DAVID HORSEY

David Horsey Los Angeles Times

LATIMES.COM/OPINION FRIDAY, JULY 26, 2013 A23

OP-ED

Last week, Mexican authoritiesarrested Miguel Angel TreviñoMorales, the leader of the Zetas,Mexico’sdeadliestandmost feareddrug cartel. In Mexico, the news

wasmetwithrelief, althoughthere isalsoap-prehension that his arrest will lead to a con-vulsion of violence; historically, taking outcartel kingpins has meant power struggleswithinorganizedcrimegroups, schisms thatleavemanydead in theirwake.

Treviño Morales, known as Z-40, wasapprehended—alongwithabodyguardanda third man, reported to be the cartel’saccountant — without a shot being fired ashe traveled along a back road near NuevoLaredoand theU.S. border.

For observers of the Mexican drug war,hisarrestprovidesanunanticipatedwindowinto how President Enrique Peña Nieto willaddress his nation’s entrenched organizedcrimeproblem.

From the beginning of his presidentialcampaign, Peña Nieto, who assumed officein December 2012, vowed a different ap-proach to thedrugwar fromthat of his pred-ecessor, Felipe Calderon. Calderon’s frontalassault, though initially popular, very soonbecame the object of criticism as violencesoared. Last summer, the electorate handed

PeñaNietoadecisivevictoryoverCalderon’sparty, thePAN.Havingsufferedabout70,000deaths (a conservative estimate) over thecourse of Calderon’s presidency, the countrywas exhausted by the violence, anxious forchange.

Calderon pursued a kingpin strategy:Drawing fromAmerican counterinsurgencytacticsdeveloped in Iraq, his administrationdeclaredwar ona list of 37most-wanted car-tel operatives. In contrast, many MexicansbelievedPeñaNietowouldnegotiate apeaceagreement with the cartels, allowing themfree rein in exchange for ending the violence.

In addition, Peña Nieto signaled that hemight be reevaluating Mexico’s close co-operationwithAmericanlawenforcement inthedrugwar.

The arrest of Z-40 would seem to provethose notions wrong. Within days, the na-tional director of Calderon’s party accusedPeña Nieto of disingenuously building ex-pectations of a new approach when, for allpractical purposes, he was continuing Cal-deron’s tactics. Indeed, the arrest hadall thefamiliar hallmarks: TreviñoMorales’ moveswere tracked in real time by aU.S. Immigra-tion andCustomsEnforcementdrone,whileAmerican intelligence monitored his com-munications and shared what was learnedwithMexicanauthorities.

Pragmatismmay be one explanation forPeña Nieto’s decision not to jettison thekingpin strategy altogether.His administra-tion simply could not ignore that Mexico’sdrug cartels are criminal organizations thatnot only operate an international drug tradebutalsocommitbrutalactsagainstordinaryMexican citizens on a daily basis, includingkidnapping, human trafficking and extor-tion — on a massive level — of individualsand businesses. TheZetas, in particular, areinfamous for having a “diversified businessplan”when it comes to criminal activity.

For Peña Nieto — and Mexicans tired ofthe violence created by the governmentcrackdown — it is one thing to entertain alive-and-let-live strategy toward the cartelswhen their primary activities are under-stood to revolve around servicing the highdemand for drugs in the U.S. However, thatstrategy is no solution if Mexicans continueto be victimized in the absence of govern-

mentprotection in their communities.It is also likely that Peña Nieto was pre-

sentedwith a politically awkward choice vis-a-vis the United States. TheMexican presi-dent apparently faced incontrovertible evi-dence fromU.S. sources indicating that thehead ofMexico’s most feared cartel was, lit-erally, in their sights. To have not acted onthat intelligencewould have certainly raisedspeculation that thePeñaNietogovernmentwas protecting Z-40, which wouldn’t haveplayedwell at home or helped in negotiatinganew relationshipwithWashington.

Still, it would be amistake for PeñaNietotosimplypickupwhereCalderonleftoff.Theprevious administration overemphasized amilitarized law enforcement strategy, onlybelatedly looking at the social conditionsthat helped create a culture that allowed thecartels to thrive (lessons important in tamp-ing down cartel violence in Colombia andBrazil).

That said, the kingpin strategy is not go-ing to go away. There is no sign that the U.S.will end its intelligence work inMexico, withor without overt cooperation fromMexicanauthorities, and the U.S. will undoubtedlycontinue to exert pressure on those officialsto act on that intelligence. But so will every-day Mexicans, with their sometimes con-flicting needs for peace and protection. InMexico’s budding if imperfect democracy,the latterpressurescannolongerbeignored.

RicardoAinslie, a native ofMexicoCity, isthe author of “TheFight toSave Juárez: Lifein theHeart ofMexico’sDrugWar.”He is apsychoanalyst andaprofessor of educationat theUniversity ofTexas atAustin.

Mexico’s ‘new’ drug war

Presidencia Mexico / EPA

PRAGMATISMmay partly ex-plain Peña Nieto’s cartel strategy.

