Kevin Graham wrote:It should probably go without saying that the "legalize drugs" crowd is going to come closer to getting what they want with a Democrat in office, than they ever would with a Republican.
It doesn't go without saying. Rand Paul is likely to be a contender for the '16 Republican nomination if Romney does not win. He would be far superior on war on drug issues than any likely Democratic nominee I can think of. It's not a given that a Democrat will always be superior.
Beyond that, with many issues, there is a "Only Nixon can go to China" effect where being the traditional party of a particular issue gives cover for going the other way and ossifies a new norm into the system that would not have otherwise been. That's what Obama did for the Bush/Cheney civil rights viewpoint. What once was hotly contested is now a vast bipartisan consensus.
So, for instance, I'm more hopeful that a Republican will drastically cut military spending than a Democrat, because it will be easier for them to politically get away with it and doing so might create a new bipartisan norm. Ditto for the drug war.
Clinton racheted up the drug war significantly. That was a key plank in his triangulation plan, actually. Obama has been a
classic drug warrior. Thinking that a Democrat is your choice if you favor liberal drug policy is like thinking a Republican is your choice if you want deficit reduction. That hasn't been born out by the results in ages.
Second term presidents have nothing to lose, so they can go after what they want full steam ahead.
Because of the lame duck effect, second term presidents tend to have less ambitious second terms than their first term. See Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower.
