A Quarterly Message on Liberty

Winter 2011Volume 9Number 1

John McWhorter is an associate pro-fessor of linguistics at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley and a contribut-ing editor to the Manhattan Institute’sCity Journal. This is an excerpt from a speech given at a Cato Institute semi-nar in New York in October.

he main obstacle to getting blackAmerica past the illusion that racism isstill a defining factor in America is thestrained relationship between young

black men and police forces. The massive numberof black men in prison stands as an ongoing andgraphically resonant rebuke to all calls to “get pastracism,” exhibit initiative, or stress optimism. Andthe primary reason for this massive number ofblack men in jail is the War on Drugs.Therefore, if the War on Drugs were terminat-

ed, the main factor keeping race-based resent-ment a core element in the American social fabricwould no longer exist. America would be a betterplace for all.

JOHN MCWHORTER

THowthe War on Drugs Is Destroying Black AmericaHowthe War on Drugs Is Destroying Black America

2 • Cato’s Letter WINTER 2011

The War on Drugs destroysblack families. It has be-come a norm for black

children to grow up in single-par-ent homes, their fathers away inprison for long spells and barelyknowing them. In poor and work-ing-class black America, a man anda woman raising their children to-gether is, of all things, an unusualsight. The War on Drugs plays alarge part in this. It must stop.

The War on Drugs discouragesyoung black men from seeking legalemployment. Because the illegalityof drugs keeps the prices high, thereare high salaries to be made in sell-ing them. This makes selling drugsa standing tempting alternative toseeking lower-paying legal employ-ment. The result is usually spells injail, as well as a failure to build thejob skills for legal employment thatserve as a foundation for a produc-

tive existence in middle and laterlife. The idea that the problem is anabsence of job opportunities is re-futed by the simple fact that immi-grants, including black ones, regu-larly make do. It is often said thatbecause immigrants have a uniqueinitiative or “pluck” in relocating tothe United States in the first place,it is unfair to compare black Ameri-

cans to them. However, the War onDrugs has made it impossible to seewhether black Americans would ex-hibit such “pluck” themselves ifdrug selling were not a tempting al-ternative. High black employmentrates in the past gave all indicationthat black men are no strangers to“pluck” when circumstances re-quire it.

The War on Drugs makes spend-ing time in prison a badge of honor.To black men involved in the drugtrade, enduring prison time, regard-ed as an unjust punishment formerely selling people somethingthey want (with some justification),is seen as a badge of strength: theex-con is a hero rather than some-one who went the wrong way. In the1920s, before the War on Drugs,black Americans, regardless of classlevel, did not view black ex-cons asheroes.

The War on Drugs’ effects onthe black community are imper-vious to community calls for dis-cipline and leadership. Youngblack men will not be wooedfrom selling drugs by black lead-ers calling for families to take re-sponsibility for their childrenand keep them off of the streets.There are no national black

leaders today who have this kind ofinfluence over a significant portionof black people, and there is simplyno chance that the NAACP, com-mitted to antidiscrimination activi-ties rather than community uplift,would preach in a constructive fash-ion any time soon, if ever—and then,black America is too diverse todayfor the NAACP or the National

In the 1920s, before theWar on Drugs, black Americans, regardless of class level, did not viewblack ex-cons as heroes.

““

WINTER 2011 Cato’s Letter • 3

Urban League to have anyserious effect upon all. Thedays when the White Housecould invite a quorum ofblack people considered“representatives of the race”is over. If this were attempt-ed today, one can imagineassorted celebrities invited—Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee,Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, MarianWright Edelman, John Lewis, BillCosby, and so on. But these peopledo not determine what black Ameri-ca as a whole thinks or does. Thesepeople do not have the wherewithalto translate their verdicts into feder-al policy.

What will turn black Americaaround for good is the eliminationof a policy that prevents too manypeople from doing their best. Legal-izing marijuana is just a start, andreducing the length of sentences forpossession of crack cocaine wouldaddress only the tip of the iceberg.While efforts in this vein are laud-able, they would not reduce thebasic financial incentive for engag-ing in the drug trade in the firstplace, and thus would leave the as-sociated cultural pattern in place.Since the 1980s, as sentences forpossessing or selling drugs have be-come lengthier, the price of cocaineon the street has become cheaper.

