63% of the voters now think that invading Iraq was a mistake. Are we really supposed to worry about whether a candidate who opposed making that mistake is “electable” against a candidate who voted for it then and still thinks it was a good idea?
63% of voters think that invading Iraq was a mistake.
And we’re supposed to be worried about whether someone who opposed that mistake can beat someone who voted for it and still thinks it was a good idea?
If you need something to worry about, try global warming.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
View all posts by Mark Kleiman