RUNNING ALL ROUND MY BRAIN

LET US POSTULATE, for purposes of argument, that George W. Bush, governor of
Texas and current candidate for president, used cocaine when he was a
younger man. Let us say that he used a lot of cocaine. Let us say he snorted
it like a madman and got really wired and had about 19 beers to calm down
and then went out looking for women and, oh yes, finding them.

This is not admirable behavior, but it seems unlikely that he thought it
was. For wealthy young men with a sense of entitlement, it is commonplace
behavior. You may view this with sorrow and anger, but you are not
surprised.

Somewhat later, George W. Bush decided to put away childish things. This too
is commonplace. He realized that if he kept using cocaine he'd have just one
nostril and the television cameras would not be kind. You don't want to give
the State of the State address with a big hole in the middle of your face.
That's how rumors start.

Trouble is, cocaine is such a sociable drug. It makes you want to talk to
other people for a very long time about any damn thing and chatter and say I
know we'll all go to France yes France let's call the airlines anyone have a
beer or Italy! So there are lots of people willing to say they saw George W.
Bush use cocaine. Let's just use that as a hypothetical.

So what does Bush do? When asked about cocaine use in the dear dead days of
his youth, he refuses to comment. He can't deny, because he's got half of
Dallas waiting to contradict him, and he can't confirm, because then there
will be follow-up questions without end, and the next thing you know he'll
be listing every occasion, every amount, every companion, every other drug
and halfway through he'll think, Italy was not such a bad idea after all.

AND HERE'S MY problem: Lots of people with impeccable liberal credentials
and darned fine voting records are beginning to wax all outraged about
Bush's refusal to comment. As though, realistically, he had a choice.

I thought we went all through that. I thought we decided that politicians
were human beings and that human beings had flaws and made errors, and that
pretending otherwise did intellectual violence to the entire electoral
process.

Lincoln and his clinical depression, Churchill and his drinking problem,
Roosevelt and his mistress -- we did that gavotte. The conclusions that were
reached are still true. Just because it's some dopey Republican mugwump now
doesn't make the situation any different. BUT, YOU SAY: hypocrisy. Well, no.
If he were still hurling white powder up his nose while preaching against
drug abuse, that would be hypocrisy. But human beings are allowed to change.
They are allowed to see the error of their ways and even condemn practices
in which they formerly indulged. We get to reinvent ourselves. We ask
forgiveness of those we have wronged, and we move on.

Because we all have made mistakes, and we all have asked forgiveness. Only
the most ruthless and cynical people try to pretend that process is not both
ordinary and admirable.

It would be nice if Bush's former career as a hypothetical cocaine abuser
would give him some compassion for those rotting in prison for selling rich
boys like him the stuff they got high on, but compassion is not a necessary
component of restitution. It would be useful if he spoke to recovery groups
and said, ``I was once like you; you too can change,'' but it's not a
requirement.

The bad news is that elevating the political discourse has to start
somewhere, and maybe it should start with us. We know that private behavior,
particularly private behavior in previous decades, has little to do with
ability to govern. We know that the continuing streak of American puritanism
leaves misery and stupidity in its wake. So let's find another stick with
which to beat the mealymouthed little twerp.

I was shocked, yes shocked, to hear that a rich young man had used drugs.

Casey Jones, you better watch your jrc@sfgate.com