Make no mistake—I proposethat hard drugs be available for pur-chase for prices below anything thatcould make a living for someoneselling them on the street. Theyshould be available in maintenancedoses, possibly for free. Resourcesnow tied up in useless enforcement

would be used for truly effective re-habilitation programs. Fears of anaddiction epidemic are unfounded:none such has occurred in Portugal,where the drug war has been signifi-cantly scaled back. Our discomfortwith the idea of heroin available atdrug stores is similar to that of a Prohibitionist shuddering at the thought of bourbon available at the corner store. We’ll get over it—because we should, and we must.

The elimination of the War onDrugs would entail completing theother half of the rescue of blackAmerica that welfare reform con-tributed in 1996. Open-ended,rather than time-limited, welfareprevented too many black womenfrom doing their best from the latesixties to 1996. The women them-selves readily confirm this, and thehigher employment rates amongthem immediately after 1996 provethat this was the case.

In 1996 countless people gen-uinely thought black womenwould wind up shivering on side-walk grates. These people underes-timated the basic human resilienceof black people. In the same way, ifthe War on Drugs is ended, thesame kinds of people will assumethat young black men will wander

What will turn blackAmerica around for good is the elimination of a policy that preventstoo many people fromdoing their best.

“ “

about jobless and starving. Theywill not, because they are humanbeings with basic resilience and sur-vival instincts.

Let’s imagine a black Americawith no War on Drugs.

No more gang wars over turf, nomore kids shooting each other oversneakers, no more “Stop the Vio-lence” rallies, no more agonized discussions aboutgun possession inthe inner city.Quite simply, peo-ple who don’t selldrugs for a livingdon’t much needto kill each otherover turf.

No more glumspeculations aboutthe extent to whichblack women’s ro-mantic choices areshaped by a “short-age of black men,” no more scholar-ship showing that women in theghetto get pregnant out of wedlockbecause they don’t see the men theyknow as marriageable. Becausethere’s no War on Drugs, there areno more black men up the river pro-portionally than white, Latino, orAsian men—because the men getjobs, as they did in the old days, evenin the worst ghettos, because theyhave to. Black communities are nowfull to bursting with men, blackwomen have their pick of them, andwe can move on.

No more does a privileged manlike Henry Louis Gates shout, “Why,because I’m a black man in Ameri-ca?” when questioned by a police-

man. Gates’ take on being asked whyhe was breaking and entering intohis own house was understandablein an America with a War on Drugsthat forces cops to pay special atten-tion to young black men. With theWar on Drugs eliminated, the copswould have no reason to do this, andthe understandable paranoia of menlike Gates would evaporate.

No more callsfor a “conversation”about race, with thereal intention beingthat black peopleget to vent at whitepeople and reveal tothem the preciouswisdom that racismremains more im-portant than youmight think. Be-cause there is nolonger a sense thatblack America is

under siege, no one is wasting timedreaming of this impossible “con-versation.”

The hideous drop-out rateamong ghetto teens? Watch it fall assoon as there’s no way to keepmoney in your pocket without adiploma. The War on Drugs givesghetto males an ever-standing op-tion for making a living withoutstaying in school.

Do you often get a sense thatmany black people operate accord-ing to a belief that they are not sub-ject to the same rules as everyoneelse, in terms of civility, achieve-ment, and life plans? You probablydo, and frankly, you are seeingsomething real. There is a kind of

4 • Cato’s Letter WINTER 2011

WINTER 2011 Cato’s Letter • 5

black person who does feelthat the rules are different forhim. And what underlies this,although most would notput it in so many words, is therelationship between blackmen and the police. Ask ablack person why they thinkracism still defines black lives,if they do, and count howmany seconds pass beforethey start talking about the police.Upon which, return to my pointhere: with no War on Drugs, a gen-eration would grow up without thatprickly, defensive sense of whatbeing black means.

No more exaggeration, double-talk, melodrama, no more formulaicrage, no more staged indignation.Imagine all of the energy wasted onthis devoted to real things, likeschools, diet, and health care.

There will be those who say that Iam exaggerating the centrality ofthe War on Drugs to black Ameri-ca’s problems. I believe that they arewrong, and the question we mustask is: What do you suggest?

