What does the War on Terror have in common with alcohol, poverty and drugs?
Simple! America has declared war on all of these with surprising results. Perhaps examining the outcome of the previous wars can guide us on how we should proceed with the ongoing war on terror?
This was the quickest war and roughly began with the prohibition on alcohol also known as the noble experiment. Starting in 1919 and ending in 1933 America's prohibition serves as a constant reminder on the effects of using the federal government's heavy hand to coerce and control human behavior. While the war was waged on complex moral grounds and stemmed from noble reasons the results speak for themselves.
Believe it or not, consumption of alcohol during the prohibition almost reached pre-prohibition consumption levels according to official statistics despite an outright ban of alcohol.
Some sources even suggest consumption increased and with the thousands of speakeasies, black-market distilleries producing moonshine and bootleggers smuggling alcohol across the nation, this is easy to believe. Prohibition gave rise to organized crime and powerful people like Al Capone who used profits from alcohol sales to reign terror on American cities murdering civilians and police officers alike.
Beyond the obvious infringement of personal freedoms and liberties, America has demonstrated quite clearly the effects of intrusion and how something so innocent as banning alcohol can turn into a disaster with widespread consequences. War on alcohol failed.
Launched in the 1960s by the Kennedy administration, implemented by LBJ's Great Society and continued by Nixon the war on poverty has been the subject of much controversy. No one will dispute the benevolence of such an effort, after all, making sure people have an opportunity to climb out of poverty and enjoy a reasonable life is not only humane, but logical. So after countless of new programs, agencies and programs, how has the war on poverty faired?
Assuming you trust Government statistics, something you should not given their dismal record examine the following chart from the US Census. (I added the population numbers)
Assuming that all new sweeping programs upon their inception will have immediate benefits, let us start with the 1970s. Almost 40 years later the poverty rate has remained static! If you factor in that Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are either broke or will be shortly, millions are stuck on government programs that they cannot escape, numerous ghettos and slums and more and more is required in taxes to maintain these anti-poverty programs then the War on Poverty has been a dismal failure. This is all assuming that the definition of poverty used by the government has not changed in 40 years, an unlikely assumption.
So instead of looking at pure poverty, let us consider the Misery Index. This index uses unemployment and inflation to calculate the social costs for the country. We can use this index and compare it to the poverty rates to see if the costs are justified and whether the poverty chart provides enough information.
What is interesting about this chart is that immediately after the implementation of LBJ's countless programs the Nixon and Carter administration endured some of the worst economic conditions in America's 50 years! Ronald Reagan scoffed at the War on Poverty and proudly declared that in the war on poverty, poverty won. Coincidentally his tenure matches with some of the best economic conditions in the past 50 years and explains his popularity and legacy to this day. Of course much of Reagan's success actually falls on a credit expansion performed by the central bank, but that is a different story for another time.
Americans have also felt a decrease in the standard of living during the Bush years and the Misery Index matches up with that sentiment quite nicely as we can see a dramatic decline from the Clinton years.
So while poverty may appear to be static and the misery index back to the days of LBJ our country is substantially poorer, saddled with over 90 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities and a 12 trillion dollar debt. Food stamp usage is at an all time high as are housing subsidies and the days of one man supporting a household on his paycheck are long gone. War on poverty has failed.
This war began shortly after the 1960s hippie revolution and was exacerbated by the Nixon and Reagan administrations. To this day virtually all drugs are banned on a federal level and include substances as benign as marijuana to as addictive as cocaine and heroine.
So how did consumption of drugs fare during this war on drugs? The following chart suggests that the consumption probably increased as the mentions of potent drugs increased in emergency rooms.
Furthermore we know that America spends tens of billions on drug enforcement agencies per year, our prisons are overflowing with drug offenders and powerful drug cartels in south America still produce at an alarming rate. Logic would dictate that if alcohol consumption could not by stymied during the prohibition, the results would be the same for any substance.
Unfortunately failing at slowing consumption is not the worst of it. Effects of the war on drugs results in rising crime, homicides, illegal guns and ravaging of poor communities. Once again, a benevolent effort has resulted in widespread national and international consequences. War on drugs has failed.
