Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

75 Years of De-Mafiazation

  • Apr. 7th, 2008 at 2:51 AM
Brad @ Burning Man
The local press are making a big deal out of the fact that 75 years ago today, the United States repealed the single greatest mistake in the history of the republic. Even bigger than the Iraq War. Even bigger than praising the Shah of Iran as an "island of stability." Even bigger than the "3/5ths compromise" and other inclusions of slavery in the original Constitution. Hands down, the single dumbest thing that the US ever did to itself was outlawing the manufacture, import, distribution, and sale of alcohol without criminalizing possession or use, and 75 years ago today, with the repeal of Prohibition, we started the process of repairing the damage that we did to ourselves with that stupid, stupid mistake. Of course, the anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition is a local news story here in St. Louis because the city's largest remaining employer is Anheuser Busch. Everybody in the St. Louis metro area knows somebody who works for, or used to work for, the brewery. When Prohibition came along, the Busch family kept as many of the employees and brewmasters on as they could afford, kept them employed in money-losing make-work jobs, betting that Prohibition wouldn't last long, and they won that bet. But that's not the reason why the story interests me. The reason the story interests me is that I've been looking for an excuse to bring up Prohibition again for a while now.

Lest you forget, or weren't here the last time I went over this subject, here's what was so pathologically stupid about the way that Prohibition was implemented: it normalized, it legitimized, doing business with the Mafia. It certainly didn't create the Mafia, let alone the far older and far more ubiquitous broader concept of ethnic organized criminal gangs, the kind we call lower-case-m mafia nowadays. Ethnic mafia are a well-studied phenomenon; they provide the only available employment for discriminated against ethnic immigrants who are shut out of legal employment and/or denied protection by police and the courts. During Prohibition, and in the years leading up to it, that was mostly ethnic groups that weren't considered "white" at the time, as silly as that sounds now: Italians, Irish, Jews, and to a lesser extent Poles. But whatever country you're studying, in whatever time period, the rackets that ethnic mafia go into are entirely predictable: gambling, prostitution, smuggling, loan sharking, blackmail, extortion, violence for hire, and brokering stolen goods for and money laundering for other criminals. But there's always been a limitation on how big a mafia can grow. All of those are businesses where the customers are criminals, too, and where nobody in government really sympathizes with them. That's a built-in limit to how big their markets can grow, and how safely they can operate.

Always, that is, except this once. And that was the problem. As Al Capone once told a reporter, when he sold it, it was called bootlegging, but when his customers served it at their parties, it was called hospitality. There was no stigma for almost anyone, no risk to them, from being known to do business with a bootlegger. As a result, everybody, and I mean everybody in America, had what reporters spent most of my life calling "mafia ties." Even the law-abiding citizens who never touched a drop of liquor during Prohibition could be "tied" to at least one friend, family member, employer, employee, or member of their church or of one of their clubs who "did business with the Mafia," as journalists liked to put it. Everybody. You could tar whoever you wanted with that brush. Which, for decades, meant that you couldn't really tar anybody with it. And that had two horrific effects on the democracy itself. First of all, it made the top mafiosi fabulously wealthy, by giving them legally unhindered access to a huge market for a monopoly product. And secondly, it legitimized them in the eyes of all too many police, judges, and elected officials. It gave them something that only one other mafia in all of history has ever had, the Russian mafia after the fall of the Soviet Union, and that's upper class social acceptability.

And of course, we know what they did with all of that money and all of that access to politicians. They went out and bought themselves a political party. They could afford to buy the biggest and the best, the party that every American was going to vote for after blaming the Republicans for the Great Depression, the Democratic Party. So they funded huge campaign contributions, and gave numerous other favors, to any Democratic nominee for office who'd take them. And all they wanted in exchange was one thing: immunity from prosecution. No mafia member must ever be arrested; if he has the ill fortune to run into a cop that isn't on the take, no prosecutor must indict, no judge must allow charges to be pressed without dismissing them. And if at first in some places that only applied to Volstead Act violations (the Volstead Act was the implementing legislation for Prohibition), it didn't stop there. Especially not once politicians were, themselves, subject to blackmail if the amount of money they took from the Mafia ever got proven, as opposed to merely suspected. No, it meant that in the "machine controlled" cities of the US, in New York and in Los Angeles and in Chicago and in Kansas City and in New Orleans and in Miami and (perhaps to a lesser extent) in every other large city of the US, it meant that criminals who were accepted into the Mafia, who submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of New York City's "five families" Crime Commission, could run numbers rackets, run prostitution rings, smuggle heroin, shark loans, blackmail politicians and wealthy businessmen, extort smaller businessmen, fence stolen goods, and hire out their enforcers to murder people for modest cash payments, with near total impunity.

