|
Political Opinion and
Commentary for the Progressive Internet
|
|
HOME PAGE
|
Randville, Rawlsburg, and New Orleans
|
|
|
Since there is no such entity as “the public” – since
the public is merely a number of individuals – any claimed or implied
conflict of the “public interest” with private interests means that
the interests of some men must be sacrificed to the interests of and
wishes of others. Ayn Rand
John Rawls |
In his second debate with Al Gore, candidate George Bush
said “I think you can spend your money more wisely than the federal
government can.”
You think? Ask the survivors of the New Orleans Super Dome and convention
center.
Who is better equipped to prepare for natural disasters and, when they
strike, to deal with them? Individual citizens acting on their own, or
government agencies acting in behalf of the community at large – acting
professionally, with expert information, and with clear command and
coordination?
Again, for your answer, consider New Orleans.
It comes down to this simple question: Is there such a thing as a “public
interest” distinct and apart from a simple summation of private interests?
The libertarians and the regressive right say that there is not.
Progressives say that there is a public interest, and both history and
common sense bear this out. In a free society, the appropriate protector and
administrator of this public interest is a government of, by, and for the
people. Our founding documents affirm this explicitly.*
The regressive right (falsely called “conservatives”) tells us otherwise.
Thus we are now experiencing the bitter consequences of Ronald Reagan’s 1981
inauguration pronouncement: “government is not the solution, government is
the problem.” The Reagan administration and the two subsequent Bush
administrations have crippled and dismantled government agencies almost the
point at which, as Grover Norquist puts it, government can be “drowned in a
bathtub.” And so today it is the unprepared and unprotected city of New
Orleans that is drowning in the filthy flood waters left by Hurricane
Katrina.
Two years ago, with the Katrina catastrophe just one of many grim
possibilities,
I
published a parable about two communities, about to be hit by a flood.
Given the dreadful events of last week, it bears repeating.
Imagine that two communities are situated on opposite sides of a great
river. On the right bank (appropriately) is “Randville,” populated by
libertarians – rugged individualists who are contemptuous of “collective”
activity and who assume full personal responsibility for their personal
safety, welfare and property. On the left bank is “Rawlsburg,” comprised of
individuals who, while covetous of their personal rights, fully acknowledge
the existence of public interests. They are therefore aware of the
desirability of acting collectively, in the words of the Preamble to the US
Constitution, “to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, [and] promote the general Welfare."
News arrives that a great flood is approaching from upstream. The citizens
of Randville immediately get to work piling sandbags around their individual
homes. Across the river brigades of Rawlsburg citizens are working together
to build a levee around the town.
One of the towns survives the flood, while the other is devastated. Need I
identify which is which?
Consider another case: this one is not fanciful – it is quite real.
In April, 2003, California Governor Gray Davis requested $430 million in
federal funds to reduce the fire hazard in the southern California forests.
The request was ignored until, October 24,
George
Bush rejected it. A few hours later, “the Old Fire” broke out in
the San Bernardino mountains, followed by several more fires, eventually
consuming three quarter of a million acres and 3577 homes, and causing 22
fatalities.
This particular disaster struck close to home – precisely 150 feet close to
my home, where the fire was stopped at my property line. “The Old Fire”
almost surrounded the cluster of houses in our neighborhood, and only the
combined, coordinated and professional effort of the US forest Service and
the state and local firefighters saved our homes. Several days earlier we
were ordered off the mountain while these “big government bureaucracies” did
their work – magnificently. (See my
“If it burns,
it earns”).
Presumably, the method preferred by the Bush administration would have been
to de-fund the government fire-control agencies and then to leave it to each
of us individual property owners to take a valiant stand by our individual
homes, garden hoses in hand. Who can doubt that had we tried that, all our
houses would have been reduced to ashes and many of us would have ended up
as “crispy critters.”
All of us San Bernardino mountaineers – democrats, republican, independents
– were convinced, contrary to George Bush, that “the government” spent our
money better than we could.
One final example: Had the December, 2004 tsunami occurred in the Pacific
Ocean instead of the Indian Ocean, the death toll would have been much
lower. This is because there is an international tsunami warning system in
place in the Pacific, and following the earthquake that triggered it,
populations around the Pacific rim would have had advance warning from
several minutes to several hours. (In deep water, tsunami waves travel up to
500 mph, and much slower near shore). Because there is no such system in the
Indian Ocean, the December 26 tsunami struck without warning.
