can be pretty destructive, no? In fact it seems like anything -- Boy Scouts, non-profits, leadership, alcohol, charisma, sloth -- anything can be twisted. Would you agree? I'd say then the issue is with humanity, which was one of the points of my article. I was simply saying that we need people in society who are outspoken about its problems, and we especially need those people who say things that are unpopular. Thanks for your thoughts!
I try to keep my articles to ~600 words and didn't feel I could address that entire issue in that space. Better an incomplete article than an oversimplified article, no? :) Thanks so much for your thoughts!