Motherlode of "toldja so's", A Rant
By Iconoclast_555
The suffering of the Gulf Coast has brought to the forefront the bankruptcy of
what passes as an "ideology" of the American right.
The admin said, at the nadir of the current phase of the disaster, that it
didn't want people to die because of bureaucracy. The irony of this statement is
not lost on the more politically aware - it was the LACK of a bureaucracy at an
effective level and a SURPLUS of bureaucracy on the political level that has
been responsible for the torpid relief efforts.
The federal government has grown in spurts: the Civil War created the first
strong central government apparatus. The New Deal expanded it exponentially. The
1960's saw some growth - although mostly in government responsibilities.
Finally, the current administration schizophrenically loaded a new layer of
useless political appointees while removing competencies and budgets.
The American right is on record for wanting to eliminate, as far as possible,
the federal government. This is a relatively new aspect of the right and came
about as a result of the 1960's; the Goldwater cons were unhappy with the idea
of the government meddling in such affairs as the enforcement of civil rights,
social programs to help raise the less wealthy, education, etc. As the GOP
coddled and captured the Dixiecrats, the concept of "states rights" (a pre-Civil
War bagatelle) confirmed the idea of "drowning the government in a bathtub".
Billions have been spent on converting the idea of "less government" into a
quasi-cultural meme. Yet the money was spent - because some desire to profit
from the absence of government. It is an empty rhetorical flourish because even
the most rabid government minimalist can't conceive of a society where the basic
services provided by the government were to disappear.
Some have argued that government services should be privatized. Others say that
the states should be responsible. Almost all point out that the government is
inefficient compared to private enterprise and the competitive marketplace. All
three are dead wrong - as the recent disaster shows.
The LA disaster plan that turned out to be a disaster itself was... outsourced.
LA does not have the emergency infrastructure and it certainly doesn't have the
cash to face such a disaster. The "social darwinists" and assorted cons might
say "tough tittie" - but unfortunately a disaster like this one affects the
whole nation if not the entire world.
Private enterprise may be initially more efficient but adds a profit margin to
expenses as well as corruption - while government inefficiency is due to
POLITICAL incompetence. And the unending trend towards corporate consolidation
shows that the competitive marketplace for "necessities" eventually ends up with
monopolies, friendly duopolies or worse.
If there are any meaningful questions to be asked after this disaster, they
shouldn't be about the identities of incompetent political appointees or "tweakings
of the system." The real question that needs to be asked is "what should the
role of the central government be?".
The "minimalist", "states' rights", "privatized" approach was tested and found
to be wanting. Iraq showed the first palpable symptoms of this: poor oversight,
corruption, incompetence. This disaster showed that the cons have created a
major vacuum in a key area - the power to evaluate, coordinate and effectuate
necessary actions in a critical moment.
Another open wound discovered (or re-discovered) is the extreme disparity
between the wealthy and the poor. Vietnam starved the "Great Society" of funds
and political weight and the cons have since removed itself from any
responsibility for improving the lot of the citizens it represents. A disaster,
a videotaped beating, a basketball victory - all are capable of igniting riots
amongst the nation's poor. If there is any barometer measuring the government's
competence, this is it.
The politically aware know the conservative rhetoric all too well. Yet what the
conservatives ignore is that their rhetoric is 150 years old and when actually
applied, has invariably resulted in absolute failure and incredible suffering.
"Self-help", "charity" (the predecessor of the "faith based" initiatives of
today)... were Victorian mantras that utterly failed to improve the squalor of
the Industrial Revolution. They were also the basis of the Coolidges, Hardings
and Hoovers - which resulted in the Depression. It would be fitting if the
likely refugee camps to be built for the survivors of the Gulf disaster were to
be called "Dubyavilles" - in allusion to the Depression-era "Hooverville" hovels
that dotted the American countryside.
Civilization requires governance and the lack of government is, by definition,
anarchy. Spreading government to the local level can be effective in the
day-to-day administration but is utterly incapable of dealing with emergencies
or of progressing society. And borrowing an argument from the cons themselves,
the multiplicity of bureaucracies through decentralization cannot be
"efficient".
--------
Since the cleptocratic/corporatist establishment will undoubtedly spend wildly
in order to maintain their investment in pulling the wool over their
constituents' eyes, I hope that they have to spend a shitload of cash.
With a bit of luck they'll bankrupt themselves in the process.
9/04/05