Why the right never gets it right

In the history of the human race, the right has never gotten it right. They're not getting it right now, and show no signs of getting it right in the future. They need to find another label, because "right" is misleading. I've had a recent epiphany concerning how one (or one's government) goes about shaping the world around them. There are pretty much two options. One is rooted in force, and the other, well, isn't. I was listening to a radio talk show the other day, and the topic of discussion was the "War on Drugs", and it occurred to me that our whole political metaphor in the United States is rooted in this word "war". We're always engaging in a war on something, whether it be drugs, terrorism, or poverty. (These days, it's always a war on some concept or idea; never a war with InsertProperNoun; even the Iraq thing is "the war in Iraq", but that's another topic for another time.) This got me to thinking about how the government shapes policy in this country, and how it attempts to shape policy throughout the world, and I came to the conclusion that the right apparently believes it can use force to solve any perceived policy problem. It boils down to the hammer problem. The only tool they have is a hammer, so everything had better be a nail. Force can take many forms. The obvious one, of course, is raw military force. This is the United States' comfort zone. We're very good at deploying our military, and it makes us feel like we're doing something. But there's also coercion, extortion, and other less-forcy-seeming, but equally forceful means of bringing about an end. There are two problems with using force as a means to an end:

• It's rooted in wishful thinking
• It doesn't actually solve anything

I'll take the second one first, and then explain what I mean by the first bullet point. In looking back through history, the use of force has never ever solved anything. The human race has been engaging in an eternal game of Whack-a-Mole. Nothing accomplished by force or violence is enduring. The "winner" may see short term gains, but in the long run, the "winner" loses, and so does everyone else. Seriously, think back. What did the "great wars" of the past solve? Did the Civil War solve anything? (No. see "Civil Rights Movement") The Great War? (Nope. Caused Hitler, though.) World War II? (Nuh uh. Cold war, anyone?) What we did in Korea and in Vietnam appear to have made many things worse. What we're doing in Iraq right now isn't helping anything, and what we did in Afghanistan hasn't had any lasting impact. That's right, the Taliban is back, and the government we installed is corrupt.

Look, I can't actually examine every act of violence in history, so I can't provide a rigorous proof that "violence never solves anything". But, I can see patterns in how things turn out, and I think it's reasonable to say "violence rarely solves anything". I assert that this is the case.

The use of force is rooted in wishful thinking, based on the belief that one can impose one's own view of how reality "ought to be" at gunpoint. The right actually believes that it can make the "drug problem" go away by wanting to really badly and by incarcerating anybody who doesn't conform. It's not working, and it's never going to.

What's the alternative? The alternative is cooperation based on compassion and understanding. Find your inner empath. If you want to solve "the drug problem", call off the War on Drugs and apply those resources to educating the populace, treating those who want treatment. Stop using scare tactics and coercion and actually educate kids about these substances in a value-neutral manner. Kids are smart, they know when they're being lied to, so when you say "If you smoke marijuana, YOU WILL DIE!", they know it's crap. But, if you tell them how and why certain chemicals act on human physiology, they'll absorb it and be able to make better-informed decisions in the future.

This works as long as your definition of "the drug problem" is not "drugs are bad, m'kay". Look at the effects of drug abuse on society, and then look at the effects of the War on Drugs on society, and do your cost-benefit analysis. Which is worse? I say the particularly violent black market perpetuated by the War on Drugs is far more costly to society than what it's attempting to solve.

I've moved far afield here without intending to. I say that approaching problems and policy decisions with empathy, compassion and understanding is far more constructive than grabbing the hammer. I find it ironic that the (supposedly) most important person in the lives of the very people who are perpetuating the use of force made his second great commandment "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Republicans must really have a lot of self-loathing.