HEY, RUSH, WHY DIDN'T YOU 'JUST SAY NO'?

What is the world coming to? During the past few months two of America's
leading spokesmen for conservative beliefs have admitted they were addicts.
First there was Bill Bennett, the man who has spent the past 20 years or so
castigating those who have succumbed to various addictions, saying they
merely made a choice and therefore must be punished.

Bill finally came clean and admitted he was addicted to gambling.

By the way, Bill, how's your cigarette addiction coming along?

And where have you been lately?

I've missed seeing you on "Larry King Live" and other talk shows, prancing
about with your holier-than-thou attitudes, telling Americans how to live
their lives.

Well, I hope you are doing well these days and have those two addictions
under control.

I have no time for you now, since none other than Rush Limbaugh has
admitted he is a drug addict.

Rush, as everyone knows, has been preaching his brand of conservatism over
the AM airwaves for a long time now. As several books and commentaries have
pointed out, most of what Rush has been saying is pure bullshit, but that
doesn't matter, since his listeners, aptly named "dittoheads," don't care
about factual evidence.

They just want to hear a lot of bombast against the dreaded "liberals" who
are destroying the country with their loose morals.

But now Rush has shown that he is human after all by admitting he has a
drug problem.

Don't get me wrong, for I have a great deal of sympathy for people with
addictions. My liberal background and humanistic values are the reason for
such sympathy.

I know, as all the experts have known, that addictions cannot be easily
overcome with pure will. You cannot "just say no." Addictions arise from a
variety of social, psychological and biological factors that play huge
roles in our lives.

However, the conservative philosophy, with its firm belief in free will,
cannot possibly handle such explanations. Behind this view is a view of the
family that can be described as the traditional nuclear family with the
father in control as the major breadwinner. There is, under this system, a
"strict father morality" that is based in part on the belief that in order
to become a "good" and "moral" person a child must learn to obey the rules
and respect authority.

Proper behavior is taught through the use or threat of punishment. Within
such a system the exercise of authority is itself moral; that is, it is
moral to reward obedience and punish disobedience.

According to the conservative view, there is a "morality of strength."
Moral strength can be seen as a metaphor.

The metaphor suggests that the world is divided into "good" and "evil," and
in order to stand up to "evil" one must be morally strong, and one becomes
morally strong through a system of rewards and punishments that teaches
self-discipline. A person who is morally weak cannot fight evil. If one is
too self-indulgent, he or she is immoral.

Welfare is immoral, as is crime and drug use, and therefore should be punished.

Therefore, it logically follows that crime and drug use are the result of
moral weakness, a lack of self-control. A person with proper
self-discipline should be able to "just say no" and those who do not must
be and deserve to be punished.

Given this conservative belief system, you would expect that those who
claim to be "conservatives" would apply these rules to themselves and "just
say no" to addictions. Rush himself has said as much over the years. Here's
one juicy quote from Rush: "Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some
might say, is destroying this country.

And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs,
importing drugs.

And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies
and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are
violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought
to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

It should be noted that such laws prohibit only certain kinds of drugs,
such as pot, cocaine and heroin, but not tobacco (according to a recent
survey, about 5 million died around the world from tobacco in the year
2000), nor alcohol (which is responsible for at least 150,000 deaths each
year). What the war-on-drugs proponents, like Rush, are talking about are
drugs used by those who are poor or of a different skin color. They are the
ones who are doing time in America's jails and prisons. They don't get
treatment, they get jail time. And they are the ones who should have "just
said no." Not people like Rush or Bill Bennett, nor all the others with
money and power who become addicted.

They rarely see the inside of a prison cell. (There is some indication that
Rush's possession of these painkillers may have been against the law, but
we'll see if legal action is taken against him. I doubt it.)

Well, Rush, I wish you luck in overcoming your addiction.

It will take some time and hard work, but I am certain you will come
through, since you can afford the best treatment in the country.

However, when you get cured and get back on the air again, try to change
your hardened attitude toward the millions of poor folks who abuse drugs
and even those who just use drugs casually but end up in prison anyway.

Try some real "compassionate conservatism" for a change.

Perhaps you can call upon one of the favorite lines from conservatives,
namely, being "fiscally responsible" by not wasting taxpayer money on the
drug war and expand treatment options.

It sure saves a lot of money in the long run, as you conservatives like to say.

When you get cured and get back on the air again, Rush, try to change your
hardened attitude toward the millions of poor folks who abuse drugs and
even those who just use drugs casually but end up in prison anyway.