This post from Bruce Ramsey on I-1068 and the ACLU is a week old now, but I wanted to call it out and add some extra thoughts. Except for a few minor quibbles, I think Ramsey is mostly correct about both that post and his earlier post on differentiating liberals and progressives. The inability for Democratic interest groups in this state to rally around this initiative does demonstrate that Democrats in this state are more progressive than liberal – the difference between the two being that progressives are more concerned with things that government should be doing, while liberals are more concerned with what it shouldn’t be doing. Ideologically, most progressives are liberal and most liberals are progressives, but within circles of entrenched power, the people who want government to do more always win out over the people who want it to do less.
My first minor quibble has to do with this statement:
ACLU-WA’s statement says, “The ACLU isn’t willing to support an incomplete initiative in hopes that the Legislature will fix it.”
I can understand why a group of attorneys might take that position. But the ACLU statement also says, “A negative vote on the initiative would be a significant setback for our ongoing reform movement.” And that is also true.
I don’t agree with this at all. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that losing a statewide vote on marijuana legalization does anything to set the movement back. In fact, Colorado voters largely rejected a marijuana legalization initiative in 2006 that was doomed from the start, yet the organizers of that initiative saw their effort as a way to kick off public discussions that weren’t already happening. They were able to do that, and since then, Colorado has seen several big advancements in drug law reform, from medical marijuana dispensaries to successful city-wide legalization initiatives, things that we haven’t seen yet in Washington state. Their effort was derided at the time as foolish, but it most certainly did not set back the cause of drug law reform there. In fact, it pushed it forward.
My second minor quibble (ok, maybe this one is more than minor) concerns the nature of the ACLU of Washington’s failure to endorse the initiative. It had little to do with a progressive vs liberal ideological divide. When the ACLU of Washington declared that they were declining to endorse I-1068, they listed multiple reasons, but the belief that the initiative had no chance of passing was the primary motivator. In fact, their concerns over the lack of regulation in the bill weren’t exactly genuine, as ACLU of Washington Drug Policy Director Alison Holcomb wrote to me in email that it would be “great” if it passed. They were just more concerned about what an endorsement of what they saw as an ill-fated initiative effort would have on their credibility. When I asked Holcomb to provide an example of when an organization’s endorsement of an initiative they had no direct involvement with ever hurt that organization’s credibility, she complained about having too many unread emails in her inbox.
In the end, exacerbating existing fissures within the drug law reform community has done far more damage to the cause of ending marijuana prohibition (which I don’t doubt the ACLU of Washington wants) than a failed initiative attempt would have. With the I-1068 campaign, we ended up with a well-connected – but politically clueless – ACLU of Washington effectively derailing an amateurish but eager attempt to force a vote on the issue of marijuana legalization this year. The I-1068 campaign showed their lack of experience by continually venting through press releases (which rather foolishly just got more people to notice the difficulties they were having), but in the end, they built up a network of thousands of activists and continued to raise awareness of this important issue. As for the ACLU of Washington’s credibility, all I can say is that an organization that I’ve admired and defended throughout my life profoundly disappointed me with their actions this year.
If this initiative fails we will still be pressing forward. There are too many people going to jail over this plant. The laws are racist in origin and racist in application. We are losing a lot of scientific information because of the lack of studies. Medical patient are dealing with issues they should not have to deal with. And we are losing the commercial hemp industry.
My liberties are not for sale! It is time to end the Drug War!
This whole miasma would present Christopher Hitchens with an almost impossible chance of appearing to be contrarian — and PJ O’Rourke is just a cranky old fart now.
What’s a mother to do?
That’s ONE definition, and it makes as much sense as saying liberals like red chiles and progressives like green chiles. They’re both largely meaningless terms, because people define them to suit their own purposes.
Despite all this and the rain, I’m off to collect signatures today.
Agreed Zotz. I’ll be out on the bricks collecting signatures.
I’m disappointed with the ACLU position, too. However, the biggest problem has been the lack of money. The initiative process is as dependent upon money as the rest of our politics. If we had $300,000, this thing would be in the bag by now. Lots of us dedicated volunteers have put in countless hours collecting signatures, but given that we also work, have other commitments in our lives, and the lousy weather we’ve been dealing with, it’s been a daunting task to collect our goal of 320,000 signatures. $300K would have bought a lot of signatures, and I’d be enjoying the Solstice parade today as a spectator rather than working the crowd for signatures. It’s not over yet, though.
I won’t work another initiative process. The efforts that have money (ie the rest of them this year) pay people, mostly from out of state, to gather our signatures. This is wrong, in my view. If this is supposed to be a ‘people’s initiative’, then it should be done with in-state volunteers, and large donations shouldn’t be allowed. Otherwise, as we have seen, initiative efforts can pay their way into the general election. Par for the course in this country, unfortunately, and fundamentally undemocratic.
with Ivan @ 3
Ivan has a good point.
