Dear Susan,
Somehow I had a feeling you were going to want to talk about tobacco. But before we get to that, let me repeat some words of deep philosophy from Lucianne Goldberg. She was invited to Steve Brill’s Party for Steve Brill’s Content. And though she was slammed and abused in Steve Brill’s Article, she went. Asked why, according to today’s Washington Post, she replied, “You don’t not come to somebody’s party because they lie about you. It’s not the New York thing.” I’m a New Yorker and that quote reminds me why I love the town.
As for the evil weed, actually, when I heard about the bill’s defeat, I knew I was going to have fun reading today’s New York Times. I was going to get to see the creature that I don’t get to enjoy much anymore, the liberal in full battle cry. The situation was perfect: the forces of compassion crushed by evil corporations; children sacrificed on the altar of greed; all the college-educated fine-thinking affluents united on the side of virtue, humming moral outrage to each other across the networks of Cellular One.
And true enough, the New York Times editorial page did not disappoint. The fundamental assumption of the Times coverage was that the only reason you could be against the tobacco bill was because you were in the pay of the tobacco companies. It used to be a staple of liberal argumentation that liberals possess a monopoly on virtue. Either you were for affirmative action or you were a racist. Either you were against the Cold War or you were a warmonger. That was the sort of self-righteousness that created a million conservatives (including, in part, me). But we don’t get to see Manichean liberalism much anymore. Except for today.
Most of the coverage in today’s papers exhaustively covers the tobacco companies media campaign, but artfully omits any of the substantive arguments against the legislation. The snobbish assumption is that the American people can be led around by advertisements like a herd of dumb bulls. In reality, people aren’t that stupid. If they were the tobacco companies could make themselves popular. In fact, the substantive arguments do matter. A lot of people genuinely don’t like large tax hikes, especially when they are directed at the bottom half of the income spread. Bill Clinton politicized the tax hikes by grabbing the money for domestic programs. A lot of people are disgusted by the size of the windfall that would have gone to the lawyers. A lot of people don’t like the idea of 17 new federal entities to enforce the legislation. A lot of people still believe in individual responsibility. It was absurd to assign the responsibility for smoking reduction to the tobacco companies. They were being asked to produce changes in behavior of a magnitude that no government program was able to achieve.
And a lot of people were simply put off by the atmosphere of hysteria surrounding the issue. Smoking came to be seen as worse than 7 of the ten commandments in the public eye, and among the Clintonistas it was worse than the 8th, adultery. The fact is, the tobacco companies got into this mess through their greed and they got out of it through the greed of their opponents. When this legislation first got rolling it looked like a sure winner. Everybody was on board, the administration (basically), the public, the companies. The only people who were opposed were the health advocates. They wanted a purist solution that would destroy their enemy and salt his earth. The telling moment came when the legislation was changed to please the zealots. The amount the companies would have to pay went up from $368.5 billion to $516 billion. The regulations became more onerous, the legal protections dissolved. So the companies walked, a lot of people were appalled by the health advocates unwillingness to compromise and the momentum fell apart. The Republicans went home and found that while us media types were in full battle cry over tobacco, the rest of the country was either apathetic or against the tax hike. What seemed sure passage turned into defeat. Shades of health care, except that the health advocates will see their donations go through the roof.
I suspect that the way to truly curb teen smoking is first to go around taking away the driver’s licenses of kids caught smoking. That way we prevent them from doing something that is really dangerous, driving. Aside from that we should shut up about it. During the time the adults were scolding America on this issue teen smoking became chic. A study by Jack Calfee, a leader in this research, shows that countries that don’t place ad bans on cigarettes see faster teen smoking declines than countries that do. Anyway, I’m glad to see that you’re coming to visit our den of iniquity.
You should stop by the office for a visit. I’m in the same building as the Washington bureau of SLATE. We can grab some of those folks and stand outside the building for a few puffs. Actually I don’t smoke.
all the best,
David
