Full Version: Ideology's Role in Katrina Response
ADers have debated several aspects of the weaknesses in the preparations for Katrina and the response to it. However, I feel the need for a place to debate the broader issue of the role played by the prevailing political philosophy. Since 1980 the prevailing philosophy of governance has been one of minimizing the federal role in domestic issues while devoting vast resources to the military. The Clinton administration slowed down the trend but was closer to Eisenhower's administration than FDR's or Johnson's in its approach to governance and was forced into an even more limited role for government by a Republican Congress. The administration of George W. Bush has been extreme in moving away from a federal role in solving domestic issues.
This prevailing philosophy expressed itself in several ways. When the Department of Homeland Security was organized with FEMA included, efforts were made to push the responsibility for natural disaster response down to the state and local level and focus on terrorist attacks. Efforts were also made to privatize the remaining federal role. (See the Bush's FEMA near the middle of this Comprehensive Article published in September of 2004 and here for more succinct observations). Also, efforts were made to strip Civil Service status from many employees of agencies absorbed into the DHS. (See this January 2005 Washington Post Article ).
1. Do you think the prevailing conservative philosophy of government weakened the preparation for and response to Katrina?
2. Did the efforts to privatize much of FEMA's role hinder the response?
3. Should all but the highest levels of FEMA and the rest of the DHS be removed from political influence and returned to Civil Service rules?
This prevailing philosophy expressed itself in several ways. When the Department of Homeland Security was organized with FEMA included, efforts were made to push the responsibility for natural disaster response down to the state and local level and focus on terrorist attacks. Efforts were also made to privatize the remaining federal role. (See the Bush's FEMA near the middle of this Comprehensive Article published in September of 2004 and here for more succinct observations). Also, efforts were made to strip Civil Service status from many employees of agencies absorbed into the DHS. (See this January 2005 Washington Post Article ).
1. Do you think the prevailing conservative philosophy of government weakened the preparation for and response to Katrina?
2. Did the efforts to privatize much of FEMA's role hinder the response?
3. Should all but the highest levels of FEMA and the rest of the DHS be removed from political influence and returned to Civil Service rules?
1. Do you think the prevailing conservative philosophy of government weakened the preparation for and response to Katrina?
If so, the application of conservative philosophy has not been applied uniformly. Note the contrasts with the way the hurricanes in Florida were handled last year and Katrina on the Gulf Coast this year.
I have heard quite a bit of quibbling about who should have acted when, which brings to mind the centuries old debate about states' rights vs. federal rights and states' responsibilities vs. federal responsibility. Add a mixture of local rights and local responsibilities to the controversy.
If so, the application of conservative philosophy has not been applied uniformly. Note the contrasts with the way the hurricanes in Florida were handled last year and Katrina on the Gulf Coast this year.
I have heard quite a bit of quibbling about who should have acted when, which brings to mind the centuries old debate about states' rights vs. federal rights and states' responsibilities vs. federal responsibility. Add a mixture of local rights and local responsibilities to the controversy.
1. Do you think the prevailing conservative philosophy of government weakened the preparation for and response to Katrina?
I guess, to me, that the key here lies in the part "prevailing conservative philosophy"- is such a major 180* change to teh 70s conservative thought- how odd it would have seemed to create an enormous, bloated beauracracy (homeland security), filled with opportunistic campaign contributers to run it (Brown) with no real experaince in leadership at all-( in fact, all of Bush's appointees seem to have been way, way, way over thier heads in running something like this)- to me, this seems like a really LIBERAL viewpoint of the old definitions LOL- so I think there is very little philosophy here, and alot of political payback and blantant cronyism, with more thought to who gets goverment contracts to rebuild than to respond to the emergency in this case.
2. Did the efforts to privatize much of FEMA's role hinder the response?
Absolutely- Privatization of goverment things like security is just plain stupid- there has to be some logical thought here- there are some areas of service that should not have a profit motive involved- for instance- do we want our military to make a profit every year? Should we run the military "like a business" , in this case, it would probably be the largest corporation in the world LOL- do we want to start invading countries so we can make the military turn a profit?
Privatization of some things were of course neccesary- competitive bidding for construction projects for instance is a very good idea, we don't need goverments hiring giant construction crews LOL
But for security, absolutely not- in this case, the military should have been in control the moment a the emergency was declared, and paperwork filled out later, outside what was absolutely neccesary- I mean, for gods sake, fire fighters had to wait two days in Atlanta to take sexual harrasment courses instead of being allowed into NO!
