The Catastrophic Whine Comes to Wine

The tendency to claim the worst possible outcome is irrational and tiring

Must it all be so catastrophic?

It’s hard to be moderate in today’s polarized world. With a large and growing number of folks sitting at the edges of the political spectrum, the shrinking political middle class is often accused of being wishy-washy or ignoble for their moderate views. And it seems this way, particularly when catastrophe is the common language of the far edges of debate.

“Silence is violence”

“Speech is Violence”

“Democracy is at stake”

These and similar claims have become so common within the political discourse that the rational center makes a reasonable decision when they choose to withdraw from the conversation. But the moderate simply should not do that, if only in order to call out the catastrophism that has become commonplace.

This cacophony of the catastrophic is now on display in the wine world.

“Dr. Reginald Richardson, executive director of the Oregon Alcohol and Drug Policy Commission, fired off a letter last week urging U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) to drop his sponsorship of legislation that would allow the U.S. Postal Service to ship alcohol to people’s homes…..’Alcohol harms cost Oregon $4.8 billion annually,’ Richardson writes. ‘The amount of additional revenue to USPS simply can never equate to the economic cost of increasing access to alcohol.’”

Just to be clear, what the executive director of my state’s Alcohol and Drug Policy Commission is claiming is that significant harm (billions worth) will come to Oregon if the United States Post Office is authorized to deliver a wine club shipment to my home in Salem, Oregon. This will happen, says Dr. Richardson, because the USPS would be allowed to deliver wine in the same way FedEx and UPS can currently do so. Moreover, the argument is that allowing USPS to join the fun will create more “access” to wine.

Are there folks here in the state of Oregon who, up until now, have not taken advantage of home delivery of wine because it could not be delivered by the United States Postal Service?

The catastrophe that Dr. Richards imagines is so far beyond what could possibly occur that we are forced to wonder just what hell he is trying to effectuate. My guess is that he believes that, due to his position, he must under all circumstances oppose even the most harmless alcohol legislation. But how do you reasonably oppose the proposal to allow USPS to deliver wine the same way FedEx and UPS do when there is no evidence it will increase access to alcohol, increase the use of alcohol, increase harm done by alcohol consumption, or increase the economic impact of alcohol consumption?

You do this by yelling as loud as you can that the sky will fall, the republic will falter and people will die. I think the willingness to take this kind of extreme and unsupported position is supported by the general willingness we see in all areas of political debate to claim the most extreme consequence of any proposal you don’t support. It is Catastrophe Politics normalized.

The willingness among government entities as well as commercial actors to claim the most catastrophic outcome has even led the Supreme Court to push back. In 2005, when the Supreme Court heard the Granholm v Heald case that put an end to discriminatory state wine shipping laws, the argument was made by the State of New York, the State of Michigan, wholesalers, and others that minors would increase their consumption of alcohol if the discriminatory laws were overturned and out-of-state shippers were allowed to ship wine into these states. The claim amounts to the worst possible outcome of direct shipment of wine. The Supreme court wasn’t having it in their final decision:

“Direct shipping is an imperfect avenue of obtaining alcohol for minors who, in the words of the past president of the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators, ‘want instant gratification.’ Without concrete evidence that direct shipping of wine is likely to increase alcohol consumption by minors, we are left with the States’ unsupported assertions. Under our precedents, which require the “clearest showing” to justify discriminatory state regulation, this is not enough.”

It’s Dr. Richardson’s and so many others’ “unsupported assertions” that pass for debate and dialogue today…even in the wine industry. We still today hear wholesalers and states defending their discriminatory wine shipping laws asserting without evidence that direct shipping leads to minors drinking alcohol.

I could go on and on with the unsupported assertions that pass for commentary and debate and legal arguments in the wine industry. But the moderate in me knows that rational discourse isn’t in vogue these days. Suffice to say, OR Senator Merkley should not withdraw his sponsorship of the legislation to allow USPS on the grounds it will create more access to alcohol. Senator Merkley should not give in to hysterical claims of catastrophe.