Driving is a privilege granted by society, not a right. If you Demonstrate that you no longer deserve that privilege, then yeh you should lose it for life.
"Driving is a privilege, not a right" is just something MADD made up to justify unusual penalties. You could just as well say "fire is a privilege, not a right" and claim that arsonists should be prohibited from heating their homes in the winter. As a policy it doesn't make any sense.
It's weird you chose that strawman because actually people do need a permit to operate large fires in public and I am pretty sure a convicted arsonist would be denied this privilege.
An analogy is not a straw man. Moreover, I can identify at least two problems with your rebuttal.
First, the existence of a bad policy somewhere does not excuse the existence of similar bad policies everywhere. You can't justify the penalties under the CFAA by comparing to the penalties for crack cocaine possession, because they are both excessive.
Second, you'll notice that your discovery (if such a prohibition for arsonists indeed exists) breaks the analogy with a prohibition on driving for those convicted of a DUI, because it isn't a prohibition on all fire, when it is a prohibition on all driving. Which makes your argument the straw man, because a prohibition on large public fires is a minor inconvenience, whereas a prohibition on burning fuel to heat one's residence, like a prohibition on driving whatsoever, is a life-altering situation that may require you to find a new job and residence while doing very little to combat the evil in question supposedly justifying the restrictions.