3. Should all but the highest levels of FEMA and the rest of the DHS be removed from political influence and returned to Civil Service rules?
This is so painfully obvious it almost is a loaded question LOL
- I mean, GWs list of political chronies have absolutely no leadership experiance beyond Arabian horses LOL- A lifelong proffesional would have been far better in this position.
I guess, to me, that the key here lies in the part "prevailing conservative philosophy"- is such a major 180* change to teh 70s conservative thought- how odd it would have seemed to create an enormous, bloated beauracracy (homeland security), filled with opportunistic campaign contributers to run it (Brown) with no real experaince in leadership at all-( in fact, all of Bush's appointees seem to have been way, way, way over thier heads in running something like this)- to me, this seems like a really LIBERAL viewpoint of the old definitions LOL- so I think there is very little philosophy here, and alot of political payback and blantant cronyism, with more thought to who gets goverment contracts to rebuild than to respond to the emergency in this case.
2. Did the efforts to privatize much of FEMA's role hinder the response?
Absolutely- Privatization of goverment things like security is just plain stupid- there has to be some logical thought here- there are some areas of service that should not have a profit motive involved- for instance- do we want our military to make a profit every year? Should we run the military "like a business" , in this case, it would probably be the largest corporation in the world LOL- do we want to start invading countries so we can make the military turn a profit?
Privatization of some things were of course neccesary- competitive bidding for construction projects for instance is a very good idea, we don't need goverments hiring giant construction crews LOL
But for security, absolutely not- in this case, the military should have been in control the moment a the emergency was declared, and paperwork filled out later, outside what was absolutely neccesary- I mean, for gods sake, fire fighters had to wait two days in Atlanta to take sexual harrasment courses instead of being allowed into NO!
3. Should all but the highest levels of FEMA and the rest of the DHS be removed from political influence and returned to Civil Service rules?
This is so painfully obvious it almost is a loaded question LOL
- I mean, GWs list of political chronies have absolutely no leadership experiance beyond Arabian horses LOL- A lifelong proffesional would have been far better in this position.
1. Do you think the prevailing conservative philosophy of government weakened the preparation for and response to Katrina?
No, it has not been determined that there was any delay is relief efforts by FEMA. Actually I don't think the preparation or response to Katrina victims was weakened or delayed by any source. This is the now generation. If relief is not supplied immediately, right away blame and fault is assigned. Accumulation of supplies in the numbers that were required could not be pulled out of a hat. Blame should be replaced by gratitude.
2. Did the efforts to privatize much of FEMA's role hinder the response?
Probably, privatization responded more quickly than governmental agencies would have. Most privatized contracts have parameters for performance. They are bound to time frames, bound to providing a specific amount of supplies and bound to have a certain amount of man power to execute any action.
3. Should all but the highest levels of FEMA and the rest of the DHS be removed from political influence and returned to Civil Service rules?
Removed? Absolutely not. The transition alone would be costly. Disaster response as in the EMS constructure is ever evolving. Improved, modified or updated is the better terminology to use in this inference.
No, it has not been determined that there was any delay is relief efforts by FEMA. Actually I don't think the preparation or response to Katrina victims was weakened or delayed by any source. This is the now generation. If relief is not supplied immediately, right away blame and fault is assigned. Accumulation of supplies in the numbers that were required could not be pulled out of a hat. Blame should be replaced by gratitude.
2. Did the efforts to privatize much of FEMA's role hinder the response?
Probably, privatization responded more quickly than governmental agencies would have. Most privatized contracts have parameters for performance. They are bound to time frames, bound to providing a specific amount of supplies and bound to have a certain amount of man power to execute any action.
3. Should all but the highest levels of FEMA and the rest of the DHS be removed from political influence and returned to Civil Service rules?
Removed? Absolutely not. The transition alone would be costly. Disaster response as in the EMS constructure is ever evolving. Improved, modified or updated is the better terminology to use in this inference.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Sep 11 2005, 03:51 PM)
snip
1. Do you think the prevailing conservative philosophy of government weakened the preparation for and response to Katrina?
2. Did the efforts to privatize much of FEMA's role hinder the response?
3. Should all but the highest levels of FEMA and the rest of the DHS be removed from political influence and returned to Civil Service rules?
1. Prevailing conservative philosophy of government? Where? In New Orleans which is a corrupt welfare state? Louisiana, run by a democrat woman? What are you referring to? Frankly, the crises was handled far better when "conservative" government was in place as it is in Mississippi and Alabama. They took the brunt of the storm and had little to none of the chaos experienced in the democrat enclave of Louisiana.