In 1946, an awful lot of the GIs who came home from the War looked at this setup with grown-up eyes for the first time, read what the crusading journalists were documenting, and collectively asked themselves, "Did we put our lives on the line, did we watch our buddies get slaughtered like hogs in the mud, to remove the fascists from German and Japan, only to come home to a country run by mobsters?" And since the Republicans were still completely discredited, politically and economically, the result was something called the Reform wing of the Democratic Party, or the Reform Democrats (as opposed to the Machine Democrats) for short. It took a decade to get any serious number of Reform candidates into office, especially higher office. The real process of de-mafiazation of America didn't really get started until 1961, when mob-installed President John F. Kennedy's little brother Bobby, once appointed Attorney General of the US, turned out to have quietly been a Reform Democrat. Which, of course, famously is what got both him and his brother whacked by the Mob, but the writing was on the wall. By the time Reagan swept into office in 1981 on a platform that included ridding America of the last of the Mafia-controlled cities and Mafia-controlled labor unions, there wasn't really much of a Mafia left for his Attorney General to go after. But it still clings grudgingly to life in a couple of cities, bribing politicians and judges to look the other way as they run a variety of small-time scams, and still gets away with it all too often.

Which is to say that criminalizing the sale and production and import of alcohol while decriminalizing the purchase and use created a nation-wide culture of corruption that went almost all the way to the very top, and which permeated almost all levels of society. And once a culture of corruption got that thoroughly ingrained into American life, once being a gangster and being above the law and having politicians in your pocket was even briefly made acceptable, it will have taken an entire human lifetime to root it out.

You can probably guess where I'm going with this, probably tomorrow.

Tags:

Comments

[info]pne wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 09:53 am (UTC)
The Sullivan Act seems to be connected with gun control -- were you thinking of the Volstead Act instead?
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 04:09 pm (UTC)
I was. Sorry, easy mistake to make; an awful lot of bootleggers who did get in trouble did so over Sullivan Act violations because nobody would bust them for Volstead Act violations. I'll edit the article.
[info]reannon wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 01:28 pm (UTC)
Minor nitpick: Anheuser-Busch isn't the largest employer in the St. Louis area. That's Barnes-Jewish Corp., with more than 21,000 employees. Next is Boeing with more than 15,000, then Scott Air Force Base with more than 11,000 (not including on-base family members, of course). Surprisingly, AB only employs about 1,200 people at its St. Louis brewery. However, AB is absolutely a major employer and arguably much more a part of the city's cultural landscape than BJC or Boeing.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 04:11 pm (UTC)
Huh, I would have sworn that the local Boeing operations had shrunk more than that. And I don't really think of Scott AFB as being in St. Louis, nor was I counting government employment. Don't know why I didn't think of BJC, though.

Edited at 2008-04-07 04:11 pm (UTC)
[info]gleef wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 04:25 pm (UTC)
I don't doubt your figures, and I've never been to St. Louis, but how is a hospital the largest employer in a major metropolitan area?

For comparison, NewYork-Presbyterian "Hospital", a behemoth with five hospitals, two medical colleges and several research centers, only employs about 15,000 people.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 05:23 pm (UTC)
BJC Health Systems isn't just one hospital. It's a merger between two regional hospital systems (Barnes Hospital and Christian Hospitals), a specialty hospital (Jewish Children's Hospital), and a major medical school's teaching hospital (Washington University School of Medicine), plus a ton of affiliated medical practices. It's huge.
[info]cuglas wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 08:41 pm (UTC)
BJC owns 14 hospitals in the greater St. Louis area, plus a few more in out-state Illinois and Missouri. They own 3 nursing homes and a big rehabilitation center, as well. Plus, it owns the radiology service providers and multiple physician practices and home-health care providers and rehabilitation therapists and physical therapists associated with each hospital.

