"When the Levee Breaks"... reflections on New Orleans.

[Wyzaard]

Spike Lee's "When the Levee Breaks", his four-act documentary on the Katrina disaster, aired yesterday and today on HBO. The footage and interviews are uttery heartbreaking, and the analysis of class and race politics quite troubling...

I was wondering what everyone's reflections on the disaster were.

[Duder]

Spike Lee's "When the Levee Breaks", his four-act documentary on the Katrina disaster, aired yesterday and today on HBO. The footage and interviews are uttery heartbreaking, and the analysis of class and race politics quite troubling...

I was wondering what everyone's reflections on the disaster were.

Hello, Wyzaard -

Oddly enough, I have been reflecting on this over the past few days.

As the political left tells it, Katrina exposed rampant incompetence in the Bush Administration. I think they have it all wrong, and that the discussion would be better framed in a different way. The government's responce to Katrina was not incompetent - it was a perfect reflection of President Bush's theories about what the government is and is not supposed to do.

George Bush is, obviously, a conservative. The cornerstone of conservative thought is that the government should be as small as possible, and should do as little as possible. In terms of economics, that means laissez-faire. A good conservative government keeps it's hands off things and allows affairs to run their natural courses. In terms of social theory, the logical conclusion of conservative thought is Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism says that every man's predicament is his own look-out, and if he cannot survive by his own strength and wits, then he should be allowed to fail and die.

According to these theories, the individual should contribute very little to the common welfare (the code word for that is "tax-relief"), and he should expect to receive little from the collective. And it is according to theories such as these that George Bush set up his various agencies in our federal government.

What happened in the federal response to Katrina was the natural outworking of these social and economic ideologies. Help came late because providing help was never a high priority in the Bush government. The help that came was (and is) of limited value because collective assistence to the individual is too liberal an impuse for an administration as staunchly conservative as President Bush's.

I do not mean to malign Bush's character. I believe with all my heart that President Bush wanted to do everything he could do to help people caught in the Katrina emergency. The problem was, his government was not set up for effective emergency relief, because emergency relief simmers on a back burner of conservative philosophy.

Look at it: In just about every area, with the exception of terrorism and war, Bush feels that the federal government bears less responsibility than do the state governments. State governments, in turn, bear less resonsibility than local governments. Local governments bear less responsibility than families and individuals. The last word in conservatism is, "it's every man for himself."

I have put this in rather stark language, exaggerating a little for effect, just to bring my point into sharper focus. Of course conservative thought is more subtle than how I have stated it. Nevertheless, I think there is a lot of truth in my analysis.

The Bush Adminstration's response to Katrina was not incompetent. It worked exactly the way it was supposed to work.

[Ryokan]

Okay. I lied. I am going to make a return very early, just for a bit, to respond to this thread. Mia Culpa.

Duder, I completely disagree with you. If anything, Katrina is the result of Bush's perversion of conservative principles. Disaster relief, the military, etc. public defense works are the primary, fundamental purpose of government in a conservatives view. So to suggest true adherence to conservative principles would lead to a lack of emphasis on disaster defense doesn't make sense. Secondly, the problem with Katrina was or ponderous, paralyzing Homeland Security apparatus and incompetant leadership. Neither of these are particularly conservative. Finally, social darwinism has nothing to do with conservativism any more than stalinism is related to liberalism. Libertarian conservatives look to maxmize freedom, not allow the fittest to compete. Vanilla conservatives like economic freedom, but also desire carefully proscribed moral and cultural rules, which is opposed to social darwinism.

Why did the Katrina response turn out to be so inadequate? We created a giant, inefficient disaster and security apparatus after 9/11. Bush's cronyism gave us inefficient leadership. And incompetent governance and corruption in Louisiana made the local response utterly ineffective. Maybe, finally, Bush cuts in disaster relief spending. But this isn't conservatism. This is Bush playing at conservatism because he wanted to do a conservative thing (cut taxes) but lacked the balls to do the other thing that allows that thing (cutting social programs).

[Mountain Man]

Sean Hannity commented last night that as the anniversary of the Katrina disaster approaches, the distortion field surrounding the left's perception of events is going to become stronger.

I also like how Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin is apparently getting a free pass while the libs are busy trying to figure out how to blame a natural disaster on Bush. There were breakdowns on many levels, from local to national, for countless reasons, and I think trying to pin the blame on any one person is ridiculous.

I also feel the need to point out that FEMA is not a first response orginization. That job lies with the local agencies.

[FormerFundy]

Sean Hannity commented last night that as the anniversary of the Katrina disaster approaches, the distortion field surrounding the left's perception of events is going to become stronger.

I also like how Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin is apparently getting a free pass while the libs are busy trying to figure out how to blame a natural disaster on Bush. There were breakdowns on many levels, from local to national, for countless reasons, and I think trying to pin the blame on any one person is ridiculous.

I also feel the need to point out that FEMA is not a first response orginization. That job lies with the local agencies.

Excellent points. This is a first, me and MM agreeing on something.

The fact is that both Nagin and the governor of LA blew it. They should have evacuated these people.

[Pilgrim]

There was an interesting interview with the elderly lady whom President Bush visited in the aftermoath of Katrina. On Camera he had his arm around her and promised help quickly and immediately and she promised to cook a meal for him in her new kitchenw hen it was finished. The cameras showed a flurry of activity and all looked well. Cut to last week. The house still rests in ruin and no help came after cameras were turned off. She says she believes President Bush meant what he said and is dissapointed that things have not happened yet.

Which reminds me of something Bono said, "When the cameras are rolling it's not charity or compassion, it's just PR."

[Ishmael]

I agree that you all agree that the Federal government's response was understandable and the Spike Lee's film is "skewed."