We hope that they do not sug-gest more of what’s been going onfor the past 40 years: sonorousphrasings at forums and meetingsand on websites and blogs about re-sponsibility, expectations, institu-tional racism, and profile articlesabout individuals making a differ-ence for a few dozen people at a timein a particular city for a few years be-fore life moves them on.

Franklin D. Roosevelt said:“Take a method and try it. If it fails,admit it and try another. But aboveall, try something.” What do you

suggest we try instead? Communitycenters? Take a look at the trackrecord on that. Or is it that we haveto try a lot of things all at the sametime? Well, what else have we beendoing for 40 years, and where are wenow? He who supposes that a ran-dom combination of unfocused,usually temporary and largely inef-fective things is preferable to tryingsomething else is responsible for ex-plaining why, and he could not.

Let’s work on something con-crete. End the War on Drugs andmake a better America. This is notabout Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out.This is not about political partisan-ship. This is about making blacklives better—and through that, mak-ing America better. That is, not“America” in some vague, poeticsense, but the daily lives that all ofus lead.

If we truly want to get past race inthis country, we must be aware thatit will never happen until the futileWar on Drugs so familiar to us nowis a memory. All it will take is a sin-gle generation of black Americansgrowing up in a post-ProhibitionAmerica for us to get where we allwant to go. The time to end the Waron Drugs, therefore, is yesterday.

“If we truly want to get past race in this country,we must be aware that itwill never happen untilthe futile War on Drugs so familiar to us now is a memory.

“

6 • Cato’s Letter WINTER 2011

How did you come to be director of foreignpolicy studies at Cato? You started here as an intern, is that correct? Yes. I was an intern at Cato in the summer andfall of 1987. It was a great experience, althoughvery different from the rigorous—and highlycompetitive—program that we have for internstoday. After graduating from George Washing-ton University in 1989, I served as an officer inthe U.S. Navy for four years, and then went tograduate school at Temple in Philadelphia. Iplanned on becoming a history professor butwas always interested in contemporary publicpolicy. I remained in touch with a few of thescholars here, especially David Boaz and TedGalen Carpenter, and wrote papers on the U.S.-Japan relationship, and later on the U.S. Navyand the Joint Strike Fighter (aka F-35), so I had atrack record with the Institute before I was hired.

How does a policy of nonintervention help advance freedom internationally?War is the health of the state; preparing for andwaging war has been the primary engine be-hind the growth of government. Given this, Iconfess that I am completely baffled when peo-ple support an interventionist posture abroadand noninterventionism at home. The samecautions that advise against government at-tempts to build communities here in the Unit-ed States—the problem of knowledge, unin-tended consequences, the seen versus theunseen—are manifest in foreign interventions,in spades. What’s more, the notion that weneed big government abroad to advance thecause of freedom does a disservice to the people

who work at Cato and countless other classicalliberal NGOs around the world. It implies thatliberty can only spread under the covering fireof American bombs and bullets. Experienceand common sense suggests otherwise. We’vedistributed several million Cato Constitutionsover the years; never once have we had to resortto coercion and violence to convince peoplethat the principles of our founding documentsare worth reading and emulating.

While most Americans agree that we shouldcut federal spending, many are hesitant to doso where the military is concerned. Would cut-ting defense spending make us less secure?In a word, no. We are extraordinarily secure. Ter-rorism is a legitimate concern but pales in com-parison to the threat of thermonuclear annihila-tion that we endured during the Cold War.Besides, our enormous expenditures on the mil-itary are largely irrelevant to fighting terrorism,and might be counterproductive. The U.S. mili-tary is today organized primarily around de-fending other countries that can and should de-fend themselves. We should let them, return thesavings to American taxpayers, and relieve theburdens on our troops.

Military spending has nearly doubled in realterms over the past 13 years. If we restrained ourimpulses to meddle in foreign conflicts, andreaffirmed that the core function of govern-ment is self-defense, not the defense of others,we could make cuts without undermining oursecurity. Such reductions would still leave uswith an enormous margin of superiority overany conceivable combination of rivals.