[info]cuglas wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 09:54 pm (UTC)
Even with that many hospitals, though, it only employs around 26,000 people, so your numbers are about right.

http://www.stlrcga.org/x1044.xml
[info]hdaemon wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 04:44 pm (UTC)
It's actually not all that surprising, given the degree of automation present in AB's plants. I recently sat through a presentation from them at a job fair. People are involved only in loading raw materials into the system, and driving the finished product away (trucks are loaded automatically). All they need are a bunch of technicians to keep it running, and engineers to further improve the process.
[info]nancylebov wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 01:44 pm (UTC)
Would you count Prohibition as a bigger mistake than the war on drugs?

Afaik, gambling is pretty socially acceptable, though not as pervasive as drinking.

Also afaik, but I thought organized crime had (has?) a lot of respectibility in Japan.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 04:15 pm (UTC)
Every remaining mafioso in America was salivating at the prospect that the anti-marijuana laws would repeat the Prohibition mistake, and put them back into business. They didn't; possession and use were made just as illegal as manufacture, distribution, and sale. If you think the War on Drugs is a fiasco now, well, you're right, but it's not nearly the fiasco it would have been if there were no sanctions for users, or that it will turn into if the people who've spent the last several decades lobbying to eliminate penalties for users while advocating harsh sanctions for dealers get their way.
[info]nancylebov wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 10:45 am (UTC)
Do you have any idea why the Prohibition was written to only punish sale of alcohol?

I can think of some possible reasons: that forbidding selling seemed like over-reaching or that there was a revulsion against commerce (still in play from the people who think it's ok to own and smoke marijuana but "the profit should be taken out of it").

I believe (based on induction, not evidence) that the utter opposition to medical marijuana and decriminalization at the Federal level is driven by organized crime, but it might just be power-lust and sadism.

I suppose that if you're looking at institutional damage rather than individual harm, the worse effect of the war on drugs is prisons becoming a powerful lobby.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 9th, 2008 05:57 am (UTC)
Prohibition didn't go after the buyers for the same reason that many people argue for marijuana decriminalization now: it seems to them that the real harm to society is being done by the dealers, that the users are mere victims.
[info]theweaselking wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 08:36 pm (UTC)
It's so weird to consider that gambling is illegal in some places. (It's also harder to gamble in your home, with your family, casually, over dinner. I'm just sayin')

And no, yakuza are a disgrace and totally untouchable in high-culture Japan. However, they are the absolute top of the criminal heap.

[info]ekeppich wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 02:28 pm (UTC)
Which, of course, famously is what got both him and his brother whacked by the Mob

Are you suggesting that the Mob killed John and Robert Kennedy?
[info]llennhoff wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 02:38 pm (UTC)
Or that the Air Traffic Controllers' union was controlled by the Mafia?
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 04:10 pm (UTC)
What? What does PATCO have to do with the Kennedy assassinations?
[info]llennhoff wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 04:18 pm (UTC)
Sorry, I was responding to your follow on comment By the time Reagan swept into office in 1981 on a platform that included ridding America of the last of the Mafia-controlled cities and Mafia-controlled labor unions, there wasn't really much of a Mafia left for his Attorney General to go after.

You might not have meant that Mafia influence was the reason he went after PATCO, but I wanted to find out if you did.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 05:19 pm (UTC)
Oh! Sorry, misunderstood the question. No, he went after PATCO just to break the union. The Reagan administration did, however, go after the Teamsters and the Laborers hard specifically to finish the job of busting the last remaining mobsters. By the time they did so, those mafia veterans had no real remaining criminal power, were barely clinging to their make-work union management jobs. But you can never convince a Republican that the Democratic Party really did clean up its own scofflaws long before the Republicans came into power.
[info]pseydtonne wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 04:24 pm (UTC)
You stated "By the time Reagan swept into office in 1981 on a platform that included ridding America of the last of the Mafia-controlled cities and Mafia-controlled labor unions". The first union he actually shattered was PATCO (not to be confused with the subway train from Philly to Camden). His strike breaking in 1982 ended any power unions had against corporations (as contrary to government employees) in the United States.

