protections are stripped away from thenproperty of the beleaguered middlenclass which surely constitutes the President’snonly real constituency. Consider:nThe Strategic Defense Initiative,nhailed as a means of breaking out ofnthe mad equilibrium of MAD, bodesnto become just another bargainingnchip in the long-running “detente”npursued by previous Administrations.nAnd most egregiously, in my opinion,nan Administration which tooknoffice with promises to get the governmentn”off the people’s backs” and tonreturn to personal and community responsibilitynnow spearheads a campaignnof harassing citizens with “drugntests.” With the President’s examplenand precept, this practice is now beingnextended through the Federal bureaucracynand is inspiring a host of imitatorsnin the corporate, state, and local governments.nIt is tempting — especially as wenhear the usual chorus of liberals, professionalncivil libertarians, and unionnbosses screaming opposition—to assumenthat “drug testing” must not bensuch a bad thing. However, even anblind hog will stumble over an acornnnow and then, and we must be clearnabout what the President’s policynmeans when viewed in the light ofnprinciple and as a stage in the historicalndevolution of his Administration.nThe drug testing stunt, first of all,ntakes on the character of a random andnarbitrary invasion of the privacy ofncitizens who have committed no offense.nIts basic unexpressed assumptionnis authoritarian. The governmentndoes not, as we thought, belong to thencitizens. Rather, the citizens are thenproperty of the government, interchangeablennonentities who differ onlynin that ^they are more or less troublesomenproperty. In a republic, the citizennis free and immune in his personnand property unless he has compromisednhis rights by an offense againstnsociety, an offense established by hisnpeers after due process. In an authoritarianngovernment, on the other hand,nwe are only potential “social problems”nwho are to be handled by thengovernment in whatever way it deemsnconvenient.nFurther, such a campaign is a reflectionnof the irrelevance and disingenuousnessnof an overextended and incompetentngovernment—a govern­nment seeking to divert the attentionnof the people -from its inability tonperform the ends for which it wasnestablished. The government is unwillingnto punish violations of thenborder—so it is proposed that 10thgenerationnAmericans be forced toncarry cards to prove they are not illegalnaliens. The government is unable toncurb violent criminals—so it is proposednto take all weapons away fromnlaw-abiding citizens. The family isnfalling apart—so let the governmentncelebrate and subsidize “the alternativenfamily.” The government is unablento control the importation, vending,nand abuse of illegal and dangerousnsubstances—therefore present an illusionnof concern and action by forcing anscientific test on everybody. Surely ifnsuch measures had been proposed inn1976 or 1980, Ronald Reagan wouldnhave ringingly declared that governmentnought to get on with prosecutingncriminals and leave honest citizensnalone.nThe craze for drug testing tells usnhonest citizens, who try to obey thenlaws and stay as much as we are ablenwithin the bounds of decency, that ournefforts at self-government are worthlessnand without reward, that we are in theneyes of the government that was oncenour property nothing except statisticalnraw material, with no more rights thannthe worst of our fellows. And whatndoes the craze tell us about the state ofnmanagement and leadership in ournsociety? In every part of the Federalnbureaucracy we have well-paid supervisors.nDo these supervisors not knownwhen those who work under them arenabusing drugs to any degree that interferesnwith normal performance? Arenthey inattentive? Do they not knownnormal performance when they see it?nDo they lack authority to act withoutnthe deceptively “hard” evidence of anurinalysis?nAnd this is the same President whonsent his condolences to Rock Hudson.nWe do not wish to quarrel with an actnof individual kindness to the dying.nHowever, a consistent moral positionndoes not emerge from the data. If it isnthe President’s duty to shepherd usninto the paths of clean living, shouldnhe not be consistent?nIn fact, it would appear that thisnrather un-Reaganish Reagan policv,nwhen its origins are closely scruti­nnnnized, is a result of what our ancestors,nin a very wise prejudice, would havendecried as “petticoat government.” Inhasten to affirm that I heartily rejoicenthat many fine wearers of petticoatsnhave won elections and served ably innpublic office. But why should we suffernunder policies made by persons whosenonly qualification is that their petticoatsnwere purchased by someone whonhas won an election? Our ancestors,nwho are now spinning in their gravesnat approximately the speed of sound,nwould have regarded this as one of thencontemptible defects of monarchy, andngloried that their republic was free ofnsuch abuses.nMeanwhile, Rome burns. Our politicians,ntoo often, lack the talent tonfiddle. Yet even if they dare not evennmention any of our real problems fornfear of offending some segment of thenelectorate or media, they can call anpress conference and congratulatenthemselves that they are virile enoughnto p–s in a bottie.n—Clyde WilsonnThe Cummin^ton Pressnannounces publication ofnthe first collection of poems bynJANE GREERnchronicles’ Midwest correspondentnand Plains Poetry Journal editornBathsneoanon the Tliira Daynin an edition limited to joo copies,neach with an original intaglionprint by Priscilla Steele.n8vo, 4′-/pa^es, full cloth, $jo a copy.nOrders should be addressed tonGranary ]iooksn212 ‘Horth 2nd StreetnMinneapolis, MN ^^401.nFEBRUARY 1987 / 7n