This blog has often made
the claim that since the years following World War II, this nation has shifted
from holding federalism – as a mental construct describing and explaining its
governance and politics – as the dominant construct in favor of the natural
rights construct. Its writer has hinted
at evidence through many postings that support this claim. Most of that evidence has been anecdotal.
In
the political science literature, this writer is not aware of reductionist studies
– studies that have delineated relevant variables in independent/dependent hypothetical
formats which are then tested – concerning this claim. He has cited the work of respected theoretical
scholars that report on the role federalism has played in American politics –
e.g., Daniel J. Elazar. Their work, in
turn, is based on empirical as well as historical studies.
But
despite this state, this blog writer feels he can cite the work of social
scientists, respected social commentators, and respected journalists when their
work seems to support or refute this claim.
He believes the journalist, Sam Quinones, provides, in his book
reviewing the explanatory elements of the opioid crisis,[1] evidence that seem to
indicate that the social/political landscape of the US has gone through serious
transformation in the history of this nation since World War II.
This
posting limits its commentary to Quinones’ introduction to his review of what he
found to be the current conditions in the US.
What seems to have particularly changed in America is the segments of
the population that is being victimized by illicit use of drugs. This blogger remembers when he was young, what
constituted the nation’s drug problem.
During the fifties, the problem was an urban one and, in terms of heroin,
was limited to jazz musicians.
Since
then, of course, a lot has happened. In
terms of drugs, the sixties saw an upshot of drug taking – mostly marijuana and
psychedelics – among college students.
Then there were soldiers coming home from Vietnam with heroin addictions
– the drug was easily obtained in that country.
Later, there was the popularity of cocaine and crack. But all of that has, in the US, been
by-passed in terms of the numbers of users and in terms of the extent of health
issues including deaths resulting from the use of opioids.
Today,
that class of drugs accounts for more deaths than car accidents which was the
major cause of accidental deaths for decades.
Easily, one can see how Quinones judges this more current scourge of
opioids – in the form of pain killers and heroin – as the worse one this nation
has ever experienced. And yet, until
recently and still to a certain extent, this tragedy has been relatively invisible. And that not only refers to its rate of incidence,
but also in terms of its victims – knowledge of who and where they are.
It
is true that the incidence of opioid consumption seems to be concentrated in
certain areas, but these areas of numerous and one can consider this plague a truly
national one. Some of the areas where
kids are dying include the Rust Belt of Ohio, the Bible Belt of Tennessee, and areas
of Southern California including Mission Viejo and Simi Valley.
Cities
hit by this drug epidemic vary; they include Salt Lake City, Indianapolis, and
Albuquerque. Clustered cases can be
found in northwestern states, southern states, and mid-western states – Oregon,
Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Alabama. And in
these areas, there are numerous deaths, but also, for each death, there are
hundreds of addicts.
That’s
an idea of the where; here’s the who:
Kids got hooked in college and died
there. Some of these addicts were from
rough corners of rural Appalachia. But
many more were from the U.S. middle class.
They lived in communities where the driveways were clean, the cars were
new, and the shopping centers attracted congregations of Starbucks, Home Depot,
CVS, and Applebee’s. They were the daughters
of preachers, the sons of cops and doctors, the children of contractors and
teachers and business owners and bankers.
And
almost every one was white.[2]
And what is the connection of this tragedy to the claim
that this nation has drifted from federalist thinking? A federalist based political culture might
not have totally avoided the growth of this epidemic. During years in which federalism was
dominant, the nation suffered from an alcohol epidemic. No, the number of deaths attributed to that
earlier problem does not compare, but the nation’s experiment with Prohibition
was not initiated without cause.
But
that problem was faced and known among the general population – even Tocqueville
wrote of local efforts to address it back in the 1830s. He wrote:
“Societies are formed which regard drunkenness as the principal cause of
the evils under which the State labours, and which solemnly bind themselves to
give a constant example of temperance.”[3] Under a nation with a federalist outlook,
such a problem would not be allowed to hide.
Yes,
of late, one can find news items concerning the opioid crisis. Most of them have to do with the legal liabilities
facing drug companies that aggressively marketed these opioid products. Much rarer are stories of local communities facing
the problem and actively combatting it – at least on the national news
broadcasts. In that demonstrable apathy,
one finds a significant negative effect that the shift away from federalism
represents. This social problem needs,
if not demands, a more communal and collaborative approach to face its challenges,
challenges that include treatment, law enforcement, counseling, and moral
support.
[1]
Sam Quinones, Dreamland: The True Tale of
America’s Opiate Epidemic (New York, NY:
Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015).
[2] Ibid., 7 (Kindle edition).
[3] Alexi de Tocqueville, “Political Structure of Democracy,” in
Alexis de Tocqueville: On Democracy,
Revolution, and Society, eds. John
Stone and Stephen Mennell (Chicago, IL:
Chicago University Press, 1980/1835), 78-101, 78-79.
No comments:
Post a Comment