That's what we're inferring from your statement. If you have some other labor union in mind and some specific examples of its ties to the Legitimate Businessmen's Society, please let us know.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 05:19 pm (UTC)
Replied to llennhoff, above. Sorry, misunderstood the question!
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 04:09 pm (UTC)
Yes. I am suggesting just that.
[info]ekeppich wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 04:53 pm (UTC)
That's really stupid.

But... um... understandable.
Kennedy was killed by a disgruntled communist and the inability of the American left to come to terms with that has spawned all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

I suppose at this point, you'll get really upset and start pointing out all manner of "evidence." But I would suggest a trip to the Sixth Floor museum in Dallas. Dealy Plaza is a small place and even I used to easily pick off squirrels at twice that distance. Oliver Stone notwithstanding, it's not a difficult shot to make.

But if you're confortable with your conspiracies... by all means, please enjoy.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 05:24 pm (UTC)
You can believe in the laws of physics, or you can believe the Warren Commission Report.
[info]ekeppich wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 06:19 pm (UTC)
Oh my.

At first, I was inclined to give such an idea the ridicule it deserves and go on about whether this was before or after the Bavarian Illuminati decided to fake the moon-landings and whether Hitler's Brain, now residing in Geneva, approved.

But that would be too easy. You write well, Mister Hicks, very well and it tends to conceal sets of shaky assumptions and gas in logic. That you take stock in patently silly conspiracy theories- and no, I don't want to revisit Dallas 1963- the fact that you believe in such things is... illuminating.

Yes, "illuminating" in the word.
[info]monkeyd wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 06:48 pm (UTC)
Even if you discount Dallas as moot and an irreconsilable quandry between your POV and Brad's, the postulate concerning Robert Kennedy is not unreasonable.
[info]ekeppich wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 02:51 am (UTC)
Well, I honestly don't know enough about Robert Kennedy's death one way or another.

But I do know, from "Machine Gun" Kelly to Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, mafioso have never managed to keep their mouths shut- their mythic code of silence is just that- a myth. If they had anything to do with either Kennedy it would be public knowledge instead of the stuff of fringe theories.

To me, the most interesting thing about JFK is the persistence of these conspiracy theories, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The great mass of evidence supports Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone assassin, as I said earlier, go to Dealy Plaza. I was never a Marine and I could have made that shot. It's not a big place. Any half-baked theory to the contrary... well, Occam's razor and all that.

It's the persistence of the theories that I find fascinating. Why? The best explanation I've heard points to the fact that left-wing types simply cannot accept that one of their own killed this guy. It would be as if a Christian evangelical knocked off Bush or if a President Obama (god forbid!) got bumped off by a Black Panther. (Humorously, the other analogy I though of was a B-actor taking out Reagan- Run Mister President, it's Fred MacMurry!)

Anyway, Kennedy was killed by a disgruntled communist and if your political bias is big enough and thick enough- you cannot handle that fact- and, voila, in come the conspiracy theories, Oliver Stone to whomever. Note how the most zealous theorists occupy a particularly left-wing perspective... and, counted among them, is the otherwise quite intelligent Mister Hicks.
[info]sgdiamond wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 03:50 am (UTC)
"It's the persistence of the theories that I find fascinating. Why? The best explanation I've heard points to the fact that left-wing types simply cannot accept that one of their own killed this guy."

And this is where you go off the rails. I don't know of any "left-wing" types that would even remotely count Lee Harvey Oswald as "one of their own". There is a world of difference between "liberal" and "communist". About as much as there is between "conservative" and "fascist".

No, I don't think that's it. I do agree with you that Oswald was most likely the (lone) assassin of JFK, but I think the desire to believe in conspiracies comes from something much more fundamental; I think it's just hard for people to accept that one small, insignificant man could so easily knock off The Leader of the Free World.

"Note how the most zealous theorists occupy a particularly left-wing perspective"

Uh, John Birch called. He's feeling left out.
[info]ekeppich wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 04:51 am (UTC)
I think it's just hard for people to accept that one small, insignificant man could so easily knock off The Leader of the Free World.

