As attorney general, Douglas F. Gansler is Maryland’s chief law-enforcement officer. More importantly, he seemed destined to be its governor after elections next year.
But Gansler’s electoral prospect changed last week when a picture showing him in the midst of underage kids dancing and drinking at a “Beach Week” party went viral. It looks like a scene from Animal House.
Mind you, I suspect most voters (parents and voting-age kids alike) would have shown empathetic support if Gansler had affirmatively explained that:
The party came at the end of a weeklong trip Gansler and other parents helped organize and finance for a dozen boys [including his son] who had just graduated from the Landon School, a private school for boys in Bethesda.
Written rules given to the teens who were staying at the house for the week forbade drinking ‘hard liquor,’ but included no such instructions about beer.
(The Baltimore Sun, October 25, 2013)
After all, not only are these beach week parties for recent high school graduates a widely observed tradition, but most parents (who drink) routinely let their kids (age 17-19) drink alcohol … under their supervision.
Indeed, the only reason Gansler was snapped in the midst of this party scene is that he and other parents were doing all any responsible parent could do in the circumstances: acting as chaperones by enforcing a list of 13 agreed upon house rules that, ironically, seemed drawn up for a teenage slumber party. In addition to “no hard liquor or controlled substances,” those 2013 Beach Week Rules – Final included, most significantly:
NO DRIVING! All car keys will be held by chaperones. Chaperones will drive when necessary.
(Washington Post, October 25, 2013)
Unfortunately, instead of defending his actions as those of a responsible parent, Gansler tried to deny the obvious, suggesting that he was “shocked, shocked” to learn that there was drinking going on:
Perhaps I should have assumed there was drinking going on, and I got that wrong. There could be Kool-Aid in the red cups, but there’s probably beer in the red cups… I made a mistake.
(Gansler Press Conference, Washington Post, October 24, 2013)
But if he does not have the courage and integrity to defend the rules of his own home, he clearly does not have the courage and integrity to defend the laws of his state. He has certainly forfeited his moral authority to lead. He may have even forfeited his moral authority to parent….
All the same, his cowardice presents a teachable moment for all parents. For I can’t imagine anything more damaging to a child’s character development than to see his parent telling boldfaced lies for financial, or even worse, political reasons.
But let me hasten to clarify that I am not condoning underage drinking. I am only asserting that it’s misguided and foolhardy for parents who routinely allow their kids to do so to pretend otherwise.
After all, if a 17-year old can enlist in the army, with parental consent, to go off to war, why shouldn’t that 17-year old be allowed to drink alcohol, with parental consent, to have a good time?
Gansler should have had the balls to tell the truth and suffer the consequences, just as any of us would want our kids to do. Again, chances are very good that doing so would have proved more of an electoral asset than a liability – with most voters thinking, there but for the grace of God go I.
For the record, even though I believe all drugs should be decriminalized, I believe there’s a dispositive moral distinction between parents allowing their kids to use narcotics (including marijuana) and allowing them to drink alcohol. Not least because using narcotics is per se illegal; whereas drinking alcohol is only illegal in this case because an arbitrary and arguably hypocritical law makes it so for anyone under 21.
The “age of consent” is fraught with all kinds of inherent inconsistencies. But when it comes to alcohol, my allusion above to serving in the military makes clear that setting it at 21, instead of 17, is patently untenable.
I fully appreciate that law-abiding purists (especially MADD members) will find my take on underage drinking utterly irresponsible. But consider this: Like most people, these purists probably drive above the speed limit, which is per se illegal, every time they get behind the wheel.
Therefore, how do you suppose they explain breaking this law so cavalierly to their kids? Especially given the definitive study by the NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit (1997), which found that risk of involvement in a casualty crash doubles with each 3mph over the speed limit….