Minimum Standards, Multiple Betrayals

One of the more predictable but still outrageous claims circulating about the disaster in New Orleans is that "they were warned" and "they should have listened to the advice to leave." This is part and parcel of the line of reasoning that blames state and local officials for the scope of the disaster. It is ass-covering revisionist nonsense. Besides the tragically obvious fact that many had neither the financial nor the physical ability to evacuate, what if those levees had been destroyed by a terrorist attack? Exactly what type of warning would New Orleans have expected in that scenario? That must be the standard applied here. It must be the same standard that would apply if terrorists detonated a dirty bomb in Manhattan, and simultaneously destroyed the bridges and tunnels connecting the island to the outside world. It must be the same standard that would apply if Las Vegas was hit by a biological attack and Interstate 15---the single main road leading into and out of the city through hundreds of miles of barren desert---was either blocked or destroyed. And of course it must be the same standard that would apply if a devastating earthquake struck San Francisco, which is the only one of three major disasters predicted by FEMA in 2001---the other two being a terrorist attack on New York and a hurricane in New Orleans---that has not happened yet. Yes, there was indeed prior warning here; what if there had not been? The performance of this administration and the federal government must be judged---at an absolute minimum, even by the blame-the-locals bunch---from the first moment that assistance and rescue became feasible. Or should we just go ahead right now and change FEMA's name to FEMASUC: Federal Emergency Management After Solely Unpredictable Catastrophes?

This is why what happened was a fundamental betrayal that transcends spin and political ideology. For as much as they suffered, those people in New Orleans were not the only ones who were failed. This was a betrayal of every citizen who goes to work and pays taxes to assure that if this tragedy befell him, the federal government would uphold its part of the bargain. It's incumbent on each of us to react as if this happened to our friends, our parents, our children, or us. Because one day that might be the case, and by then it will be too late to demand accountability.

One of the misperceptions that will gain traction from this disaster is that conservatives favor cutting FEMA's budget and liberals do not. But there is no conflict between conservatism and stipulating that only the federal government can and should handle a disaster on this scale. In fact, it's utterly consistent. Andrew Sullivan is spot-on about this:

Real conservatives believe that the state should do a few things that no one else can do - defense, decent public education, police, law and order among the most obvious - and leave the rest to individuals. Funding FEMA and having a superb civil defense are very much part of conservatism's real core. It's when government decides to reshape society, redistribute wealth, socially engineer, and take over functions that the private sector can do just as well that conservatives draw the line. The reason I'm mad as hell over Katrina is precisely because I'm a conservative and this kind of thing is exactly what government is for. Bush in this sense is not now and never has been a conservative. A man who explodes government spending but can't run a war or organize basic civil defense is simply a fiscally reckless incompetent. If this were a parliamentary system, we'd have a vote of no confidence. Instead we have three years of more peril.

What's ironic (but obviously insignificant next to the human suffering) is that just as those people in New Orleans were betrayed, so too were conservatives. Because intellectually honest conservatives---and unfortunately that no longer includes the Grover Norquist drown-government-in-a-bathtub types who have become no more than political and economic nihilists in conservative drag---generally advocate a "government shouldn't do much, but what it does must be done well" philosophy. The response to Katrina should have shown conservatism at its best. Those calling themselves conservatives who disagree with this need to explain exactly what they think the federal government should do and why it should exist at all. I happen to think it should not do much more than field a strong military, defend the borders, collect taxes, maintain national infrastructure, enforce laws that are beyond the purview of the states, and respond to historic disasters such as this. But for God's sake, it must do those things competently and not embrace an almost Soviet type of failing-upwards cronyism. The most senior federal officials learning from television reports about thousands of people trapped and dying for days in a single place is not competence.

Of course, all this has ramifications beyond FEMA, DHS and New Orleans. After the past week, can anyone maintain a shred of confidence that "supporting the troops" in any way entails endorsing this administration's command of them?