President Peña Nieto’s strategyis a lot like his predecessor’s.For obvious reasons.

ByRicardoAinslie

When liberalsexpand thereach and costof government,we conserva-

tives label them“knee-jerk.”How-ever, conservatives have shownthemselves to be enthusiasticallyknee-jerk in one area: criminaljustice spending. For more than40 years, conservatives haveblindly supported a vast expan-sion of criminal laws and appro-priated billions of dollars for newprisons to hold the inmates con-victedunder those laws.

Now, the weight of those costsis sinking California’s budget, si-phoning off dollars that could goto schools, roads, hospitals or taxcuts. With the state’s expensiveand troubled corrections systemin crisis, there is a great opportu-nity to apply conservative princi-ples—smaller,moreeffectivegov-ernment at lower cost to the tax-payers—to theprisons.

We are leaders in the nationalRight on Crime movement. Webelieve it’s no longer enough forconservatives just to be tough oncrime; we also must be tough oncriminal justice spending. Thatmeans getting the most publicsafety for the fewest taxpayer dol-lars.Conservativesmustdemandthe same accountability from ourcorrectional system that we re-quire fromothergovernmentpro-grams.

Some Republicans, for exam-ple, are trying to score short-termpolitical points by employing oldscare tactics about the state’sprison “realignment” plan. Re-alignment gives local jails the re-sponsibility — and funding — tooversee low-level inmates, whileviolent and career offenders re-main the responsibility of costlierstateprisons.

This is a common-sense divi-sion of responsibility. Realign-ment is a work in progress andtherewillbechallenges,especiallyat the county level as different ju-risdictions try different strate-gies.

Instead of reflexively chainingthemselves to a costly prisonstructurethat is failing,Californiaconservatives should take a pagefromconservatives inotherstateswho have successfully reformedprisons with conservative ideas.Those reforms have reducedcrime and taxpayer costs whilekeeping the public safe and,whenpossible, providing assistance tovictims.

There is much for conserva-tives to like about realignment. Itreturns significant criminal jus-ticediscretionanddollars to localcontrol. With careful manage-ment, realignment should keepcrime rates low and reduce the

nearly $10-billion California cor-rections burden by reserving ex-pensive prison beds for careercriminals andviolent felons.

The public supports the newdirection. A USC Dornsife/LosAngeles Times poll in June foundthat nearly 3 of 4 Californians en-dorse the idea behind realign-ment. And when David BinderResearch asked crime victimswhether California should “focusmoreonsendingpeopleto jailandprison or more on providing su-pervised probation and rehabili-tation programs,” the respon-dents chose probation and reha-bilitationbya 2-1ratio.

Other states have found thatrethinking corrections can paydividends, for victims and tax-payers alike. In Texas, where be-ing tough on crime is practically aresidency requirement, legisla-tors shifted funds from buildingprisons to alternatives such asstrengthening probation and ex-pandingdrugcourts.Texassavedmore than $2 billion in prisoncosts, and crime rates have fallento levels not seen since1968.

Texas’ example has been re-peated in states such as Ohio,Georgia andSouthCarolina. AndinOregon, theLegislaturepasseda major reform bill with biparti-san support that will help thestate save $326 million in new-prison construction while sup-porting local programs proven toprevent crime and reduce recidi-vism. Supporters included Ore-gon’s associations of police chiefs,district attorneys, state policeand sheriffs.

With California at a criticalcrossroads, the time is right forconservatives at the state andcounty levels to weigh in on cor-rections reforms. Here are threepossible pathways:Evaluation. One of realign-

ment’sweaknesses is the absenceof outside evaluation of out-comes. Demand strict local ac-countability for taxpayer dollarsand hard evidence of program re-sults.Alternatives and treatment.

Explore how drug offenders,whether imprisonedornot,mightbe better helped to overcome ad-diction, which drivesmany lower-level crimes.Accountability.Use sanctions

that are rooted in conservativevalues, such as requiring restitu-tion to victims, community serv-ice and other cost-effective mea-sures that hold offenders ac-countable while helping them re-sume productive, law-abidinglives.

For too long, California con-servativeshavefallen intorhetori-cal traps that run counter to trueconservative values of limitedgovernment and fiscal discipline.Now is the time for conservativesto retire the tough-on-crimesound bites and instead proposeproven criminal justice reforms.

PatNolan, a distinguishedfellowon justice atPrisonFellowshipMinistries,wasRepublican leader of theCaliforniaAssembly(R-Glendale) from1984 to1988.ChuckDeVore, vicepresidentof policy at theTexasPublicPolicyFoundation, served intheAssembly (R-Irvine)from2004 to 2010.

Prison reform theconservative wayByPatNolanandChuckDeVore

It’s time to retirethe tough-on-crimesound bites. Thereare several ways tocut costs and stillkeep people safe. L

ikealightning flash ina stormy sky, theTray-vonMartin casehasilluminated thedepthofthe impassebetween

white andnonwhiteAmerica.Buta similar dynamic looms lessvisibly behindWashington’sstandoff betweenaDemocraticcoalition that relies onover-whelming support fromminor-ities andaGOPcoalitionalmostentirely dependent on the votes ofwhites, especially older ones.

