When Natural Disasters are not Federal issues
By SunTzu Posted in User Blogs — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This is my first diary. I think I am expressing some controversial ideas. I look forward to comments.
The core value of the conservative movement since the New Deal turned America on its head has been the call to return to government restraint--known in the vernacular as "small government". Our philosophies, strategies and tactics have developed and changed over time to meet better understandings of the challenge but the principle has never changed.
This is as true of social values as it is of fiscal values. Take abortion: true conservatives do not seek to outlaw the procedure, they seek to overthrow the Federal government's arrogation of the states' power by guaranteeing an "abortion right".
With the election of Ronald Reagan this core conservative value began to be woven into the government at the Federal level. Hard work and struggle at the local, state and national levels yielded in 2002 what many may have never thought would come to pass: conservative Republican majorities in the 3 principal branches of the Federal government.
These majorities were won because the American people agreed with our core value--a small, much less powerful and intrusive Federal government will best serve America's values, hopes and aspirations for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness--what we've come to call "The American Dream".
So much for the easy part.
When the history of this period is written, I believe the story of the development of the conservative governing majority will be seen as a crucial but relatively small preamble to the true achievements of our movement. For our goals have been from the beginning to dismantle the New Deal and return American government and the government's power to its rightful heirs--the American people.
Changing 50 plus years of New Deal policies upon which our nation has come to depend and to a large measure take for granted is going to be much harder than winning a conservative majority. While Americans have been supporting Republican ideas in ever larger numbers we continue to live in a New Deal world. Moving from ideas to reality is a monumental and long-term task and all of us will be affected by these changes in direct and often disruptive ways.
Like the Reagan Administration before them the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have begun to change existing policies and implement new policies that reflect our conservative principles. And we have seen that there are powerful forces fighting against these efforts at every step. This was to be expected and should not be misconstrued as some evil malignancy but rather as a predictable human response to change. Change is never easy and change of the scope envisioned by our core value is enormous. We have had a modest success in passing the Bush tax cuts but these have yet to be made permanent and have not been matched with counter balancing successes in cutting Federal spending--which of course is a euphemism for dismantling New Deal entitlement programs. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. Because of the war on terrorism and home land security, budgets deficits have ballooned under Bush much to the chagrin of fiscal conservatives. There are three reasons for this state of affairs:
- Overcoming an entrenched bureaucracy is a monumental undertaking
- Ending existing programs that people and state and local governments have come to depend on and take for granted is a monumental task
- Costs associated with the post-9/11 world were unexpected, immediate and necessary
So far so good I hope. Now for the controversy.
I believe that Hurricane Katrina is an historic and critical turning point in our struggle to downsize government and upsize freedom. And, unfortunately, at first glance the hurricane is against us.
In the New Deal world of big government Hurricane Katrina is a "national disaster". In fact and from the conservative point of view Katrina is a local phenomenon. Dennis Hastert has been taking heat for what I believe are http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Pic... ">quite rational and, need it be said, quite brave questions about the wisdom and means of rebuilding New Orleans.
There will be enormous pressure to bring to bear on this disaster all the remediative power of the New Deal state. Indeed who among even the most hardened small government conservatives doesn't want to see no effort spared to put things right. But we are at an historical turning point. We cannot have both New Deal entitlement program spending and conservative small government revenues. We cannot have both New Deal nanny state values and conservative individual responsibility values. We cannot have both New Deal government intrusiveness and conservative local government autonomy.
In spite of all this, I think in the matter of Katrina's near annihilation of New Orleans that the New Deal values will prevail. New Orleans will be rebuilt. Indeed, President Bush has already stated that he believes New Orleans will be rebuilt. This is just a testament to how far we have yet to travel as a movement. Hastert to his credit is not saying New Orleans should not be rebuilt, he is saying the Federal government should not rebuild New Orleans.