2. Privatizing anything makes it more efficient than a government bureaucracy. Period. If anything, more should have been made private which would have made the response more efficient. But, when the state refuses to allow federal assistance and authority, there is nothing that FEMA or any other federal agency can do outside of violating the law and the US constitution.
3. I think that Brown from FEMA has been forced out of his job. He could have performed better. Bush held him accountable and replaced him with someone else.
The question still remains if the utterly and completely incompetent Blanco and Nagin will be removed from their jobs. They fell down on a daily basis. They failed their constituents.
1. Do you think the prevailing conservative philosophy of government weakened the preparation for and response to Katrina?
Conservative meaning "Republican" - no. As has been rehearsed multiple times on mulitple thread in the past couple of weeks, the blame for the poor preparation and response to Katrina has to be shared out to all levels of government, city, state and federal, and the capital-"C" conservatives (i.e. the Republicans) are only in control at the Federal level.
I don't think anyone, here or elsewhere, would contend that the response was as good as it possibly could have been in all aspects and at all levels, so there is blame to be shared out, not least to avoid future obstacles to a slick and coordinated policy of preparation, mitigation and response next time something like this happens. As a natural event, we can be absolutely certain that something similar wil happen eventually.
But small-"c" conservative, meaning "not wanting to change from the way we've always done things" - most definitely.
That applies at absolutely every level - the individuals and families who decided they'd ride out the storm because they'd done it before for previous storms and - heck, those weather guys always exaggerate anyway, so it won't be so bad (OOPS!); the city councilmen and mayor who left everything until the last minute and made assumptions about what actions were
2. Did the efforts to privatize much of FEMA's role hinder the response?
I don't really know. What I do know from bitter experience here in the UK that one thing is categorically not true....
Privatisation works sometimes and doesn't at other times. Private businesses are badly managed and go bust all the time, and sometimes no other business comes in to provide the same service because it just isn't attractive enough to provide the 3-year payback on investments that pretty much every single private business insists on.
If a public service is necessary in one of these areas, privatisation will be a really dumb idea because no sane or competent businessman will want to touch it with a ten foot pole unless they can do it in some way that fleeces the taxpayer, either by charging far more than a public business (with no stockholders to keep in dividends, no markets to please, and no stock options to pay to senior executives) would cost or by delivering a sub-standard service. Often both.
If you don't believe me, come to Britain and have a ride on our railway system.
I don't know if the private parts (!) of FEMA have operated more or less efficiently than the public ones, but I do know that the dogmatic insistence that public is invariably and inevitably inferior to private is as ideologically-inspired, as divorced from reality and as plain wrong-headed as communism.
3. Should all but the highest levels of FEMA and the rest of the DHS be removed from political influence and returned to Civil Service rules?
If something is publicly-funded, I don't see anything wrong with an insistence that any private contractors that deliver the end-user services and any intermediary functions should be held to exactly the same standards of transparency and public accountability as Civil Servants would be if the service delivery was inside the public sector.
In just the same way as we should be taking the best management practices from the private sector and applying them to public works. From what I've seen, the nature of the ownership of an organisation has rather less impact on its efficiency and effectiveness than the quality of the leadership and management within that organisation does.
Just making everything private is the easy way out. Like outsourcing a particular business function, it can be a good idea, but it can also be a short-term win that comes back to bite a business in the long term.
Conservative meaning "Republican" - no. As has been rehearsed multiple times on mulitple thread in the past couple of weeks, the blame for the poor preparation and response to Katrina has to be shared out to all levels of government, city, state and federal, and the capital-"C" conservatives (i.e. the Republicans) are only in control at the Federal level.
I don't think anyone, here or elsewhere, would contend that the response was as good as it possibly could have been in all aspects and at all levels, so there is blame to be shared out, not least to avoid future obstacles to a slick and coordinated policy of preparation, mitigation and response next time something like this happens. As a natural event, we can be absolutely certain that something similar wil happen eventually.
But small-"c" conservative, meaning "not wanting to change from the way we've always done things" - most definitely.
That applies at absolutely every level - the individuals and families who decided they'd ride out the storm because they'd done it before for previous storms and - heck, those weather guys always exaggerate anyway, so it won't be so bad (OOPS!); the city councilmen and mayor who left everything until the last minute and made assumptions about what actions were
2. Did the efforts to privatize much of FEMA's role hinder the response?
I don't really know. What I do know from bitter experience here in the UK that one thing is categorically not true....
QUOTE(lordhelmet)
Privatizing anything makes it more efficient than a government bureaucracy. Period.