What I like to see instead from folks like Lee, is “consistent” vs. “inconsistent.”
The problem, in the USA, is that the word “libertarian” has become the property of the radical right. Rand Paul calls himself a “libertarian.” I think Lee confuses “liberal” with “libertarian.” Rand Paul is not a liberal.
Back at the ACLU, what Lee seems to misunderstand is that the organization has always insisted that it was “libertarian” .. that is why they have defended Nazi demonstrators.
Of course, like Rand Paul and Lee Rosenberg, the ACLU chooses where and when to be libertarian. …
with Mikek at 6 as well
If I-1068 got on the ballot, it wold still fail unless there were funds to campaign.
My guess is that the problem for most liberals is simply that this issue is too low on their priority list given the immense problems of two wars, economic shambles, the tea bagger threat, a fragile Supreme Court, and Immigration.
@7
The problem, in the USA, is that the word “libertarian” has become the property of the radical right. Rand Paul calls himself a “libertarian.” I think Lee confuses “liberal” with “libertarian.” Rand Paul is not a liberal.
And I don’t think that Rand Paul is a libertarian. You can’t be anti-choice and rail against immigration and consider yourself libertarian. Hell, Paul has even stopped short of saying he would end the drug war. He’s no libertarian. And neither is his dad.
My own particular worldview may not have a neat label for it, but it’s consistent. And yes, Bruce Ramsey is correct about the divide between liberals and progressives. What Ivan is saying in comment #3 is pure nonsense. I’m not defining those terms to suit my own purposes, I’m defining them as they’ve been commonly understood throughout history. Progressivism has always been a movement about using government to solve problems. And liberalism has always been a movement about ensuring that people are allowed sufficient freedoms by their government.
Back at the ACLU, what Lee seems to misunderstand is that the organization has always insisted that it was “libertarian” .. that is why they have defended Nazi demonstrators.
As do I. I believe that people in this country have the right to be racist morons. That’s what makes me somewhat libertarian and what makes the ACLU a libertarian organization. I don’t believe that they should be able to use their racism to openly discriminate in the marketplace (as does the ACLU), which is where I differentiate from right-wing libertarians, who believe that the liberty inherent to individuals should also be inherent within the marketplace.
Of course, like Rand Paul and Lee Rosenberg, the ACLU chooses where and when to be libertarian. …
I’ve made this challenge before and I’ll make it again. I’ve been blogging for 6 years now. All of my archives are online. Please point out one instance (just one!) where I’ve been intellectually inconsistent.
@8: so true, re money for the general campaign. Also true that this isn’t very high on the progressive list of causes, especially with so many other pressing problems. That may have been a big mistake of the I-1068 organizers in launching this campaign this year. Overall, though, I view it as a positive whether we make the ballot or not. We just have to keep on pushing.
@1,
That makes perfect sense. Good job Blue!
Lee
Sigghhh. He calls himslef a libertarian. He jsutifies a LOT of studd you and I feel is wrong by taking on that sobriquet.
Yi9yu mat be correct, but then going on to say “And yes, Bruce Ramsey is correct about the divide between liberals and progressives. What Ivan is saying in comment #3 is pure nonsense. I’m not defining those terms to suit my own purposes, I’m defining them as they’ve been commonly understood throughout history. ”
Well, that is really BS.
Really … was Mussolini a “progressive?” was Mao a “progressive?” How about Bush .. he tried to use givernment ot solce the problme (as he saw it) of islamo fascism.
Defining words is dangerous. A term like “sufficient” is like putting detergents in to the Gulf.
Most folks who call themselves liberal, dfor example, would proabably support affirmative action, gun control, public radio, union shops, SEIU, …..
I think you are cooking up a bouillibase out of fishy terms .
No arguement there! I would one up you and say that the slippery slope of limits on free speech is very dangerous and one thta should be carefully avoided.
How do you feel, however, about exposing kids in school ot creationsim, fascism, etc? How about the UW where a lot of speech is banned? (We can not use political speech or terms disrespectful of ethnic gorups),
This is hard for me. Generally I feel racism is OK as long as it does not limit anyone’s opportunities in the US. If a bunch of racists want to live in Broadmore (which had a race/religion covenant until recently) I am OK with that because there are plenty of other places for me to live. OTOH, if I am driving through Selma and need to pee, I shyould not have yo worry about finding a mens room for circumcised folk.
I am not sure what you are asking nor do I think anyone here is not tired of the kind of discussion this would provoke.