Nevertheless, I call on conservatives of all stripes to come together and use Katrina as a teaching moment about how small government conservativism can work in the future. Let me give two examples of how I think this might work.
1. Hurricane disaster preparedness and remediation.
Why does the Federal bureaucracy in the form of FEMA or the DHS need to be involved? One could argue that expertise and resources are centrally managed and distributed more efficiently. I agree. However, I think a coalition of eastern seaboard and gulf coast states from, say, Virginia to Texas could do the same and do it better. They are the ones who really have their skin in the game.
2. The port of New Orleans serves many upriver communities.
Again, the Federally funded levee maintenance program is seen as more efficient and at the service of economies that rely on the Port of New Orleans from St. Louis, to Pittsburgh, to Omaha and beyond. Yet, a coalition of Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio river states and localities that have a direct interest in keeping the port open and in developing levees not just in New Orleans but throughout the great American flood plain could do the same and do it better. They are the ones who really have their skin in the game.
The percieved lackluster performance of the Federal government in the relief of New Orleans in the wake of Katrina will take the measure of New Deal values and conservatives values for many of our fellow citizens. Conservatives must be ready to explain that state and local government holds the promise of better, safer and less expensive responses to future natural disasters.
...your diary in that it is a good starting point for some debates that I think it will be good to have.
But I do not agree with it.
In fact and from the conservative point of view Katrina is a local phenomenon
I don't subscribe to this point of view, for a number of reasons.
- The disaster has created thousands upon thousands of refugees, many of who are needing to cross state lines. This is not simply Louisiana's problem and Mississippi's problem. It is the problem for the entire region.
- There are economic impacts which affect not just the economies of the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, but the economy of the entire nation. Think of the disruption that is occurring to portions of our domestic gasoline supply. Think of the disruption to trucking, since I-10 is impassable. Think of the hit to insurance companies-- a hit that becomes larger with all of the problems being caused by the anarchy swallowing the city.
- The preamble of the Constitution specifically states that one of the purposes of the framework it empowers is for the purpose of insuring domestic tranquility. It hurts our entire nation when part of it descends into anarchy. Disrespect for society has a nasty habit of spreading.
- Article IV. Section 4 of the Constitution is more specific. It states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." The United States shall protect each state against domestic violence. Conservatives must be for following what is spelled out directly in the Constitution, in my opinion.
Following up on my original post we can see the frame starting to take shape--New Deal values vs. Conservative Federalism values through the lens of Katrina. From the NYT Editorial Board:
The pre-Katrina plan for this Congressional season was to enact more upper-bracket tax cuts for the least needy, while cutting into the safety-net programs for sick and impoverished Americans. These are the very entitlement programs most needed by the sudden underclass of hundreds of thousands of hurricane refugees cast adrift like Dustbowl Okies. Will Congress dare to go forward with these retrogressive plans in the face of the suffering from Katrina? Its woeful track record suggests that, shockingly, the answer may be yes.
G.O.P. leaders are set to mandate billions in Medicaid and antipoverty cuts this month, while the Senate is poised to try again to repeal the estate tax, a monumental folly that will deprive the deficit-ridden government of an estimated $750 billion in vital revenue in the first decade. The theory is that over the long run, the missing money will "starve the beast" and force Washington to make huge cuts in federal programs. The public has never bought this, but as long as the economy held up, it was willing to ignore the long-term implications.
That somehow casinos represent wealth generation in the New Economy. That pretty much sums up where our country is headed. Ever been to Atlantic City? Donald Trump has a TV show but a lot of the place is just as squalid as New Orleans. But state governments love casinos because the (relatively) wealthy lose their money there and that keeps them funded.
That's where America is headed, at the low end -- casinos and porn. The dirty little secret that nobody has been telling people for the past five years is that this is a transition to real economic equality with the billions of people in India and China.
I think I agree with you on that issue.
Sure the actual affects of daily living are felt in that region-after all I still have my electricity, plenty of fresh water and plenty of food-so in that sense the pain is local.
