[djrogers]

Maybe. Or maybe not:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...

-- Ehrlichman died in 1999, but his five children in questioned the veracity of the account.

“We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color,” wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN.

“The 1994 alleged ‘quote’ we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him,” the Ehrlichman family wrote. “We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father’s death, when dad can no longer respond. None of us have raised our kids that way, and that’s because we were not raised that way.” --

Just pointing out that your quote is an alleged quote, and may or may not be accurate.

[dontbeevil1992]

Of course it's a powerful (alleged) quote, but it's far from the only evidence that the War on Drugs is not based, even in principle, on social good, but rather to serve powerful interests such as private prisons and police.

As far as the pushback from the family, I would just say that it wouldn't be the first time that someone is different at work than with his family. The worst people in history still sometimes had families and pets who they treated much better than minorities and political enemies.

Furthermore, Ehrlichman may not have been racist enough to spout it unprompted, the way Nixon is recorded as being. But he would not be the first person on Capitol Hill to be craven enough to go along with racism when it helps them attain or maintain power.

[res0nat0r]

He made that statement in this interview to a Harpers contributer in 1994: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

[mikestew]

That article is from 2016, long after Ehrlichman died. There was no Harper's interview with Ehrlichman in 1994.

[renewiltord]

> That article is from 2016, long after Ehrlichman died. There was no Harper's interview with Ehrlichman in 1994.

Those are facts. Here are some more facts:

* The article is written in 2016 by Dan Baum.

* GP refers to "a Harper's contributor". That person is Dan Baum.

* In the article in 2016, Dan Baum is relating his experience meeting John Ehrlichman in 1994.

* In the article in 2016, Dan Baum claims that John Ehrlichman, during their meeting in 1994, said the quoted text.

* An interview with a Harper's contributor need not be a Harper's interview

* It is possible to publish, in 2016, a statement made by someone in 1994

[mikestew]

Another fact is that if the statement were made in 1994, there were five years to publish it while Ehrlichman might still be around to dispute it. Oddly enough, another fact is that this didn't come out until Ehrlichman was dead for seventeen years. Stake your reputation on such things if you like, but I think there's better material to use to make the point. Ehrlichman had a lot to answer for, but I'm not willing to pile on in this case based on something someone remembers from twenty years prior.

[renewiltord]

This is true. Ultimately, you have to multiply by the likelihood that this Dan Baum fellow is honest and has recollected correctly, using either memory or notes.

[jacobr1]

The "Banality of Indifference" is very real

[renewiltord]

Curious. I wondered what other children would say about their parents, so I googled someone I know to be reprehensible.

Edda Goering on her father, the famous Hermann Goering:

> "My only memories of him are such loving ones. I cannot see him any other way."

> "The things that happened to the Jews were horrible, but quite separate from my father."

We, of course, are well-informed and know that "the things that happened to the Jews" are not, in fact, "quite separate from her father". I suspect that children of people are not reputable character references.