Perspective — August 23, 2013, 2:32 pm

On Rand Paul’s War on the War on Drugs

How the junior senator from Kentucky motivated the Obama Administration to forgo mandatory minimum sentences

Twice now this year, Rand Paul has flanked the Obama Administration from the left. The first time, when Paul staged a dramatic thirteen-hour talking filibuster to protest the government’s secretive drone-assassination program, the episode could have been written off as an opportunistic stunt. But with his latest move as the tacit leader of the disorganized libertarian-populist movement, Paul staked out less impeachable ground: America’s cruel, racially biased, and generally nonsensical drug-sentencing laws. 

Reveries of the Cigar. From the June 1855 issue

Reveries of the Cigar. From the June 1855 issue

Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that the Justice Department will ease enforcement of mandatory minimums, the federal prison sentences that compel judges to lock up even nonviolent and first-time offenders of some drug laws regardless of the details of the case. Five, fifteen, and in some cases life sentences were first made mandatory for drug crimes with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, legislation passed amid the hysteria of an urban crack epidemic and Ronald Reagan’s war on drugs. Aided by such laws, the federal prison population has grown roughly 800 percent since 1980, with nearly half of all inmates held on drug charges. The status quo is untenable for reasons fiscal and philosophical, and Holder’s decision was widely heralded as a welcome policy shift. Not everyone was convinced, though. For reformers who once hoped that Barack Obama would make a sincere attempt to address the outrages and immoralities of the war on drugs, Holder’s speech smacked of politicking — a double hedge against the right’s libertarian awakening and the left’s charges that the administration has done nothing on the issue.

I discussed Holder’s move with Neill Franklin, a thirty-four-year veteran of the Maryland State Police and the Baltimore Police Department who serves as the executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of current and former officers and officials working to end the war on drugs. “Too little, too late,” he told me. Franklin appreciates that the government’s highest-ranking criminal-justice official admitted to a failure of the system, but he is wary of being fooled twice. In October 2009, Holder’s Ogden Memo vowed to respect states’ rights where medical-marijuana laws were concerned. But by the end of Obama’s first term, the Drug Enforcement Agency had raided and closed more than four times as many state-approved marijuana shops than were shut down during George W. Bush’s eight years in office. From Montana to California, the DOJ, DEA, and IRS worked in concert to do precisely what the administration had vowed not to do.

“I’m from a place where if you recognize a problem, you do your best to tackle and fix the problem,” says Franklin. “The political world is different.” Franklin’s LEAP does not have the political leverage (read: money) of other special interests tied to the prison and law-enforcement industries, but its members are drug-war veterans who came to see the system as a fundamental offense against society.

For those unfamiliar with the moral crisis of the American penal system, let’s review the current state of affairs. The United States incarcerates a higher percentage of its people than any country in the world, far exceeding rates in China, Iran, and Russia. Americans make up just five percent of the world population, but with 2.24 million people behind bars, boasts 25 percent of the global prison population. These numbers are compounded by the justice system’s systematic racial bias. White and black men use marijuana at roughly equal rates, but according to a recent report by the American Civil Liberties Union, black men are nearly four times as likely to be arrested for possession. In her book The New Jim Crow, Ohio State University law professor Michelle Alexander writes that in some cities, African-American men are imprisoned on drug charges twenty to fifty times more often than white men. And The Economist reports that today in America, a black man is 3.6 times more likely to be jailed than a black man was in Apartheid South Africa in 1993.

It’s hard to disagree with critics like Franklin who say that the system is broken. But from another perspective, the system is working exactly as designed. It’s working so well, in fact, and for so many politically connected interests (private prison corporations and law-enforcement unions among them), that the two most powerful officials in the country, two men who are ostensibly sympathetic to the problem and who are black themselves, do not have the political leverage to address the underlying issues. 

Before Holder’s speech at the American Bar Association last week, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party were in danger of ceding leadership on the prison crisis to the junior senator from Kentucky. In March, Rand Paul joined with Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) to co-sponsor the Justice Safety Valve Act, which would grant judges the latitude to apply shorter sentences for some drug crimes. In an April op-ed, Paul defended the bill on financial, moral, and political grounds. He noted that the federal prison budget has doubled in ten years to more than $6 billion, with nearly half of that money spent on nonviolent drug offenders. “Some are simply drug addicts,” Paul wrote, “who would be better served in a treatment facility.” In July, Utah Republican Mike Lee and Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin followed Paul and Leahy’s initiative with their Smarter Sentencing Act, which would also give judges more discretion over sentencing, and would retroactively reduce jail time for some inmates currently serving mandatory minimums. 

