When President Reagan took a drug test and reported that he is free from drugs, he not only challenged all Americans but he injected a new element into the 1986 political campaign. It’s not enough to be against drug producers and pushers; obviously, all aspirants to public office would have to take that position.
President Reagan has asked us to address the drug problem at the consumer level. He has challenged us to confront the users, face to face.
We saw a preview of what that can mean in a primary election in Atlanta for an open Congressional seat last month in Atlanta, where the Democratic nomination is tantamount to election. Julian Bond, the candidate who was endorsed by everybody who was anybody and was the odds-on favorite, was the upset loser to John Lewis.
Shortly before the primary, Lewis had called a news conference and said, “Like President Reagan, I took a drug test and I came out clean; and I challenge my opponent to do likewise.” Bond indignantly refused to pick up the gauntlet, and the voters chose Lewis.
While there is no way to force Congressional candidates to take a drug test, they can certainly be challenged to do so, and will have to face the consequences if they decline. Here is the type of questions that Congressional candidates are now being asked.
(1) Will you personally take a drug test, as President Reagan did? (2) Do you favor mandatory drug tests for Federal employees? Or only for those in sensitive jobs?
(3) Do you favor mandatory drug tests for public school teachers and students? Or only for those in sports and activities, such as a “no pass the drug test, no play” rule?
(4) Do you favor encouraging private employers to institute their own mandatory drug tests in order to maintain a drug-free work environment?
And while we are asking questions of Congressional candidates about drugs, here are some other questions to which voters would like answers. I suspect that these issues are a great deal closer to voters’ hearts and pocketbooks than most of the news that we see every evening on network television newscasts.
(5) Will you vote against all tax rate increases? That’s a very key question because the rumor is already circulating that the O’Neill-Rostenkowski liberals, having loaded enormous taxes on business, will move next year to raise tax rates on individuals again.
(6) Will you vote to increase the income tax exemption for children from $2,000 to $3,000 next year? (7) Will you require that any child-care benefits for which you vote be equally available to children of full-time mothers and employed mothers?
(8) Will you vote against government funding of clinics that dispense contraceptives to unmarried children in public schools? (9) Will you vote against government funding of abortions?
(10) Will you vote to maintain the 1984 federal regulations for the Pupil Protection Amendment of 1978? These regulations prohibit schools from giving psychological testing or treatment to schoolchildren without prior informed parental consent.
(11) Will you vote against bills for “Comparable Worth”? President Reagan called this concept a “hare-brained” scheme; it is really a device for wages to be set by “commissioners” or “evaluators” who would factor in their own personal biases about “worth.”
(12) Will you vote against the bill to force employers to provide “parental leave”? That’s the latest feminist folly — a costly bill that would give windfall benefits to highly-paid two-earner couples at the expense of all other employees.
(13) Will you vote for near-term deployment of SDI? That’s President Reagan’s space shield, which he calls our Strategic Defense Initiative. Near-term means using the currently available, non-nuclear, “smart rock” technology, and deploying it now.
(14) Will you vote against all proposals to call a new Constitutional Convention? That might allow our great Constitution to be rewritten by special-interest groups.
(15) Will you vote to require the FCC to stop dial-a-porn and obscenity on cable television? (16) Will you support strong measures to curb pornography? (17) Do you support the Fairness Doctrine and decency standards for television and radio?
Think how much more interesting the political campaign would be if Senatorial and Congressional candidates would address these substantive issues instead of flooding us with expensive 30- and 60-second TV spots where they are packaged like soaps and cereals by slick advertising companies.
