Kate Herrick ([info]1144) wrote,
  • Mood: too angry for words

The Man-Made Disaster in New Orleans

Very decent article by the Ayn Rand Institute's Robert Tracinski.

Quote from near the end:

"What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological
consequences of the welfare state. What we consider
"normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is
normal for people who have values and take the
responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with
values respond to a disaster by fighting against it
and doing whatever it takes to overcome the
difficulties they face. They don't sit around and
complain that the government hasn't taken care of
them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an
opportunity to prey on their fellow men."



Sep 02, 2005
by Robert Tracinski

It has taken four long days for state and federal
officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster
in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it has
also taken me four long days to figure out what is
going on there. The reason is that the events there
make no sense if you think that we are confronting a
natural disaster.

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for
public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water,
and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate
refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to
stop the flooding and rebuild the city's
infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters
also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary
people pulling together to survive; the hard work and
dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the
steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing
they would have to do is to send thousands of armed
troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing
an enemy insurgency. And journalists--myself
included--did not expect that the story would not be
about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape,
murder, and looting.

But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made
disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or
incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and
it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This
is where just about every newspaper and television
channel has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New
Orleans did not happen over the past four days. It
happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina
merely exposed it to public view.

The man-made disaster is the welfare state.

For the past few days, I have found the news from New
Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as
you would expect them to behave in an
emergency--indeed, they were not behaving as they have
behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked
so many people: they have been saying that this is not
what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even
what we expect from a Third World country.

When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise
to the occasion. They work together to rescue people
in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep
order and solve problems. This is especially true in
America. We are an enterprising people, used to
relying on our own initiative rather than waiting
around for the government to take care of us. I have
seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small
town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing
ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve
as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the
intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response
of New Yorkers to September 11).

So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going
on, here is a description from a Washington Times
story:

"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with
flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out;
corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue
helicopters are repeatedly fired on.

"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as
National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop
the looting, carjackings and gunfire....

"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300
Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were
inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.

" 'These troops are...under my orders to restore order
in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they
are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot
and kill and they are more than willing to do so if
necessary and I expect they will.' "

The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that
accompanies this article shows National Guard troops,
with rifles and armored vests, riding on an armored
vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble
of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be
yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from
Sadr City in Baghdad.

What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster
as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery,
and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very
buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the
drivers to drive away, frightened for their lives?
What causes people to attack the doctors trying to
treat patients at the Super Dome?

Why are people responding to natural destruction by
causing further destruction? Why are they attacking
the people who are trying to help them?

My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured
it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the
coverage last night on Fox News Channel, she told me
that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied
architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago,
which is located in the South Side of Chicago just
blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the
largest high-rise public housing projects in America.
"The projects," as they were known, were infamous for
uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They
have since, mercifully, been demolished.)

What Sherri was getting from last night's television
coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the
projects." Then the "crawl"--the informational phrases
flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news
channels--gave some vital statistics to confirm this
sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already
evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or
so who remained, a large number were from the city's
public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an
additional, crucial fact: early reports from CNN and
Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating
all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just
let many of them loose. There is no doubt a
significant overlap between these two
populations--that is, a large number of people in the
jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice
versa.

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New
Orleans when the deluge hit--but they were trapped
alongside large numbers of people from two groups:
criminals--and wards of the welfare state, people
selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative
and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were
a mass of sheep--on whom the incompetent
administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of
wolves.

All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent
incompetence of the city government, which failed to
plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the
knowledge that this might be necessary. But in a city
corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city
officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare
recipients and patronage to political supporters--not
to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of
emergency.

No one has really reported this story, as far as I can
tell. In fact, some are already actively distorting
it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing
to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had
drafted an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example
is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail,
by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on
American "individualism." But the truth is precisely
the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that
was the exact opposite of individualism.

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological
consequences of the welfare state. What we consider
"normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is
normal for people who have values and take the
responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with
values respond to a disaster by fighting against it
and doing whatever it takes to overcome the
difficulties they face. They don't sit around and
complain that the government hasn't taken care of
them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an
opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do
they worry about saving their houses and property?
They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they
worry about what is going to happen to their
businesses or how they are going to make a living?
They never worried about those things before. Do they
worry about crime and looting? But living off of
stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized
mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made
disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has
swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one
is reporting.

Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005

Thanks, Mr. Tracinski. Passed along by Marsha Enright.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

  • 16 comments

[info]turkishb

September 5 2005, 18:37:27 UTC 6 years ago

re: katrina

What about the gini coefficient? I think that might be a significant factor in determining the reason for the vastly disorganized reaction, still taken in a classist light. I wonder, how effective is the disaster reaction in a country with a 'good' coefficient, compared to one with a 'bad' coefficient? Like Germany compared to Swaziland...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

And as a welfare state, I think this is pretty obviously disproven, or at least shadowed by considerable doubt, by Cuba's amazingly effective (yet communist) system for dealing with hurricanes. :)

They can not avoid property damage (the nature of their geography makes this nigh impossible) but they can and do avoid human losses incredibly well.

http://www.cuba-junky.com/cuba/hurricane.htm
http://www.americas.org/item_16714
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/01/katrina_anecdote_on_.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2313085.stm

[info]1144

September 5 2005, 18:55:21 UTC 6 years ago

Re: katrina

Much appreciation. Gimme time to study.

I agree that it's quite possible for some political entity under socialism/communism could be less corrupt than a polity in the U.S. With absolutely no personal reservation. Benevolent dictators are not a metaphysical impossibility.

Thanks.

[info]turkishb

September 5 2005, 19:35:13 UTC 6 years ago

Re: katrina

Anytime. :)

Anonymous

September 5 2005, 22:33:15 UTC 6 years ago

"Unlike 9/11, when the cult of victimhood was temporarily suspended in honour of the many real, actual victims under the rubble, in New Orleans everyone claimed the mantle of victim, from the incompetent mayor to the "oppressed" guys wading through the water with new DVD players under each arm. Welfare culture is bad not just because, as in Europe, it's bankrupting the state, but because it enfeebles the citizenry, it erodes self-reliance and resourcefulness."
Mark Steyn
"The Big Easy rocked, but didn't roll," The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/09/06/do0602.xml

[info]epictetus_rex

September 6 2005, 10:53:34 UTC 6 years ago

Oh.... what's THIS now?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,16441,1563532,00.html

[info]1144

September 6 2005, 17:39:01 UTC 6 years ago

Thank you. So, lots of hearsay is unsubstantiated, which is not surprising. (A nurse with an I Love New Orleans t-shirt running to greet authorities is supposed to make us think there were only angels present? I had to laugh at that.) Time will hopefully give us a clearer, corroborated picture of what did and didn't go on. I still believe direct quotes from survivors about witnessing rapes, and I think it's beyond a doubt that a shitload of looting of non-essentials happened.

I never heard about murdered babies or raped 7-yr-old in the first place. They seem to be targeting the more-likely-to-be-rumors stories. The only thing that struck me as really objective was the fact of no rapes reported yet ... which, given the moral bankruptcy exposed in the police and the fact that it's too late to make rape kits and the massive anonymity of the Super Dome, and victims' tendency not to come forward anyway, I don't take that to prove anything.

Again, I trust the picture will become clearer with time. Thanks again for another opposing view.

[info]danielmryan

September 6 2005, 16:50:51 UTC 6 years ago

Maybe Robert Tracinski is trying to deploy a less hard-edged kind of Objectivism now. The more stentorian variety did drive a lot of quasi-Objectivists right out.

It's a sad dilemma. The person who is more capable than most at looking out for the others is the easiest to stigmatize for having supposedly "collectivist premises."

[info]1144

September 6 2005, 17:15:10 UTC 6 years ago

Hm, I haven't heard that in a while. They tend to call us subjectivists. But yes, his tone is so much better than it used to be.

[info]danielmryan

September 6 2005, 17:18:25 UTC 6 years ago

"Subjectivists," eh? Thanks for telling me.

[info]1144

September 6 2005, 17:43:21 UTC 6 years ago

Y'know, not enough fist-pounding and excommunications. We're obviously not very serious about philosophy, and that must be because we secretly despise objectivity for getting in the way of our whim-worship. You don't really need to know anything more than that we associate with David Kelley (such as David Kelley's actual positions). :D

[info]danielmryan

September 7 2005, 02:24:39 UTC 6 years ago

Have those who claim to be much more serious about philosophy ever dived into an analysis of the Stoics?