FWIW, my world view may not be all that different from yours. I call myself a Jeffersonian. I believe in:
a. natural law .. I think there are laws odf behavior that are as real as the laws of science.
b. opportunity .. I believe that society should exist to create a maximum of oportunity for each individual.
c. free speach … I believe this is a natural law and is necessary for opportunity.
d. objectivity and science … I believe that there is a discoverable, underlying reality in our universe and that this include both scientific fact and the natural law I refered to above. The science is, of course, easier to discover and I feel that, as a matter of natiral law, we should accept science as fact. I consider denial of scientific fact as blasphemy and a violation of natural law.
Natural law? .. tyhat is a lot harder issue to discuss than science!
@10 Mike
I agree with you. Every specific issue has the same problome .. priorities.
Foe me, legalizing MJ is the right thing to do but I would not make it a high priority now.
@1 ,,, blue
This is a good example of why MJ is NOT a priority.
Living down in Lewis Co., I’ve had no opportunity to sign this initiative at all. The paid gatherers are always out in front of Wal Mart with all the other initiatives, but not 1068.
This whole 1068 initiative gathering effort has been underfunded and seemingly poorly organized. It’s hopeless.
Upton –
You can download a copy of the petition from I-1068’s website, sign it and send it in. It must, however, be mailed by Monday, I believe. The website also has a list of businesses around the state where you you can sign the petition.
You’d probably have more money for an initiative if you spent less of it on pot and more on the initiative.
It’s all about priorities.
Lee @ 9:
I’m so happy for you that you THINK you know what a “liberal” or a “progressive” is. But ask 100 different people to define either of those terms, and you’ll likely get 100 different answers.
And guess what? Your definition isn’t any better, or any worse, than anyone else’s. Except to YOU.
All you’re left with is an appeal to some perceived authority: “So-and-so says ‘progressive’ means THIS.” That’s why these terms are basically meaningless.
Right-wing authoritarians use government to solve THEIR perceived problems. Enforcing a ban on abortion would be one example. Is that “progressive?” Yet it fits your definition.
Upton,
This 1068 initiative was placed at the Olive Way Seattle bus stop by an older white haired gentleman a few weeks back. He was yelling out “Initiatives to sign”, “Initiatives to sign”. Not many people stepped up to sign it. Puddy wonders why?
@18 Ivan
I suggest that there is an even bigger problem .. these terms are used by most people in a very inconsistent fashion.
My impression is that there must be a Termaster who decides on this lists of things one group or the other puts on its check list. Deviations from the orthodoxy are allowed but only after a decade or so. At that point the Termaster often decides,1984 fashion, to reverse phase so that one decade’s conservative issue becomes another decade’s liberal issue.
One of the funniest aspects of this is the party labels and their association with icons. If Andrew Jackson were around today, I have no doubt he would be outBecking Beck and running for President on the suck-me tea bag platform. Abe Lincoln would be a Democrat, perhaps even a black one!
What I find wierd is the unequal polarization of the parties today. The Dems are utterly moderate, by most world standard even conservative. What passes for radical today in the Democratic party is pretty much what was normal under Nixon and Ike (other than Nixon’s penchant for breaking laws). Kucinich and MickyD are not radicals.
The Reps, OTOH, ………………….
@12
Sigghhh. He calls himslef a libertarian. He jsutifies a LOT of studd you and I feel is wrong by taking on that sobriquet.
And I think he’s full of shit by using that term. You can’t be anti-choice and be a libertarian.
I completely agree that most people don’t use these words properly, but that doesn’t mean that Bruce Ramsey did so, nor that he and I aren’t describing very real political philosophies.
The labels don’t matter as much to me as the ability to convey meaning. I don’t think the meanings of the words progressive and liberal that Ramsey uses are incorrect – and I think he does hit upon an important point about left-leaning governance in general. It just wasn’t as pertinent to the ACLU/I-1068 situation as he thought.
Really … was Mussolini a “progressive?” was Mao a “progressive?” How about Bush .. he tried to use givernment ot solce the problme (as he saw it) of islamo fascism.
Taking progressivism to an extreme does lead to totalitarianism. There’s no question about that. But Fascism was very different from progressivism because it was rooted in nationalism, but Maoism was certainly an extreme form of progressivism. I think Communism is to progressivism as Fascism is to nationalistic conservatism.
We can certainly debate over semantics here, but when Bruce Ramsey and I can agree on the terminology, I don’t think it’s likely that we’re both playing word games.
Most folks who call themselves liberal, dfor example, would proabably support affirmative action, gun control, public radio, union shops, SEIU
That’s true, which is why I wrote in the original post:
That’s exactly the point I was making.
