On the Responsibility of Intellectuals in the Age of Meth
(In 1992 a Boston minister and social activist, Eugene Rivers, published an article in the Boston Review addressed to Harvard based black academics. His essay, entitled, “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals in the Age of Crack,” while problematic in a great many respects, took black intellectuals and politicians to task for the problems associated with urban, African-American life. It is in this vein that I wrote this post.)
During the 1980s and into the 1990s, much of urban America, and most dreadfully, African-Americans, was stricken by the massive rise in the production, distribution and consumption of crack. If there was ever any doubt that crack’s havoc was caused by the deindustrialization of America’s cities, it has been squelched today in the face of the uncannily similar rise of meth in rural America, especially the large swath of land between the Mississippi River and the San Fernando Valley in California, on up to Canada and South to the Mexican border.
Crack and Meth share a variety of similarities. They are both uppers, a fact which tends to exacerbate violent crime rates (indeed, a good argument can be made that the root cause of the 1990s downturn in urban crime had little to do with economics or draconian police tactics, but the rebound of heroin, a downer, as the drug of choice—as any cop will tell you, when heroin rates go up, urban areas see a lot of shop lifting and auto theft, but decidedly less violent crime than when rates of speed and cocaine derivatives are higher). More importantly though, they are both easily—and cheaply, producible.
Meth production and distribution, like crack production and distribution in the 1980s and much of the 1990s. has become one of the most prominent and likely economic opportunities for many young and poor Americans. In towns I recently visited like Winner, South Dakota, Worland, Wyoming and Austin, Nevada, the rise of corporate farming and ranching, with the concomitant decrease in rural economic opportunities along with a vast downturn in extractive industries has made the job possibilities in many towns rival those of East Saint Louis or the South Bronx in 1987. In these urban areas in the 1980s the options for kids were simple—the military, low-wage service work or crack. Today, in much of rural America the options are eerily familiar—the military, low-wage service work or meth. One of the central reasons for my disdain for those who ridicule “those backwards red-state Nascar fans” is the utter failure to recognize the simple fact above. This is a part of the country that America, run by Republicans or Democrats, has failed. Republicans have completely sold out these areas of the country by convincing many whites of their shared “values” against those gun and god hating gay lovers. For their part, Democrats have rarely offered anything in terms of economic or social policy to counteract the Republican message. The GOP, then, has won by default. Now, I know that some would dispute this in the Democratic Party, but consider the two essential problems in the rural economy, the decline of mining and logging along with the decline in the possibility of a family earning a living by owning a farm. Now, let me be clear, I believe in environmentalism, but let’s just say it has not been that hard for the GOP to paint Democrats as beholden to some mythical environmental lobby—as a homemade billboard on a county highway in rural South Dakota put it “Animal Rights Activists and Eco-Terrorists: Stay Out of South Dakota—Mining and Ranching Are Our Jobs, We’d Like to Keep Them.” When I first drove by this billboard, I thought to myself, “a classic caricature of red-state reactionism.” A few minutes later though, it occurred to me, “what the hell was wrong with this billboard?” From the perspective of the person who put this up, there is very little illogical about this thinking. The decent jobs in the area-mining, ranching and farming are leaving. Republicans say it’s because of environmental regulations, Democrats don’t say shit. They either write off rural residents as hopelessly anti-modern or, in no more nuanced a fashion, wonder why it is that the country’s rural working-class continually votes against its economic interests (usually their anti-modernism).
Which brings us back to meth. There is a sad opportunity here for progressive Democrats. Since the decline of the Farmer-Labor coalitions of the New Deal and the dekl;struction of Henry Wallace’s 1948 presidential bid, Republicans, with increasing success, have portrayed the Democrats and the left in general as beholden to an urban (usually code for black, but increasingly gay and lesbian as well) poor that is considered not only immoral, but also unproductive. That is to say, not only is the racism of many employed with the use of rhetorical measures as “welfare mothers,” but also the producerism of many ruralites (which is decidedly not on the decline). Thus, meth provides us with the opportunity to frame the social costs of economic dislocation in a way that Republicans can not. Meth is not an issue for the rich or even the middle-class—it is a truly working-class issue. By arguing for the importance of the protection and creation of jobs, not just any old telemarketing or retail job (jobs that ruralites, like most Americans have in abundance, as the 5 telemarketing firms in a small town like Winner, SD attest to) but work that is both fulfilling and economically supportive and demonstrating how such jobs will be created in the vast rural areas of the country that many people love and hate the idea of leaving, the left can go a long way toward reenergizing a significant (especially electorally) base of the population that has been convinced that Democrats are the pawns of eastern elites and minorities. For too long, the left has allowed itself to be painted this way, chalking up the dissension of the rural white working-class to “false consciousness” and anti-modernism. The horror that meth has visited on these communities though, demands a response, a response that does not simply argue for “law and order,” (as Republicans inevitably do) but speaks to the growing inequality in America, an inequality between rich and poor, upper-class and workers that as the rural white working class is coming to understand, is far more responsible than morals for the decimation that an easily producible drug like meth can cause in economically devastated areas. The left and left thinkers have a responsibility to offer real solutions to this problem: solutions that don’t try to solve ruralites’ problems by demonizing gays and lesbians or appealing to faith, but by ending the immense polarity of wealth that has left few in rural America prosperous and many in their worst economic position since 1933 and easy prey to the lures of a decent income by way of turning fertilizers into profitable commodities on abandoned farms.