So this brings us to the war on terror, an effort popularized by President Bush after the tragedies of 9/11. Unlike the three previous wars, our war on terror has been primarily waged on the offensive outside of our country. However effects have been felt with increased security in airports, creation of the Department of Homeland Security and controversial legislation known as the Patriot Act.
Our new department has been allocated over 50 billion dollars as of 2005 alone and these costs are mounting. Our war in Afghanistan has been raging since 2001 and the process to get through an airport has been getting more and more painful.
Results?
Recently we had to deploy more troops in Afghanistan as conditions worsened and despite what Martha Coakley may think, terrorism and terrorists are alive and well in Afghanistan. This is despite the fact that our military delivered a fatal blow to Taliban leadership and Al-Qaeda within the first several months of our invasion. Worse yet, in 2009 alone America suffered one terrorist attack and one failed attempt. First we experienced tragedy at Fort Hood when some of our finest died in the name of radical Islam and just this past Christmas 320 Americans barely escaped death as a Nigerian Muslim attempted to blow up the plane and thankfully failed.
Now there may be several explanations as to why 2009 was the first time America experienced terror since 2001 including a somewhat lax position by the Obama administration, but that may be nothing more than a scapegoat. Perhaps "declaring war" is not something our federal government does very well and we should consider other approaches?
Logic would dictate that if the wars on alcohol, drugs and poverty failed to significantly suppress the elements upon which the war was declared on, why would terror be any different? Worse yet as we have seen, wars are expensive and have widespread and far reaching consequences that are difficult to predict and plan for. In the case of alcohol, consumption most likely went up while massively increasing crime and turning on spigots of toxic moonshine in the country. In the case of poverty, levels have remained about the same for almost 40 years and the misery index suggests that America is worse off than it was decades ago! In the case of drugs, consumption most likely increased while our prisons function at near capacity and gangs roam the streets armed to the teeth. All of this at tremendous costs totaling hundreds of billions of dollars and elements of the Great Society threatening America with financial ruin.
So what of the war on terror? It will be difficult to sell people on the notion that we should not spend money on our safety or that stopping radical Islam is equivalent to preventing teenagers from getting high. But what is the difference? In all cases, we have a powerful government with unlimited resources attempting to stem and control something it cannot fully grasp or understand. If a particular has been tried and it has failed, then why continue? We are still fighting poverty and drugs after almost 40 years and with no results, how long do we plan to wage the terror war? Until we "win"? Until we reach an objective that cannot be quantified, measured or understood?
Our government in the past 80 years has attempted to control what we drink, smoke, eat, inject, snort, health care, retirement, living conditions, food consumption and flying patterns in the name of security. As Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom, nor security". He is right. Now what are you going to do about it?
War on Alcohol
This was the quickest war and roughly began with the prohibition on alcohol also known as the noble experiment. Starting in 1919 and ending in 1933 America's prohibition serves as a constant reminder on the effects of using the federal government's heavy hand to coerce and control human behavior. While the war was waged on complex moral grounds and stemmed from noble reasons the results speak for themselves.
Believe it or not, consumption of alcohol during the prohibition almost reached pre-prohibition consumption levels according to official statistics despite an outright ban of alcohol.
Beyond the obvious infringement of personal freedoms and liberties, America has demonstrated quite clearly the effects of intrusion and how something so innocent as banning alcohol can turn into a disaster with widespread consequences. War on alcohol failed.
War on Poverty
Launched in the 1960s by the Kennedy administration, implemented by LBJ's Great Society and continued by Nixon the war on poverty has been the subject of much controversy. No one will dispute the benevolence of such an effort, after all, making sure people have an opportunity to climb out of poverty and enjoy a reasonable life is not only humane, but logical. So after countless of new programs, agencies and programs, how has the war on poverty faired?
