Today was the first time in 4 decades that a mandatory minimum sentencing law was repealed. That repeal came along with a reform of the 100-to-1 powder cocaine to crack cocaine sentencing disparity that has been the target of drug reform advocates for years. This same disparity and mandatory minimum sentencing is what has landed countless poor, crack-addicted, urban minorities (mostly blacks) in jail – and was also touted by Reagan Revolutionaries as a major victory in the war against drugs. Turn that ideological clock forward 20 years and you’d find a policy with no discernible societal benefits that is reformed and repealed by a bipartisan majority in Congress.

The bill also eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum for first-time possession of crack, the first time since the Nixon administration that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence.

“For Congress to take a step toward saying ‘we have made a mistake’ and this sentence is too severe … is really remarkable,” said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, which in studies of sentencing practices has referred to crack cocaine mandates as a “‘poster child’ for the injustices of mandatory sentencing.” (TPM 7/28)

So just to recap for everyone trying to pay attention at home, this administration has now embarked upon enacting major reform legislation in health care, Wall St/banking, student loan industry, and the war on drugs.

For some this must come as a surprise when the Republicans are still trumpeting their own non-existent records of reform as proof that Obama is ruining America. I’m of the persuasion that leading up to November, the Democrat’s main prerogative will be to force Republicans to espouse their policy preferences, and in doing so, to force debate over Obama/the Democrats record in the last 2 years and the Republican’s record over the last 10 years. Some say that this tactic will amount to nothing more than blaming Bush for all of America’s problems. But to the contrary, it will implicate Congressional Republicans as being complicit in poor governance under Bush and then expose their utter lack of serious policy initiatives in this most recent Congress.

One caveat though, and this one is quite significant. Smart Republicans should run against Obama’s actions in Afghanistan. In tight races, especially those with Democratic incumbents, a skillful Republican could co-opt a large portion of an otherwise dis-affected democratic base by positioning themselves as against reckless spending in foreign wars of occupation. It would tie perfectly into a traditional conservative platform of responsible governance, while simultaneously rejecting the inflammatory Islamo-phobia recently espoused by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. The real question though, is can a Republican in the year 2010 oppose the escalation of the war in Afghanistan while not indulging themselves in the trite Libertarian focus on Federalism like that of the Pauls (Rand and Ron)?

In an era of fanciful bipartisan idolatry, this decade-long war in Afghanistan would provide a basis for a powerful foreign policy-oriented voting bloc in Congress. So far however, none have been so bold.