Jacob Weisburg makes some very good points in his Newsweek article, "Gay Marriage & Marijuana 'You can't stop either. Why that's good.'"
Prohibition now is different from Prohibition then. When the 18th Amendment went into effect in 1920, it was a radical social experiment challenging a custom as old as civilization. A predictable failure—the insult to individual rights, the impossibility of enforcement, the spawning of organized crime—it came to an end in 1933. Today it is a byword for futile attempts to legislate morality and remake human nature.So far, so good. I especially like what he says about the internet.
Our forms of prohibition are more sins of omission than commission. Rather than trying to take away longstanding rights, they're instances of conservative laws failing to keep pace with a liberalizing society. But like Prohibition in the '20s, these restrictions have become indefensible as well as impractical, and as a result are fading fast. Within 10 years, it seems a reasonable guess that Americans will travel freely to Cuba, that all states will recognize gay unions, and that few will retain criminal penalties for marijuana use by individuals. These reforms are inevitable—not because politics has changed, but because society has.
The Internet has been a crucial amplifier of all such claims. With pornography and gambling, the Web itself became an irrepressible distribution tool. When it comes to gay marriage, it has accelerated the recognition of a new civil right by serving as an organizing tool and information clearinghouse. More broadly, the freest communications medium the world has ever known has raised expectations of personal liberty. In a world where everyone has his own printing press, restrictions on personal behavior become increasingly untenable.Just when I was getting really excited about a grand slam home run article, he resorts to the following conclusions:
Politicians will continue to lag, rather than lead, these changes. Republicans face a risk in resisting the new realities. If the GOP remains the party of prohibition, it will increasingly alienate libertarian leaners and the young. Democrats face a different danger in embracing cultural transformations too eagerly. Nearly four decades after George McGovern became known as the candidate of amnesty, abortion, and acid, cultural issues are still treacherous territory for them. Why get in front of change when you can follow from a safe distance and end up with the same result?Au contraire, monsieur. You are quite correct in the Republican Party causing the more progressive young to fall away, BUT if the Democratic Party continues to lag too far behind society it will alienate its base and cause movements like the "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign to push for change long past due. There is "following from a safe distance" and then there is the imminent danger of alienating one's base from ignoring or working against promised change or being left behind in a cloud of dust. Politicians are elected and responsible for making things happen, not just standing idly by for decades safely twiddling their thumbs while part of their constituency suffers. We've waited long enough.