Bothdevelopments tell thesamechallenging story:EvenasAmerica experiences itsmostprofounddemographic change inmore thana century, our societyis increasingly fracturingalongoverlapping racial, generationalandpartisan lines.ThediversityremakingAmerica couldbeasource of rejuvenationand inno-vation, but today it is reinforcingourpartisanpolarization.TheMartin case and theWashingtonstalemate capture the escalatingcollisionof perspectives andpriorities betweenagrowing,mostly youngerminority commu-nity andanagingwhitepopula-tion—what I’ve called thebrownand thegray.

TheMartin case frames thesetensionsmost obviously. Thecourtroomdramaprovidedadispiritingbookend to the1995O.J. Simpsonmurder trial. In thatcase,mostwhites concluded thatracial solidarity ledapredomi-nantly black jury to acquit theAfrican-American football legendof themurder of hiswhite ex-wifeandher friend, despite powerfulevidenceof his guilt. This time,polls showanoverwhelmingmajority ofAfricanAmericansbelieve apredominantlywhitejuryunfairly acquittedGeorgeZimmermaneven thoughnoonedisputes thathe shot anunarmedblack teenager.With eachverdict,hugenumbers ofAmericansconcluded that racial identitytrumped justice.

Large social judgments alwaysshoehornuneasily into specific

criminal cases, andevidenceonthemostbasic questions in theZimmerman-Martin confronta-tionwere elusive enough that thejury’s verdict is understandable.Moreover, racedidn’t figure asdirectly into theZimmerman trialas it did inSimpson’s.But theZimmermanverdict demon-stratedadurable racial divide inattitudes about lawenforcement.

WashingtonPost/ABCandPewResearchCenterpolls eachfound thatwhites, by a substan-tialmargin, thought theZimmer-manverdictwas fair,while nearlynine in10AfricanAmericans andabout three in fiveLatinos con-sidered it unfair.Morebroadly, inthePost/ABCpoll, 86%ofAfricanAmericans and60%ofLatinosthought the justice systemdis-criminates againstminorities,while only 41%ofwhites agreed.

Those responses tracked thelong-standing trend inwhichminorities aremore likely thanwhites to see lingeringprejudiceinmany settings.Hardly anyonedenies thatAmericahasdis-mantledmany racial barriers. In a2012National Journal poll, solidmajorities ofAfricanAmericansandLatinos said theyhadmorefriendsof other races than theirparentsdid.Onkeymeasures,suchas life expectancyandgrad-uation rates, racial gapshavenarrowedmeaningfully.

Andyet, as the liberalCenterforAmericanProgressnoted in“All-InNation,” abookonAmeri-ca’s demographic transforma-tion, huge racial divergencesendure onother fronts, includingfamilywealth, employment,incarceration rates andaccess toelite colleges.As stubbornasthesedisparities is thedivide overhow toalleviate them.Reaction tothe recentSupremeCourtdeci-sionon theUniversity ofTexas’admissions systemreaffirmed theconflict betweenwhites andminorities over affirmative-actionprograms.The center’s reportreflects a generational shift inliberal thinkingbydownplayingsuchprograms in favor of race-neutral initiatives, suchasuni-

versal preschool, intended toexpandopportunities for alllower-incomeAmericans.Yetthatprogram, likePresidentObama’s agenda, still requires anactivist role forWashington.

ThatquestionofWashington’sproper role now represents themost important racial divide inAmerican life.Minorities prepon-derantly support governmentinvestment in education, trainingandhealthcare,which they con-sider essential for upwardmobili-ty.Mostwhites, particularlyblue-collar andolderwhites, nowresist spendingonalmost any-thing exceptSocial Security andMedicare.

This clash rings through thecollisionbetweenObama(whowon twicebehinda coalitionofnonwhites and theminority ofwhites generally open toactivistgovernment) andHouseRepub-licans (four-fifths ofwhomrepre-sentdistrictsmorewhite than thenational average). In their unwa-veringopposition toObamaonmost issues,HouseRepublicansare systematically blockading thepriorities of thediverse (andgrowing)majority coalition thatreelectedhim.Withoutmorepersuasive alternatives,Repub-licans risk convincing theseemerging communities that theirimplacable opposition representsa “stand-your-ground”whiteresistance tominorities’ rise. Inthemeantime, a rapidly diversify-ingAmerica risks a future ofhardeningdisparities andenmi-ties if it cannot forgemore trans-racial consensus in the courts—or inCongress.

RonaldBrownstein is a seniorwriter at theNational Journal.rbrownstein@nationaljournal.com

No consensus, no peaceRONALD BROWNSTEIN

Barbie: A July 21 Op-Ed referredtoMattel’s Barbie doll as a “7-inchplastic girl.”Thedoll is111⁄2 inches.

For the record