Franklin says he doesn’t do politics, but he knows how the game is played. As he sees it, Holder had two motivations. First was this weekend’s fiftieth anniversary commemoration of the March on Washington. “You’re going to see thousands and thousands of black people marching on Capitol Hill with signs about our broken criminal-justice system and racial profiling and signs that reform is needed,” says Franklin, who also plans to march. Holder’s move, he says, “takes a little wind out of the sails of Saturday’s protests. The administration can say, ‘We recognize the problem and are moving towards reform.’ ” 

Second, Franklin says, the Obama Administration “doesn’t want the G.O.P. to get out ahead of them on this.” The Republican Party has spent decades fortifying its tough-on-drug-crime reputation, and while Paul won’t change perceptions of his party with one bill, he might get there eventually. “It makes sense for the Republican Party to support this type of reform,” says Franklin. “It’s about smaller, less intrusive, and less expensive government.”

As the policies of libertarian populism come into focus, Rand Paul’s threat to the establishments of both parties will likely increase. He doesn’t have to adopt his father’s strident purism — Ron Paul wrote that drug prohibition of any kind is “incompatible with a free society” — to push an agenda of sensible reform. The Democratic Party won’t credit him with leading on an issue that should be theirs, and the G.O.P. establishment still can’t decide whether libertarians pose a path to victory or an existential threat. But Paul is nimbly pushing his own agenda to the fore. And with popular opinion about America’s drug laws squarely on his side, the rest of Washington will have little choice but to keep up.

Share
Single Page
wrote “The Awakening: Ron Paul’s generational movement” for the April 2013 issue of Harper’s.

More from Michael Ames:

Context October 2, 2015, 11:04 am

Captive Markets

Why we won’t get prison reform

From the February 2015 issue

Captive Market

Why we won’t get prison reform

Postcard July 30, 2014, 6:38 pm

My Un-Private Idaho

Bowe Bergdahl, the political-entertainment complex, and the personal costs of scandal

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

November 2018

Rebirth of a Nation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Tragedy of Ted Cruz

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Rebirth of a Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump’s presidency signals a profound but inchoate realignment of American politics. On the one hand, his administration may represent the consolidation of minority control by a Republican-dominated Senate under the leadership of a president who came to office after losing the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots. Such an imbalance of power could lead to a second civil war—indeed, the nation’s first and only great fraternal conflagration was sparked off in part for precisely this reason. On the other hand, Trump’s reign may be merely an interregnum, in which the old white power structure of the Republican Party is dying and a new oppositional coalition struggles to be born.

Illustration by Taylor Callery (detail)
Article
Blood Money·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Over the past three years, the city of South Tucson, Arizona, a largely Latino enclave nestled inside metropolitan Tucson, came close to abolishing its fire and police departments. It did sell off the library and cut back fire-truck crews from four to three people—whereupon two thirds of the fire department quit—and slashed the police force to just sixteen employees. “We’re a small city, just one square mile, surrounded by a larger city,” the finance director, Lourdes Aguirre, explained to me. “We have small-town dollars and big-city problems.”

Illustration by John Ritter (detail)
Article
The Tragedy of Ted Cruz·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When I saw Ted Cruz speak, in early August, it was at Underwood’s Cafeteria in Brownwood. He was on a weeklong swing through rural central Texas, hitting small towns and military bases that ensured him friendly, if not always entirely enthusiastic, crowds. In Brownwood, some in the audience of two hundred were still nibbling on peach cobbler as Cruz began with an anecdote about his win in a charity basketball game against ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. They rewarded him with smug chuckles when he pointed out that “Hollywood celebrities” would be hurting over the defeat “for the next fifty years.” His pitch for votes was still an off-the-rack Tea Party platform, complete with warnings about the menace of creeping progressivism, delivered at a slightly mechanical pace but with lots of punch. The woman next to me remarked, “This is the fire in the gut! Like he had the first time!” referring to Cruz’s successful long-shot run in the 2011 Texas Republican Senate primary. And it’s true—the speech was exactly like one Cruz would have delivered in 2011, right down to one specific detail: he never mentioned Donald Trump by name.

Cruz recited almost verbatim the same things Trump lists as the administration’s accomplishments: the new tax legislation, reduced African-American unemployment, repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, and Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court. But, in a mirror image of those in the #Resistance who refuse to ennoble Trump with the title “president,” Cruz only called him that.

Photograph of Ted Cruz © Ben Helton (detail)
Article
Wrong Object·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

H

e is a nondescript man.

I’d never used that adjective about a client. Not until this one. My seventeenth. He’d requested an evening time and came Tuesdays at six-thirty. For months he didn’t tell me what he did.

The first session I said what I often said to begin: How can I help you?

I still think of what I do as a helping profession. And I liked the way the phrase echoed down my years; in my first job I’d been a salesgirl at a department store counter.

I want to work on my marriage, he said. I’m the problem.

His complaint was familiar. But I preferred a self-critical patient to a blamer.

It’s me, he said. My wife is a thoroughly good person.

Yawn, I thought, but said, Tell me more.

I don’t feel what I should for her.

What do you feel?

Photograph © Joseph S. Giacalone (detail)

Percentage of TV meteorologists in a University of Texas survey who said they thought global warming was a “scam”:

29

A study concluded that commercial fish stocks may be gone by 2050 as a result of overfishing, pollution, and global climate change.

Nikki Haley resigns; Jamal Khashoggi murdered; Kanye visits the White House

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today