Whenever I explain why I think reformers should avoid suggesting that politicians benefit from supporting "tough on crime" policies, I get some incredulous responses. It's true that you can still find politicians sucking up to law enforcement, embracing bad drug policies everywhere all the time, and generally believing that doing so serves their political interests. If I ever sounded like I was questioning any of those realities, it's my fault for not being clearer.

My point isn't so much that politicians never benefit in any way from doing these things, but rather that it's less true than it used to be and that we shouldn't be reinforcing that belief if we want political support. Just a few years ago, everywhere I looked, I saw reformers complaining publicly that politicians wouldn't support our cause because it might cost them votes. I saw prominent journalists like Joe Klein at Time Magazine calling for legalization and then in the next breath giving politicians a great reason to oppose it:

…the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. Such a person is assumed to be stoned all the time, unworthy of being taken seriously. Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio.

See, this is the kind of thing that supporters of reform shouldn't be saying. This is why I've been arguing for years that we should always emphasize the potential political benefits of taking our side rather than lamenting the possible harms. For example:

Bad = "Politicians won't support ending the drug war because they're afraid of losing votes."

Good = "Politicians are starting to get the message that the drug war isn't as popular anymore."

Am I making sense here?