I am concerned about making Glenn's targets in the Congress cowards, or spineless, or careerists.

Glenn said,

"...Political leaders have the ability to change public opinion by engaging in leadership and persuasive advocacy. Any cowardly politician can take only those positions that reside safely within the majoritiarian consensus. Actual leaders, by definition, confront majoritarian views when they are misguided and seek to change them, and politicians have far more ability to affect and change public opinion than they want the public to believe they have...."

Congress people, as well as others, don't like to accept insults or what they may take to be the belittling of what they are doing. The point of an argument is, perhaps, to get people who initially oppose your position to at least listen to it, and possibly support it or take it on as their own. If Greenwald or Webb wanted to promote a general re-evaluation of incarceration and drug laws, I don't think he will gain converts by calling them cowards.

I've here suggested that Congress people have, in general, prioritized Webb's issue below others that have, Glenn admits, more and better organized advocates.

I think maybe Greenwald is correct to advocate Webb and his stand on the re-evaluation of imprisonment, but making a hero of him does his cause a disservice.

I was under the impression that one of the strengths our recent Bush had was that, as he argued, something like, you may not agree with his position, but you would always know that he had one. I think Webb will not see any downsides even in Virginia for taking a clear stand advocating compassion, even if it is for what his constituents take to be social outcasts. They will give him credit for taking a stand, even if they disagree.

I've been trying to argue that your article highlights the virtue of political leadership, at the expence of putting off Webb's potential allies, because you've set them up as cowards, or careerists, or people with their fingers to the wind too much. I thought that you by doing this have done a disservice to your cause. No one wants to be called a coward.

I tried to provide some kind of argument that would justify the lack of position on this 'prison -reform' issus. For example, I suggested that they have to follow the trends many issues to get elected so that they can fight for their principles on a few issues. I suggested that Webb might be one of those. I don't know him, so that would be speculation.

However, I think there is a more important problem, having to do with you not even mentioning the argument that Webb might have that his opponents are mistaken about.

You say here,

"...leaders, by talking about things, make them legitimate. Parties, by pushing for things, make them part of the sphere of debate. Important and visible people can question consensus, and all of a sudden expand it. These spheres are malleable; if the conversation of democracy is alive and if you make your leaders talk about things, it becomes valid to talk about them...."

Just talking about issues isn't going to change policy. You have to have an understanding of what is wrong and what can be done to correct it.

But, couldn't his opposition, the people who have advocated these 'draconian' laws about drugs, and so forth, argue that it doesn't matter about how different the United States is about incarceration. If other countries don't jail drug offenders, and their societies are unsafe, then they are putting their own populations at risk. For these guys, maybe you have to jail the millions that we do.

Webb seems to be saying that there must be something wrong with our drug policies because their consequences are so distasteful. To Webb, there is no justification for the huge numbers of blacks and other minorities in jail.

Maybe that's the way his colleagues in the Senate think it should be? Maybe the laws about drugs aren't harsh enough because surely there are still a few drug dealers on the streets. Isn't the point of harsh laws giving harsh punishments to scare potential wrong-doers away from the crimes. It seems they aren't harsh enough because the criminals keep showing up.

You did not mention whether Webb had an argument to refute or question any of the theories used to justify harsh inhumane sentencing. That, to me, is the issue that would have justified praise of Webb, not pointing out how courageous he is for speaking out. He could speak out and still be wrong.