An international tsunami warning system, and the scientific research and
development behind it, is clearly beyond the resources or the incentives of
private individuals, or even of corporations. Only governments are capable
of such an undertaking. And governments are singularly authorized for such
an undertaking, for public safety is not an exclusively private matter, it
is, as they say “in the public interest.”
The role of government in protecting the lives and property of its citizens,
one of the sole legitimate functions of government recognized by the
libertarians, is universally acknowledged in civilized societies, as it was
in the United States until, apparently, January 2001. No longer. The policy
of the Bush government is to cut the FEMA funds and put a political hack in
charge, send the National Guard to Iraq, and slash the funding for the New
Orleans levees. And if you don’t like it, private citizen, here’s a shovel
and a sand bag, now get to work!
Just remember, to the Busheviks and the GOP, “government is not the
solution, government is the problem.” And so, after our government has been
drowned in Grover Norquist’s bathtub, we will all be on our own in George
Bush’s “ownership society.”
Well that’s just fine if you happen to be one of the fortunate 1% who has
“invested” in the GOP and Bush campaign juggernaut, and are thus the
beneficiary of Bush’s tax cuts and deregulation. If not, then you are out in
the cold – or if you are poor and in New Orleans, stuck in the toxic soup.
So why did Michael Brown, the former horse-trader and present Administrator
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, allow FEMA to fail so
spectacularly? Simply because he was not appointed to manage emergencies. He
was appointed to dismantle the Agency – one of many Busheviks selected to
“starve the beast” of government bureaucracy.
Michael Brown, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and their sort
fail to function as public servants because, as true Randvillians, they
believe that “there is no such entity as ‘the public.’” There are only
individuals responsible for their own personal welfare. And so, when the
storm approaches, the sole responsibility of government, they believe, is to
tell the citizens to “get out of town, now!” No further thought as to how
these individuals are to manage their exit – and so the school buses and the
army trucks remain idle as the waters rise. No thought about how those who
are trapped in the city are to be fed, sheltered, and protected. That’s
their misfortune. Government? It’s “the problem,” not a solution.
In contrast, Rawlsburgers, who readily recognize the existence of public
goods and public interest, know how to work together in the common interest.
In the spirit of our founders and their Declaration, they establish and
support an institution, government, to act in behalf of this public,
“deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.” Then they put
government agencies in the hands of qualified and dedicated individuals,
like Bill Clinton’s brilliant FEMA Administrator James Lee Witt, who
anticipate disasters, prevent them whenever possible, and who plan and then
implement contingency plans when disaster strikes. When the disaster is
imminent and foreseeable, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina, rapid
response facilities are assembled close to the affected area, prepared to
take action at the earliest opportunity.
All this requires personnel, equipment and cash appropriations – personnel
and equipment that Bush preferred to deploy in Iraq, and cash that Bush
chose instead to give as tax “relief” to his super-wealthy sponsors.
Adaptability that is “reality based” – founded upon scientific information
and practical experience – is the hallmark of intelligence, and of effective
and just governance. But the Busheviks,
openly contemptuous of “reality based” policies
are immobilized by their Randvillian dogmas and by the dictates of their
corporate “stockholders.” Thus they cannot adapt.
For proof, look to New Orleans and the Gulf coast.
Today, the port of New Orleans is closed, through which our leading exports,
agricultural products, flow to offset in small part our gigantic trade
deficits. In addition, imports of essential strategic raw materials are
blocked and must be re-routed to other ports, ill-prepared to deal with
them. This
grossly under-reported consequence of Katrina,
along with the reduction of Gulf coast petroleum and natural gas production,
will have devastating consequences for the U.S. economy. None of this can
reasonably be blamed on Al Qaeda or the Clinton Administration – not that
Karl Rove and his henchmen in the media won’t try their damndest to do just
that.
Some very tough economic times are just ahead, and it’s the Busheviks’ worst
nightmare, for at last, the public at large may be forced to face up to the
enormity of the crimes and mal-administration of Bush, Inc.
The ancient Chinese curse is upon us: “May you live in interesting times.”
Copyright 2005, by Ernest Partridge
* I argue at length in defense of a "public interest," apart from a summation of private interests in Chapters 5 through 8 of my book in progress, Conscience of a Progressive."
Ernest Partridge's Internet Publications
Conscience of a Progressive: A book in progress.
Partridge's Scholarly Publications. (The Online Gadfly)
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers".
|