@18
Right-wing authoritarians use government to solve THEIR perceived problems. Enforcing a ban on abortion would be one example. Is that “progressive?” Yet it fits your definition.
At the turn of the last century, it most certainly would have been considered progressive. The progressives of that time tended to be very religious, and they were also responsible for bringing about alcohol prohibition (something that today would be more associated with the right). Thankfully, today’s progressives do have far more liberal sensibilities than the progressives of long ago.
Today, the religious right is the equivalent of the religious progressive movement of long ago (this is explained somewhat in “What’s the Matter with Kansas). The authoritarian streak within the American right is truly an odd phenomenon. It probably deserves a term of its own, but it’s generally referred to as right-wing authoritarianism.
Lee @ 22:
Authoritarian is a far more precise term. Authoritarians are found among all political persuasions.
sj @ 20:
Your ignorance of history is utterly, breathtakingly astounding. If Andrew Jackson were alive today he would have been breaking up Wall Street and the big banks, and reinstating Glass-Steagall.
Jackson, alone among U.S. presidents, paid off the national debt, and warned that concentration of wealth into private hands was a threat to national security.
The right-wingers of his time hated him, and considered him a dangerous radical, which even a cursory reading of history would reveal.
The Creed of the Loser: puff puff pass
What always get me passionate about the cannabis movement is the early history of the plant. I believe the opponents are linking crime, corruption with cannabis rather than understanding that God created it first before humans were around .
@ 7 SJ writes: “The problem, in the USA, is that the word “libertarian” has become the property of the radical right.”
I must disagree. That is the label the press has attached to libertarian.
It is really time to get beyond this left right stuff.
Libertarians get stuffed into the right part of the political world because we believe in a free market. I for one don’t think a free market is any more right or left than free speech is left or right.
I personally explain that I believe in civil liberties; the right to live as you choose, free markets; the right to support your lifestyle in the manner that you choose, both of which I will argue are protected by the ninth amendment to the Constitution and a non interventionist policy both at home and abroad. In other words don’t use the government to stick you nose in other people business at home or abroad.
@15 upton: ‘This whole 1068 initiative gathering effort has been underfunded and seemingly poorly organized. It’s hopeless.’
What did you expect with a bunch of stoners trying to concentrate on something central? Dude! (hacking….) How amusing it is to watch all these assholes fumble around and actually try an accomplish something for once. LMFAO!
@26 @
Yes. But words are defined by others. One reason I prefer NOT to call myself a Democrat even though today I usually have no choice but to vote for the Dem.
In England, the term “liberal means pretty much what you call “libertarian.”
Is God progressive?
I am that I am.
Ivan .. sorry to stagger you with my knowledge of history but your view of history pretty badly effd up. Read a Jackson biography IF you can stomach it.
Jackson was the tribune of the little man .. much as some roman tribunes were. He practiced the spoils system and opened up the spoils to the masses while benefitting his buddies. He was also a vicious slaver, treated native americans to one of the worst ethnic cleansings of all time.
or .. perhaps you do not consider racism an issue if it is tinged with populism?
As for being opposed to the bug banks, that would pretty well describe todays nit job righties too .. or haven’t you noted the tea bags swaying in the air?
Are you aware of why native Americans refuse to be paid in $20 bills?
Do you think African Americans owe more to the Dixiecrats founded by Jackson then to the heritage of Jefferson ….. Lincoln?
BTW, which political party supported the South in 1860?
sj @ 30:
Read a biography of Jackson? Come to my house and I’ll show you James, Remini, Meacham, Bowers, Ogg, Mayer, Schlesinger, and two entire shelves of books on Jackson and the Jackson period, all of which I have read, more than once. I feel confident in saying I know a hell of a lot more about Jackson than you do, which sad to say, doesn’t take much.
@31
Jackson was a progressive and a populist but not so much a liberal, while Lincoln had much stronger liberal inclinations. The modern left is now a combination of those two political outlooks. I think that comparing Jackson to a tea-bagger gives the tea-baggers a little too much credit. There’s a difference between being angry at the big banks (as the tea-baggers are) and knowing how to fix them. The difference between progressives and tea-baggers is that the tea-baggers have bought into a set of economic philosophies that would make the banking problems in this country worse – even as they’d swear up and down that they were fixing the problem.
@30
What the fuck? I have never ever had a problem giving a native american a $20 for fireworks.
Where in the hell do you get that from?
@32
I dunno…I am very wary of any “solution” that requires me to give more of my money to the government.
Especially when the government(state, federal, whatever) has repeatedly shown that they cant manage their money or resources, and that their only solution to the mismanagement is that I give them even more money.
@34
I dunno…I am very wary of any “solution” that requires me to give more of my money to the government.
And I rest my case.