[info]shannon_f_r

September 6 2005, 18:40:41 UTC 6 years ago

Yeah, Kate, I hate to say it, but I think I'm going to have to go with the majority on this one. The Tracinski op-ed was, for me, a good example of why people make fun of Objectivists. I'm not disagreeing in principle with what he's saying, necessarily, but does he really think that this sort of lambast against the poor (which really comes across at several points as distaste for the state of being poor, not for the thievery of the thieving poor) is going to gain a wide audience? Is he writing to persuade, or preaching to the choir? I tend to think the latter, and given that this is an op-ed for syndication, he's failed miserably at the task he's set himself.

Also, as a piece of writing, it's a loose, saggy sort of thing, that could have been said in the standard 750 words, not 1500. This sentence in particular drives me mad:

"My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured
it out on a sense-of-life level."

1. It reminds me of that moment in the Carter-Reagan debates when Carter started talking about how he was consulting with his teenage daughter Amy about nuclear war. 2. "Sense of life." An Objectivist cliche that has no place in writing targeted to non-Objectivists, and is objectionable enough in writing targeted to Objectivists.

The whole thing makes me sorry that I basically agree with him.

[info]1144

September 6 2005, 18:53:20 UTC 6 years ago

I agree it was not well-written-- your critical description is bracing and inspiring-- but I don't think it is too much a case of preaching to the choir, going by the engaged reception of it on the [info]philosophy list. Part of that reception is that I've been airing libertarian politics for some time, but in that context, I thought it wasn't too much of a stretch.

I winced hard at the "my wife Sherri" stuff, too-- ARI men seem to do this, as if they need to lend intellectual legitimacy to their wives. *yeachh*

I knew you would have an unfavorable reaction and was eagerly awaiting it. Now I will commence reformulating it into bracing critiques of my own standards. Thank you, wonderful!

[info]shannon_f_r

September 6 2005, 20:25:47 UTC 6 years ago

I hadn't thought about the whole "conferring intellectual legitimacy on their wives" angle, but, uh, ew. I thought they did that for similar reasons to Carter's (the need to seem folksy and down home-ish), but come to think of it, your explanation makes more sense.

While I agree with Tracinski on the fallibility of the local officials in this case, I'm much more hesitant about his whole "self-reliance" argument. It seems, from all reports, that there were a large number of people who simply could not get out of New Orleans because they didn't own cars. Some of them were students, or people just starting out in life (with whom I have a great deal of sympathy, obviously. If a major disaster hit Boston while I was going to school, I would have had to either stay or rely on the kindness of strangers, too.) There were also people who couldn't find gas to fuel up their cars or who couldn't get out in time because while someone gave the order for the freeways to run one way, from the photos, it looks like they never did. In Tracinski's concept of self-reliance, is there any room for people who don't have cars? Would their self-reliance involve gathering up enough scrap metal to construct their own vehicles?

It seems to me that one of the few legitimate purposes of government is large-scale disaster planning and clean-up, at least in the current state of mixed economy. I'm sure a number of the people who didn't get out pay plenty of their taxes over to the government with the assumption that when something like Katrina happens, at least the police will make some half-assed attempt to protect taxpayers' lives and stuff. Is Tracinski really saying that a functioning police force isn't a legitimate use of government? Is he, an ARI-affiliated, undoubtedly anarcho-libertarian-hating, "journalist" really trying to argue against the government's monopoly on the use of force? I doubt it, but it's just one more sign of how poorly conceived this op-ed really was. It doesn't bother to follow its own arguments to their logical conclusions.

Sorry, I'm rambling on. I want to hear what you have to say.

[info]1144

September 6 2005, 20:28:59 UTC 6 years ago

Sorry, I'm rambling on. I want to hear what you have to say.

Is unbecomingly encouraged ... lol! and *hug* I'm very human ... super-human, I prefer. -_-

[info]1144

September 6 2005, 20:36:50 UTC 6 years ago

Last full paragraph... wow. You are one brilliant Objectivist. Please let me post some of this on [info]philosophy.

You are NOT rambling on, (:o Don't say that! It's brilliant!
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…