The Good Rabbi's Blog

It seems to me that the majority of coverage has been showing all these poor souls that got their houses flooded, and how we should all donate money, time, and feminine hygiene products to assist the relief effort. While I definitely do feel badly for all these people, and I do agree that donations should be made, and that people should volunteer for the relief effort if they can, I also feel that this media focus misses the real story of this hurricane.

This hurricane was the most anticipated natural storm disaster in American history, and still government managed to fail at every level. The city of New Orleans actually put in an emergency response plan (no doubt, replete with powerpoint presentations, bullet-lists, and bad clipart) that actually sounds really good. Too bad it was destroyed by reality. See, this is the central paradox with this sort of thing. At times like this, we really need government, but government is extremely limited in what it can effectively do.

The fact is, government tends toward bureaucracy, which means elaborate paper flow but ineffective action. Government depends on planning, but planners can never really anticipate the complexity of events. American government is divided and power is devolved.

For example, the Army Corps of Engineers had plenty of money (Louisiana received more than any other state), but that spending was carved up into little pork barrel projects. There were ample troops nearby to maintain order, but they were divided between federal and state authorities and constrained by regulations.

This preparedness plan is government as it really is. It reminds us that getting rid of the FEMA director or appointing some tough response czar will not change the endemic failures at the heart of this institutional collapse. What we really need is limited but energetic government. Liberals who think this disaster is going to set off a progressive revival need to explain how a comprehensive governmental failure is going to restore America's faith in big government.

Also, before we send one piece of plywood down to the delta, we really need to consider whether or not we should really be building there. Interestingly enough, there is a great editorial in the Washington Post that addresses this very issue. Personally, I think the federal government should not subsidise people living in areas where there is both a high risk factor, as well as a high-probability of that risk coming to fruition. In the Louisiana area, if we completely rebuild everything, we'll be right back where we started, as the city will again be on borrowed time until the next big hurricane hits. I also think the feds should not subsidise people living here in San Francisco, as the risk of a major earthquake disaster is non-trivial. To be sure, I'm not saying that people should be forced out, but they should be made aware that in the event of a major disaster, the feds will not provide resources for rebuilding. This will allow resources to be focused on evacuation and relocation, where it should be focused.

It's also worth noting that while everyone is complaining that only the tourist areas (and rich neighbourhoods) will be saved, thereby ignoring the poorer areas, I would argue that New Orleans has been dying a slow death for the past thirty years. Any future that the city has will be dependent on tourism, which therefore makes those areas worth saving (they're also the only areas that are naturally defensible from floods).

So, now that the Hurricane talk is out of the way, how 'bout them Mets?