Assuming you trust Government statistics, something you should not given their dismal record examine the following chart from the US Census. (I added the population numbers)
So instead of looking at pure poverty, let us consider the Misery Index. This index uses unemployment and inflation to calculate the social costs for the country. We can use this index and compare it to the poverty rates to see if the costs are justified and whether the poverty chart provides enough information.
What is interesting about this chart is that immediately after the implementation of LBJ's countless programs the Nixon and Carter administration endured some of the worst economic conditions in America's 50 years! Ronald Reagan scoffed at the War on Poverty and proudly declared that in the war on poverty, poverty won. Coincidentally his tenure matches with some of the best economic conditions in the past 50 years and explains his popularity and legacy to this day. Of course much of Reagan's success actually falls on a credit expansion performed by the central bank, but that is a different story for another time.
Americans have also felt a decrease in the standard of living during the Bush years and the Misery Index matches up with that sentiment quite nicely as we can see a dramatic decline from the Clinton years.
So while poverty may appear to be static and the misery index back to the days of LBJ our country is substantially poorer, saddled with over 90 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities and a 12 trillion dollar debt. Food stamp usage is at an all time high as are housing subsidies and the days of one man supporting a household on his paycheck are long gone. War on poverty has failed.
War on Drugs
This war began shortly after the 1960s hippie revolution and was exacerbated by the Nixon and Reagan administrations. To this day virtually all drugs are banned on a federal level and include substances as benign as marijuana to as addictive as cocaine and heroine.
So how did consumption of drugs fare during this war on drugs? The following chart suggests that the consumption probably increased as the mentions of potent drugs increased in emergency rooms.
Furthermore we know that America spends tens of billions on drug enforcement agencies per year, our prisons are overflowing with drug offenders and powerful drug cartels in south America still produce at an alarming rate. Logic would dictate that if alcohol consumption could not by stymied during the prohibition, the results would be the same for any substance.
Unfortunately failing at slowing consumption is not the worst of it. Effects of the war on drugs results in rising crime, homicides, illegal guns and ravaging of poor communities. Once again, a benevolent effort has resulted in widespread national and international consequences. War on drugs has failed.
War on Terror
So this brings us to the war on terror, an effort popularized by President Bush after the tragedies of 9/11. Unlike the three previous wars, our war on terror has been primarily waged on the offensive outside of our country. However effects have been felt with increased security in airports, creation of the Department of Homeland Security and controversial legislation known as the Patriot Act.
Our new department has been allocated over 50 billion dollars as of 2005 alone and these costs are mounting. Our war in Afghanistan has been raging since 2001 and the process to get through an airport has been getting more and more painful.
Results?
Recently we had to deploy more troops in Afghanistan as conditions worsened and despite what Martha Coakley may think, terrorism and terrorists are alive and well in Afghanistan. This is despite the fact that our military delivered a fatal blow to Taliban leadership and Al-Qaeda within the first several months of our invasion. Worse yet, in 2009 alone America suffered one terrorist attack and one failed attempt. First we experienced tragedy at Fort Hood when some of our finest died in the name of radical Islam and just this past Christmas 320 Americans barely escaped death as a Nigerian Muslim attempted to blow up the plane and thankfully failed.
Now there may be several explanations as to why 2009 was the first time America experienced terror since 2001 including a somewhat lax position by the Obama administration, but that may be nothing more than a scapegoat. Perhaps "declaring war" is not something our federal government does very well and we should consider other approaches?
Conclusion
So what of the war on terror? It will be difficult to sell people on the notion that we should not spend money on our safety or that stopping radical Islam is equivalent to preventing teenagers from getting high. But what is the difference? In all cases, we have a powerful government with unlimited resources attempting to stem and control something it cannot fully grasp or understand. If a particular has been tried and it has failed, then why continue? We are still fighting poverty and drugs after almost 40 years and with no results, how long do we plan to wage the terror war? Until we "win"? Until we reach an objective that cannot be quantified, measured or understood?
Our government in the past 80 years has attempted to control what we drink, smoke, eat, inject, snort, health care, retirement, living conditions, food consumption and flying patterns in the name of security. As Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom, nor security". He is right. Now what are you going to do about it?
Comments
Post a Comment