During the 1980s and into the 1990s, much of urban America, and most dreadfully, African-Americans, was stricken by the massive rise in the production, distribution and consumption of crack. If there was ever any doubt that crack’s havoc was caused by the deindustrialization of America’s cities, it has been squelched today in the face of the uncannily similar rise of meth in rural America, especially the large swath of land between the Mississippi River and the San Fernando Valley in California, on up to Canada and South to the Mexican border.
Crack and Meth share a variety of similarities. They are both uppers, a fact which tends to exacerbate violent crime rates (indeed, a good argument can be made that the root cause of the 1990s downturn in urban crime had little to do with economics or draconian police tactics, but the rebound of heroin, a downer, as the drug of choice—as any cop will tell you, when heroin rates go up, urban areas see a lot of shop lifting and auto theft, but decidedly less violent crime than when rates of speed and cocaine derivatives are higher). More importantly though, they are both easily—and cheaply, producible.
Meth production and distribution, like crack production and distribution in the 1980s and much of the 1990s. has become one of the most prominent and likely economic opportunities for many young and poor Americans. In towns I recently visited like Winner, South Dakota, Worland, Wyoming and Austin, Nevada, the rise of corporate farming and ranching, with the concomitant decrease in rural economic opportunities along with a vast downturn in extractive industries has made the job possibilities in many towns rival those of East Saint Louis or the South Bronx in 1987. In these urban areas in the 1980s the options for kids were simple—the military, low-wage service work or crack. Today, in much of rural America the options are eerily familiar—the military, low-wage service work or meth. One of the central reasons for my disdain for those who ridicule “those backwards red-state Nascar fans” is the utter failure to recognize the simple fact above. This is a part of the country that America, run by Republicans or Democrats, has failed. Republicans have completely sold out these areas of the country by convincing many whites of their shared “values” against those gun and god hating gay lovers. For their part, Democrats have rarely offered anything in terms of economic or social policy to counteract the Republican message. The GOP, then, has won by default. Now, I know that some would dispute this in the Democratic Party, but consider the two essential problems in the rural economy, the decline of mining and logging along with the decline in the possibility of a family earning a living by owning a farm. Now, let me be clear, I believe in environmentalism, but let’s just say it has not been that hard for the GOP to paint Democrats as beholden to some mythical environmental lobby—as a homemade billboard on a county highway in rural South Dakota put it “Animal Rights Activists and Eco-Terrorists: Stay Out of South Dakota—Mining and Ranching Are Our Jobs, We’d Like to Keep Them.” When I first drove by this billboard, I thought to myself, “a classic caricature of red-state reactionism.” A few minutes later though, it occurred to me, “what the hell was wrong with this billboard?” From the perspective of the person who put this up, there is very little illogical about this thinking. The decent jobs in the area-mining, ranching and farming are leaving. Republicans say it’s because of environmental regulations, Democrats don’t say shit. They either write off rural residents as hopelessly anti-modern or, in no more nuanced a fashion, wonder why it is that the country’s rural working-class continually votes against its economic interests (usually their anti-modernism).
Which brings us back to meth. There is a sad opportunity here for progressive Democrats. Since the decline of the Farmer-Labor coalitions of the New Deal and the dekl;struction of Henry Wallace’s 1948 presidential bid, Republicans, with increasing success, have portrayed the Democrats and the left in general as beholden to an urban (usually code for black, but increasingly gay and lesbian as well) poor that is considered not only immoral, but also unproductive. That is to say, not only is the racism of many employed with the use of rhetorical measures as “welfare mothers,” but also the producerism of many ruralites (which is decidedly not on the decline). Thus, meth provides us with the opportunity to frame the social costs of economic dislocation in a way that Republicans can not. Meth is not an issue for the rich or even the middle-class—it is a truly working-class issue. By arguing for the importance of the protection and creation of jobs, not just any old telemarketing or retail job (jobs that ruralites, like most Americans have in abundance, as the 5 telemarketing firms in a small town like Winner, SD attest to) but work that is both fulfilling and economically supportive and demonstrating how such jobs will be created in the vast rural areas of the country that many people love and hate the idea of leaving, the left can go a long way toward reenergizing a significant (especially electorally) base of the population that has been convinced that Democrats are the pawns of eastern elites and minorities. For too long, the left has allowed itself to be painted this way, chalking up the dissension of the rural white working-class to “false consciousness” and anti-modernism. The horror that meth has visited on these communities though, demands a response, a response that does not simply argue for “law and order,” (as Republicans inevitably do) but speaks to the growing inequality in America, an inequality between rich and poor, upper-class and workers that as the rural white working class is coming to understand, is far more responsible than morals for the decimation that an easily producible drug like meth can cause in economically devastated areas. The left and left thinkers have a responsibility to offer real solutions to this problem: solutions that don’t try to solve ruralites’ problems by demonizing gays and lesbians or appealing to faith, but by ending the immense polarity of wealth that has left few in rural America prosperous and many in their worst economic position since 1933 and easy prey to the lures of a decent income by way of turning fertilizers into profitable commodities on abandoned farms.