But the affects have already been felt nationwide, when a couple of refineries went under water, or received damage, and we all feel the pain at the pump.
The rise in gas will most likely trickle down to other goods that are purchased.
Then there is the economic damage. Right now a huge portion of people are unemployed-some of them may never have jobs to go back to.
There are large numbers of people who are homeless, and likely won't even be able to assess the damage to their homes for at least a couple of months, and they will remain homeless for longer.
While the day to day aspects of living are felt locally, it is indeed a national disaster, and it will be felt in all regions of the country to one degree or another.
Sorry. But you are all wrong and your argument will simply help the Dems continue to erode the credibility of the Administration.
The Administration explicitly gave the Dept. of Homeland Security the responsibility to respond to "natural disasters".
You can disagree with that as public policy. But at this point, it is the law.
From the DHS website:
IN THE EVENT OF A terrorist attack, NATURAL DISASTER or other large-scale emergency, the Department of HOMELAND SECURITY will assume PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort. The new Department will also prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness. Educating America's families on how best to prepare their homes for a disaster and tips for citizens on how to respond in a crisis will be given special attention at DHS.
I disagree with most of what you write in this post. The New Deal programs and the War on Poverty/Great Society programs should be thought of separately from disaster preparedness and relief. New Orleans isn't just a port city of Louisiana -- the city is a critical piece of national infrastructure, the loss of which is already affecting the economy throughout the entire country. Only the Federal government has the capacity to mobilize sufficient resources and deliver them effectively to counter a disaster of this magnitude.
Disaster relief is an element of Homeland Security, especially in the post 9/11 era. The planning and response has to be coordinated at the federal level precisely because no amalgamation of smaller state responses can be expected to have a comprehensive picture of the need or the ability to deliver it as part of a coordinated response. This sentence, which you assert without evidence or proof, strikes me as nonsense:
However, I think a coalition of eastern seaboard and gulf coast states from, say, Virginia to Texas could do the same and do it better. They are the ones who really have their skin in the game.
The City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana couldn't coordinate their diaster plan well enough to bus the poor out of the city. There are over a million people who have been displaced by this storm. The economic impact is already beginning to ripple through the national economy. I wouldn't want to be the person staring into the face of this disaster after having eliminated FEMA and DHS. This has been their first real test, and they haven't exactly performed up to expectations, but surely you can't be suggesting that an ad-hoc coalition of gulf coast states without Federal backing would be doing a better job right now, are you?
...surely you can't be suggesting that an ad-hoc coalition of gulf coast states without Federal backing would be doing a better job right now, are you?
No, no, no. Don't misunderstand me. I'm NOT talking about what should or should not have happened in 2005. I'm talking about how issues like disaster preparation and management should be handled in a world of a right-sized federal government where resource allocation is not dictated from DC but managed by those whose interests are truly interwoven with the issue at hand.
I think many conservatives, myself included, would argue that NOLA corruption and incompetence are enabled by the Federal agencies that are always there to bail them out -- pun intended.
I'm trying to suggest that states subject to hurricanes can do a better job planning for and responding to disasters such as Katrina in the future. We intend to shrink Federal government. What is going to take its place? My concern in posting was that Katrina will be a setback to the conservative small government/good government agenda.
Interstate Commerce has been seen as a federal issue since the beginning of the nation. Indeed there has been some controversy as to whether interstate commerce has been used to get the feds involved in stuff they shouldn't be. However making sure a large, modern port serves the interior of the Eastern US doesn't seem to be one of those issues.
Goods flow (or at least used to) to New Orleans that end up in every state in the contiguous US. Keeping a good port there is a federal necessity (or else upgrading Mobile and the like would become a federal necessity).
Sorry, I'm not conservative enough (or whatever it is) to take out the federal role in ensuring facilities are available to provide efficient flow of commrece.