I am just glad it was mostly poor black people effected by the disaster, otherwise, who knows what would have happened!? It would be chaos!!!!! It might have been a movie by Michael Moore!!!

[themuzicman]

Hello, Wyzaard -

Oddly enough, I have been reflecting on this over the past few days.

As the political left tells it, Katrina exposed rampant incompetence in the Bush Administration. I think they have it all wrong, and that the discussion would be better framed in a different way. The government's responce to Katrina was not incompetent - it was a perfect reflection of President Bush's theories about what the government is and is not supposed to do.

George Bush is, obviously, a conservative. The cornerstone of conservative thought is that the government should be as small as possible, and should do as little as possible. In terms of economics, that means laissez-faire. A good conservative government keeps it's hands off things and allows affairs to run their natural courses. In terms of social theory, the logical conclusion of conservative thought is Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism says that every man's predicament is his own look-out, and if he cannot survive by his own strength and wits, then he should be allowed to fail and die.

According to these theories, the individual should contribute very little to the common welfare (the code word for that is "tax-relief"), and he should expect to receive little from the collective. And it is according to theories such as these that George Bush set up his various agencies in our federal government.

What happened in the federal response to Katrina was the natural outworking of these social and economic ideologies. Help came late because providing help was never a high priority in the Bush government. The help that came was (and is) of limited value because collective assistence to the individual is too liberal an impuse for an administration as staunchly conservative as President Bush's.

I do not mean to malign Bush's character. I believe with all my heart that President Bush wanted to do everything he could do to help people caught in the Katrina emergency. The problem was, his government was not set up for effective emergency relief, because emergency relief simmers on a back burner of conservative philosophy.

Look at it: In just about every area, with the exception of terrorism and war, Bush feels that the federal government bears less responsibility than do the state governments. State governments, in turn, bear less resonsibility than local governments. Local governments bear less responsibility than families and individuals. The last word in conservatism is, "it's every man for himself."

I have put this in rather stark language, exaggerating a little for effect, just to bring my point into sharper focus. Of course conservative thought is more subtle than how I have stated it. Nevertheless, I think there is a lot of truth in my analysis.

The Bush Adminstration's response to Katrina was not incompetent. It worked exactly the way it was supposed to work.

I'm going to agree in general with the problem, but not with the idea that it's GWB's fault. What you describe is FEMA's philosophy in general. They're supposed to support local and state efforts, not subplant them.

Look at Florida and the Carolinas. They've been through horrific hurricanes. Yet, there wasn't much whining about federal response because the federal government wasn't the primary actor in relief efforts. Local and state officials worked together, using federal resources when necessary, to evacuate, shelter, and aid in the recovery of hurricane damaged areas. Normally federal involvement means delivering supplies to state and local agencies, who oversee distribution, and offering low or no-interest loans so that people can rebuild.

Although the east cost hurricanes are devistating, they are handled well because the government that is closest to them handles it most effectively.

Now, back to New Orleans. Mayor Ray Naggin, rather than calling his bus drivers to come and get the thousands of school busses the schools use every day and transport people out of the city, called for the federal government to come in and do the job for him. The federal government simply wasn't close enough to provide this kind of aid. Naggin had a chance, but he apparantly didn't want to take responsibility.

So, rather than saying that the feds need to learn from New Orleans, New Orleans and Lousianna should learn from Florida and the Carolinas.

Michael

[guacamole]

I'll add one more voice to the confusing cacophony of opinions. The fault lies on the shoulders of the local and federal officials, but also on the fourth branch of government, the bloated obese beaurocracy that resists change through the institutional inertia of a glacier. All three groups of people, invested with the power to protect us, failed at that charge.

I can't really comment on Lee's documentary. In my opinion, the poorest are ultimately the most vulnerable and therefore likely to suffer most profoundly in any disaster. I think that's just common sense, but if it takes Lee's social commentary to reawaken us to that fact, then so be it.

fwiw
guaca.

[Duder]

. . . the libs are busy trying to figure out how to blame a natural disaster on Bush.

Hello, MM -

The only place I have heard this is from a couple of Bush apologists right here on Tweb. I don't know whether this argument just occured to you, or whether you heard it on a TV show I don't watch. But unless someone gets a pleasant, warm feeling when he can reflect on liberals as being a troop of utterly ridiculous fools, this claim is manifestly absurd.

No one has tried to blame President Bush for a hurricane, have they? If I am wrong, go ahead and show us somebody trying to blame President Bush for a hurricane.

I also feel the need to point out that FEMA is not a first response orginization. That job lies with the local agencies.

That reinforces the points I made about conservative ideology - its vision of what federal government should and should not do. As with all theories, there comes a point where it breaks down. Localized disasters reveal a breakdown in this part of conservative ideology. Local disasters are local - and they damage the very local agencies that you are asking to respond to the disaster.

[Mountain Man]

No one has tried to blame President Bush for a hurricane, have they?

I was being tongue in cheek, but the way some people whoop and holler, I wouldn't be surprised if the did try and blame the hurricane on Bush.

Local disasters are local - and they damage the very local agencies that you are asking to respond to the disaster.

Well, it's not like the hurricane caught them by surprise. That's why it's called emergency preparedness.

[themuzicman]

(Given history in Louisiana and New Orleans specifically, I'm sure business folks in that area were licking their lips at the chance to graft billions from the federal government to do "contract work".)

[Wyzaard]

That reinforces the points I made about conservative ideology - its vision of what federal government should and should not do. As with all theories, there comes a point where it breaks down. Localized disasters reveal a breakdown in this part of conservative ideology. Local disasters are local - and they damage the very local agencies that you are asking to respond to the disaster.[/indent]

At that point, a step-up the ladder of response-ibility would fall into federal hands; a government is an institutional apparatus of the people that serves the public good.