Hmm... yeah, that's a valid point... but it just seems to me that liberals in general seem more susceptible to Kennedy conspiracy theories... I'm thinking of Oliver Stone here.... (John Birch, I dunno, but those guys were crazy to begin with.)

Regardless, I think the JFK assassination illuminates a real blind spot on the left. But, then again, maybe not.

Lone nutbags took potshots at virtually every president between Kennedy and Reagan. (I mean really, Ford?) None of those cats needed "mafia" backing. You're definitely right on that, Lee Harvey just got lucky.
[info]nationelectric wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 07:14 am (UTC)
This just in: 70% of Americans are "left-wingers."

However, if left-wing conspiracy theorists are more likely to get hung up on JFK, I think the explanation would be simple: more people on the left identify emotionally with him than on the right. People's paranoia is most likely to be centered around people and causes that they identify with. If you're paranoid about government and you identify on some level with JFK, you're probably going to start seeing all sorts of connections that demonstrate that the government killed JFK. That's sorta what a selection bias is.


Note how the most zealous theorists occupy a particularly left-wing perspective

Living as I do in the middle of Texas, that's just funny. Seriously, you ought to drop by and check out our cable access programming sometime. And what do you see the right-wing conspiracy theorists raving about the most? One-world government (federalism), the Federal Reserve (federalism, fiscal policy), NAFTA and globalization (immigration), gun rights, and so on. And, of course, all kinds of crap about institutional Satanism. Sure, there's a some overlap with liberal conspiracy theorists (i.e., 9/11), but the issues that they tend to hammer on the most seem, by and large, to be projections of conservative values.


Edited at 2008-04-08 07:29 am (UTC)
[info]ekeppich wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 12:55 pm (UTC)
Yeha, it's funny, 'cause most of the year I do live in Texas.

Yeah, you're right and I am familiar with wacky Texas stations, but I would stress the difference between a fringe on public access and individuals capable of making a movie like "JFK," especially for however much it cost. There is a difference in scale there.

But, regardless, there is still no mafia involvement in Kennedy's assassination. That's just stupid.
[info]nationelectric wrote:
Apr. 9th, 2008 12:43 am (UTC)
but I would stress the difference between a fringe on public access and individuals capable of making a movie like "JFK,"

Yeah, but how many individuals are in the latter category? I can think of Oliver Stone and... that's pretty much it.


But, regardless, there is still no mafia involvement in Kennedy's assassination. That's just stupid.

Man, still with the sweeping assertions. Look, I haven't looked into the JFK assassination too closely, so I'm not really hot on arguing it one way or the other. From what I've seen, it seems perfectly plausible that Oswald was a lone gunman. But he had a file a mile long with both the CIA and the KGB, and he was almost immediately gunned down by a guy with mafia ties, who became rabidly, vocally paranoid while in prison and died a year later from some bizarre spontaneous outbreak of cancer.

Look, that's just weird. That's not a case of some dude who's off his meds and talking to his dog, that's a whole constellation of morbid synchronistic crazy. Could it all be as clean and simple as the official story has it? Yeah, sure it could, but if you don't look at all that strangeness and raise an eyebrow and at least entertain the possibility that something else might be going on, you're just not doing your job.
[info]sgdiamond wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 03:47 pm (UTC)
"Hmm... yeah, that's a valid point... but it just seems to me that liberals in general seem more susceptible to Kennedy conspiracy theories..."

Well, sure, because many liberals think of Kennedy as "one of their own", and see him as a hero (don't ask me why; there's a lot of ridiculous mythology around that man). There's also a (I think) natural human tendency to look at the things wrong in the world and think "if only this one thing happened differently, it would all be better". So, for many liberals, the One Thing that's easy to latch on to is JFK's assassination. Because, in their eyes, had he lived he would have made the '60s so much better. And that belief sort of naturally leads to the conclusion that he must have been killed to prevent him from making the '60s so much better.

"Lone nutbags took potshots at virtually every president between Kennedy and Reagan. (I mean really, Ford?) None of those cats needed "mafia" backing. You're definitely right on that, Lee Harvey just got lucky."

