This little bit of info provides a perfect starting point for a discussion of how magic bullet solutions are born and why they become a facile substitute for solutions to problems, whether real or fabricated. 

I don’t know when public policy became an exercise in marketing rather than governance, but it was a glorious day for public officials and those who disparately sought power.  While recognizing that every American was unable to adequately research and test every hypothesis on how to address societal problems, there was in inherent integrity amongst public officials that pushed them to try to provide a correct answer.  It was boring and tedious, and few people cared enough to follow the lines of reasoning, considering the implications and parse the unintended consequences. 

It appears most likely that the general population believed that there was someone, somewhere, who went through political proposals to determine whether they had merit of were totally full of it.  So, if a proposal made it out to the public from an upstanding politician, it had to have merit.  After that, it was merely a matter of choosing between competing meritorious ideas to find the one that best suited one’s views, biases and self-interest.

Now the idea of treating the public like idiots was nothing new.  P.T. Barnum made a fortune off it (I swear the Dog-Faced Boy is really half dog, half boy!), so it couldn’t have been the fact that no one knew that the public couldn’t be fooled.  Rather, it must have been some invisible hand over the mouths of public officials whenever they were about to spew something truly foolish.

Perhaps it was when Sen. Joseph McCarthy got such great mileage out of his commie witch hunt that planted the seed.  But of course, after ruining as many lives as possible, McCarthy crashed and burned, which might have scared off the more timid in Washington from trying. 

Still, the magic bullet approach was recognized by H.L. Mencken, who wrote, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple and absolutely wrong.”  And so, we arrive at the Nixon Justice Department and the adaptation of “zero tolerance” to the law.

From a marketing standpoint, ZT is perfect.  Two words, no waiting.  Clear message.  Zero, nada, zip. Nothing whatsoever.  Tolerance; a weakness, a shortcoming, An affront to that prong of the Puritan ethic of “spare the rod and spoil the child” (when was the last time you heard that one!).  It was, in short, brilliant.

ZT captured the American demand for action.  A problem was perceived (rampant crime) and a cure was needed.  Instead, we got a slogan.  But it was a great slogan.

The initial reaction was precisely what was intended.  Zero tolerance became a rallying cry for politicians who wanted to capture the public’s attention.  The public had “enough already” and demanded a fix.  They had a fix to offer.  The public “got it.”  They liked it.  It was strong, firm and clear.  Enough already. 

ZT required no long-winded speech to explain.  Two seconds and it was clearly embedded in the mind of the listener.  And it made sense, since the listeners’ concern was this vague perception of bad things happening that needed to stop happening.  It was particularly useful when some horrific tragedy occurred that captured the publics’ interest, like the image of a beautiful flower girl on the way home from a wedding having been decapitated by a drunk driver.  This image demands action.  And there’s always someone willing to fill the order.

But what happens a short while later, when ZTs flaws come to the surface.  Consider the Oregon boys who were going to be prosecuted for “swatting” girls on the behinds, and charged with felony sexual assault.  Their case was just dismissed, a hue and cry over the ridiculous outcome of turning two red-blooded American boys into sex offenders for the rest of their lives over such a silly incident. 

What happened to zero tolerance of sex offenses?  Well, it turns out that ZT is only as good as the public’s need to vent based on the particulars of the case and the desirability of the outcome.  Wait a second.  If that’s true, then it’s the opposite of ZT.  It’s . . . it’s . . .  it’s . . . oh my God, there’s no really catchy phrase. 

So there is no public backlash against ZT, or its idiot cousin, “three strikes and you’re out,” even though the examples of why it fails miserably to answer the pressing public concerns are abundant.  There’s no quick, easy phrase to promote its opposite.  The poor public has nothing to grasp on to, to seize as a substitute for its next magic bullet, actual justice based upon the changing face of facts and circumstances.  Sure, try putting that on a license plate.

Remarkably, few have put together the fact that the public doesn’t really want zero tolerance applied.  Indeed, they want a sui generis review of each case for its propriety and proportionality based upon basic notions of right and wrong.  They can tell when things get stupid, and they bristle like those of us who are, ahem, more sensitive to these issues.  But they still love the marketing slogan.  It’s that good.

So it’s time to fight fire with fire.  What we need to start a return to reason is an even better marketing slogan than zero tolerance. Something that conveys the message in less than 3 second with strong, clear words that express the need for a deeper understanding and acceptance of complex ideas.  Anybody?