michael gerson is one of the most interesting - because one of the least mechanically ideological - opinion writers working today. i have a feeling that 'compassionate conservativism' was his invention, though obviously he didn't quite succeed in sneaking it by dick cheney. on the other hand, i'm not really sure that welfare-state right-wingers have a big future. they certainly don't have a bright present. one thing that a compassionate conservative is is the opposite of a libertarian, so it makes sense that gerson attacks ron paul's advocacy of legalizing all drugs and prostitution. it is astonishing, i must say, that a politician with as much mainstream play as paul - an actual congressman and a relatively credible candidate for president - can take this position. it's sort of an amazing moment in american politics; very fluid, for one thing.

and gerson's arguments are, if you ask me (and even if you don't, or even though you don't), confused in a fundamentally "statist" or "please oppress me" kind of way. when paul asks 'how many people out there would shoot heroin if it were legal?', he's pointing out that it's not the fact that it's a crime that keeps most people from riding the white pony. that's true, i believe. and when he 'mocks" addicts by saying “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws,” he's pointing out that most addicts do not actually want to be arrested and imprisoned.

paul's idea of legalizing heroin, according to gerson, would "condemn a portion of his fellow citizens to self-destruction." but it's worth asking what imprisoning addicts condemns them to. it's worth asking whether the practice has actually had the effect of reducing heroin use or helping people overcome their addiction, overall. it's worth asking whether our vast gulag for drug offenders is an expression of our compassion. gerson says that paul's position expresses 'contempt for the vulnerable and suffering,' as if arresting them and throwing them in roach motels expresses just the opposite.

if you think the law against embezzlement expresses compassion for embezzlers or that constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage express compassion for gay couples, i say you are oddly confused.

let me put it like this: that we don't want people to be heroin addicts does not entail that we must treat addiction as a crime, any more than the fact that we disapprove of lady gaga videos entails that they should be censored, or that we disapprove of wal-marts entails that we should launch airstrikes. and long prison sentences are a hell of a way to show how deeply you care.