It's funny, really, how much discrepancy there is between fiction and reality. In fiction, it takes someone like The Jackal to take out a President. In reality, most Presidential assassins (or would-be assassins) are more in line with Wile E. Coyote. And, of course, some of them succeed, through luck and/or fanatical devotion.

Though I have to say, it's certainly looking more and more like RFK's assassination wasn't as simple as is commonly believed. And, frankly, I would have a much easier time believing that the mafia was behind that than the JFK assassination.
[info]ekeppich wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 04:14 pm (UTC)
In reality, most Presidential assassins (or would-be assassins) are more in line with Wile E. Coyote.

Damn that's funny.
Wish I'd thought of it.
[info]nancylebov wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 10:52 am (UTC)
The thing I find fishiest about the lone gunman theory is that Oswald was killed by Ruby. Why would a lone assassin get so efficiently killed when there was a government perfectly willing to kill him? (I'm assuming execution rather than a life sentence.)
[info]krinndnz wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 07:07 pm (UTC)
Have you written about that at more length? Google-checking your journal for a couple of relevant terms doesn't turn up anything. If so, it'd be neat to hear.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 08:46 pm (UTC)
No, because I don't consider it all that controversial, interesting, or relevant to current events. The conspiracy involved was exposed years before I started writing, was not huge, was not political per se, and even though we don't know everybody involved's names it's reasonable to assume that they're all long dead and therefore immune from prosecution for it. The government part of the cover-up was more tawdry than sinister. The particular mistakes that Kennedy made to get himself killed, specifically the backstabbing of the Cuban counter-revolutionaries at the Bay of Pigs, is not one that is likely to be repeated. So yeah -- not important, not interesting enough to write about.
[info]krinndnz wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 03:17 pm (UTC)
Do you think you could point out a couple of books that brought you to your current conclusions, then? I'm a little shaky on the history of the matter, and your reading list tends to contain stuff that doesn't always turn up in searches.
[info]hick0ry wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 06:28 am (UTC)
I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you.
[info]hairyfigment wrote:
Apr. 10th, 2008 02:41 am (UTC)
You're certainly playing to my paranoia. Although for some reason I'm having trouble finding the post I remember on the practice of discrediting an opponent by posing as an ally and taking 'their' position in some direction that nobody else will accept. ^_^

I certainly misremembered this. [info]drewkitty actually made the comment my brain attributed to you, about a Secret Service agent possibly shooting JFK by mistake while responding to Oswald. That seems like a more inherently credible theory. I haven't studied the physical evidence, unless you count Penn and Teller; I'm just going by what I know about humans and coverups. (Even people with no personal ties to the agent might hide it out of embarrassment, and privately blame the outsider who actually mean to kill the President.)
[info]cuglas wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 03:35 pm (UTC)
History channel is currently running an excellent series called "Gangland" that explains the history of contemporary gangs and how tied they are to the drug trade.

I think it's pretty accurate, based on how the episodes on Chicago and LA and New York gangs compare against the information from the Illinois State Police threat manuals that I read when I interned with the Illinois AG's office.
[info]stannate wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2008 09:22 pm (UTC)
While the Republicans were completely discredited due to their complicity with reacting to economic conditions that brought about the (First?) Great Depression, what were their positions on Prohibition? Were they pointing out the Mafia tie-ins with the Democratic Party during the interwar and post-WWII period as a way to score political points? What was their take during the RFK prosecution of Mafia figures in the 1960s?
[info]hairyfigment wrote:
Apr. 8th, 2008 01:56 am (UTC)
Are we talking about "the single greatest mistake" that high Social Dominance Orientation yugoloth-imitating fanatics would consider a mistake?
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 12th, 2008 11:43 pm (UTC)
Why Didn't Prohibition Outlaw Simple Possession?
I submit, for the same reason that the National Fireams Act only taxed horribly, but did not forbid, possession of machine guns; Back then, there was still a little bit of respect left for the Constitution, and nobody though it possible to forbid someone from just _possessing_ something, even by Constitutional amendment.

Don't forget, it wasn't until 1760 that a search warrant could issue for finding anything other than stolen goods. Changing that was one of the causes of the Revolution.

How low our poor old Republic has sunk, since then.

Jtg, AKA rnk