Cato Scholar Profile:CHRISTOPHERA. PREBLECHRISTOPHER A. PREBLE is the director of foreign policy studies at theCato Institute. He is the author of The Power Problem: How AmericanMilitary Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and LessFree, which documents the enormous costs of America’s military power, andproposes a new grand strategy to advance U.S. security, as well as coeditor,with Jim Harper and Benjamin Friedman, of Terrorizing Ourselves:Why U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Is Failing and How to Fix It. Inaddition, Preble has published more than 150 articles in major publicationsincluding USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Financial Times,National Review, the National Interest, the Harvard InternationalReview, and Foreign Policy.

WINTER 2011 Cato’s Letter • 7

hen it comes to making charita-ble gifts, all assets are not creat-ed equal. In fact, some assets are

uniquely suited for charitable giving.

Gifts of appreciated propertyFor example, we are probably all familiar

with the concept of giving appreciated assets.As long as some basic preconditions, such as aone-year holding period, are satisfied, you getan income-tax deduction for the full appreci-ated value of the asset. In addition, you willnot be required to pay capital gains tax on theappreciation that would have been realizedhad you sold the asset.

Gifts of retirement assetsRetirement assets, such as IRAs, 401(k)s,

Keoghs and 403(b)s, also make highly effec-tive gifts. Because retirement assets are subjectto uniquely high taxes, making a gift of themis often the best way to negate what approach-es confiscatory taxation.

This vortex of taxation surrounding retire-ment assets comes about because those assetsare subject to a wicked mix of income, estate,and generation-skipping taxes. On the in-come-tax side, distributions from retirementplans are subject to income taxes—and there isno way to avoid making distributions becausetax laws require that distributions be madeonce you reach a certain age.

As for estate taxes, unless you are able toname a spouse as beneficiary, whatever is leftin the account when you die is subject to es-tate taxes. And bear in mind that distribu-

tions from the account to your beneficiaries(whether spousal or nonspousal) will contin-ue to be subject to income taxes.

What’s more, depending on the circum-stances, generation-skipping taxes may kickin as well. Generation-skipping tax (GST) is aspecial tax imposed on the privilege of passingproperty to a beneficiary more than one gen-eration younger. So if your beneficiary is agrandchild, you need to be concerned aboutGST, although there are certain exemp-tions/protections that can sometimes shieldagainst the imposition of GST.

In order to avoid this trifecta of income, es-tate, and possibly GST taxes, consider desig-nating Cato as the recipient of any benefit re-maining in your retirement plans. Your estatewill get an estate tax charitable deduction forthe value of the assets passing to Cato. As acharity, Cato will not have to pay income taxeson any distributions.

A couple of final thoughts . . . Although the exact shape of the estate tax

is unclear at this moment, it seems that theestate tax is going to remain part of the land-scape. So planning to avoid the estate tax re-mains viable. One important practical re-minder: retirement assets do not pass underyour will. They pass via beneficiary designa-tion forms. So having an up-to-date will isnot enough.

For more information about gifts of appre-ciated assets or retirement assets, please contactCato’s director of planned giving, Gayllis Ward,at (202) 218-4631 or at gward@cato.org.

W

All AssetsAre NotCreatedEqual . . .

1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

www.cato.org

Non

profit

Organ

ization

U.S. P

ostage

PAID

Cato Institute

Available at bookstores nationwide, online at www.cato.org, or by calling toll-free (800) 767-1241.Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20001 l www.cato.org

Liberty of Contract: Rediscovering a LostConstitutional Right By David N. MayerIs economic liberty the same as personal liberty? This question hasbeen the subject of some of the most controversial court rulings, in-cluding major Supreme Court decisions made over the past century.Mayer examines the history of contract and shows how this right hasbeen continuously diminished by court decisions and by our country’sgrowing regulatory and welfare state.

HARDCOVER: $21.95 • PAPERBACK: $9.95 • E-BOOK: $7.50

The False Promise of Green EnergyBy Andrew Morriss, William T. Bogart, Roger E. Meiners, and Andrew DorchakGreen energy promises an alluring future—more jobs in a cleaner envi-ronment. There’s one problem: the lack of credible evidence that thiscan occur. This book examines the claims green-energy and green-jobsproponents make, and explores the politics and gamesmanship lurk-ing below the surface.

HARDCOVER: $24.95 • E-BOOK: $14.00

Books fromthe