September 7, 2005
Katrina and federalism
One of the great advantages of being an historian is the freedom not to comment on current events -- especially where the evidence is clearly incomplete and final judgments premature.
So I plan to refrain from commenting (much) on the response to Katrina; in the immortal words of Boris Badenov: "this is no time for recriminations; recriminations will come later".
I will, however, make brief note of how recent events have spurred some heated criticism of American federalism, epitomized by Mickey Kaus's posts here and here -- to which Jim Tynen succinctly replies here. Stepping back and taking in the big picture, I've got to agree that there's no clear-cut evidence that centralized states are any better at preparing for or responding to disasters than federal states. "Centralized" doesn't always mean streamlined or efficient; turf battles and slippage through the cracks can occur within a bureaucracy as well as between layers of local, state, and federal government.
In any event, there is more to choosing a government than its ability to cope with natural disasters (or deliver Christmas packages, which is where Kaus's UPS analogy falls to the ground). Human despots have quite outdone Mother Nature's most murderous efforts; the American preference for divided powers, checks and balances, remains far from irrational.
Posted by David on September 7, 2005 9:40 AM
The centralised British government recently made a terrible mess of our foot-and-mouth epidemic.
Garbage in office,Garbage decisisons.
Posted by: on September 7, 2005 12:44 PM
I'd agree with you on the merits of sitting back and waiting for the full story to come in, if it weren't for the current administration's skill at propaganda. The spin stories are started early in the game, and repeated ad nauseum until they are taken for truth. The furor dies down and all that is left is the stark skeleton of many-times-told official story. As you know, the winners define history and the losers are buried in the sewers.
So maybe there's a point to the early harsh criticism: point it out before it's buried in bullshit and starts growing grass. While memories burn with pain, declare the loss and gain. Soon enough it will be glossed over with explanations and excuses, but maybe enough evidence will remain for an honest evaluation.
Posted by: Sarah on September 7, 2005 5:06 PM
Don't be ridiculous, Sarah. One thing this administration has no talent in is propaganda. A contant complaint of even the staunchest Bush fans is the administration's inability to make themselves look attractive. But hey, you go ahead and play that "the Bush regime is a diabolical propaganda machine that has the sheeple hypnotized" game. It's cute.
Posted by: Andrea Harris on September 7, 2005 9:30 PM
The administration is trying to construct a narrative. So, too, are the Democrats. So far the Democrats are being more successful. The FEMA bureaucrats are also trying to construct a narrative that will enable them to regain their former prestige, budgets, and autonomy. Theirs, because it will be argued by credentialed professionals, will probably prevail. I agree that the blame game helps to expose inormation, but David is right -- wait for some perspective before making final judgments. And, for that matter, historical judgments are never really final. History is an endless dialogue.
Posted by: D.B. Light on September 11, 2005 12:36 AM
cronaca.com