Privatisation works sometimes and doesn't at other times. Private businesses are badly managed and go bust all the time, and sometimes no other business comes in to provide the same service because it just isn't attractive enough to provide the 3-year payback on investments that pretty much every single private business insists on.
If a public service is necessary in one of these areas, privatisation will be a really dumb idea because no sane or competent businessman will want to touch it with a ten foot pole unless they can do it in some way that fleeces the taxpayer, either by charging far more than a public business (with no stockholders to keep in dividends, no markets to please, and no stock options to pay to senior executives) would cost or by delivering a sub-standard service. Often both.
If you don't believe me, come to Britain and have a ride on our railway system.
I don't know if the private parts (!) of FEMA have operated more or less efficiently than the public ones, but I do know that the dogmatic insistence that public is invariably and inevitably inferior to private is as ideologically-inspired, as divorced from reality and as plain wrong-headed as communism.
3. Should all but the highest levels of FEMA and the rest of the DHS be removed from political influence and returned to Civil Service rules?
If something is publicly-funded, I don't see anything wrong with an insistence that any private contractors that deliver the end-user services and any intermediary functions should be held to exactly the same standards of transparency and public accountability as Civil Servants would be if the service delivery was inside the public sector.
In just the same way as we should be taking the best management practices from the private sector and applying them to public works. From what I've seen, the nature of the ownership of an organisation has rather less impact on its efficiency and effectiveness than the quality of the leadership and management within that organisation does.
Just making everything private is the easy way out. Like outsourcing a particular business function, it can be a good idea, but it can also be a short-term win that comes back to bite a business in the long term.
Julian, thanks for the thoughtful comments. I meant for this thread to be a place where we could discuss the role that competing ideas about government played in the current crisis rather than pointing fingers back and forth between Republicans and Democrats. There are still a few liberals among the office holders in the Democratic Party and even the parties center is much preferable to the ideologues who control the Republican Party today. However both parties are heavily dependent on corporate donations and focus on their desires over the public interest. It's a choice between conservative lite and conservative fanatics. In truth the Democratic Party was never very liberal since the days of the New Deal and even then had its southern conservative wing.
It is my view, that the dominant position that conservative thought has achieved in American government, is responsible for a great many of the problems surrounding the response to Katrina and preparation for it. Similarly, it is responsible for our failure to addresss a host of other vital issues that only government can address.
I pointed out under another topic that all politicians in Louisiana run as conservatives.
It is precisely the Democrat versus Republican dichotomy I was trying to avoid. The Clinton and even Carter administrations turned away from a real commitment to lift the poor partially as a result of pragmatic political considerations. The Reagan and Bush I and II administations largely abandoned them. The Great Society programs sought to really address their plight before running aground on the rocks of Vietnam.
It is my view, that the dominant position that conservative thought has achieved in American government, is responsible for a great many of the problems surrounding the response to Katrina and preparation for it. Similarly, it is responsible for our failure to addresss a host of other vital issues that only government can address.
QUOTE
lordhelmet
1. Prevailing conservative philosophy of government? Where? In New Orleans which is a corrupt welfare state? Louisiana, run by a democrat woman? What are you referring to? Frankly, the crises was handled far better when "conservative" government was in place as it is in Mississippi and Alabama. They took the brunt of the storm and had little to none of the chaos experienced in the democrat enclave of Louisiana.
1. Prevailing conservative philosophy of government? Where? In New Orleans which is a corrupt welfare state? Louisiana, run by a democrat woman? What are you referring to? Frankly, the crises was handled far better when "conservative" government was in place as it is in Mississippi and Alabama. They took the brunt of the storm and had little to none of the chaos experienced in the democrat enclave of Louisiana.
I pointed out under another topic that all politicians in Louisiana run as conservatives.
QUOTE
TedN5
If one wishes to pursue the local responsibility, however, it is important not to just identify the local actors just as Republicans or Democrats but to pay some attention to philosophies of government. Louisiana Democrats in modern times have tended to be very conservative and certainly aren't liberals. Their attitude toward the role of government is more like Republicans than even SLC Democrats. Senator Breaux voted with the Republicans much of the time and even Senator Mary Landrieu has made an effort to not come across as a liberal.
Campaign Article
The mayor was a Republican shortly before he announced that he was running for mayor. I'm not sure whether that implies he was a progressive still clinging to the Lincoln/TR tradition and opposing the positions of conservative Southern Democrats or just an opportunist. If ADers know more about his philosophy of government, I would be interested in hearing it. I'm also ignorant of the political philosophy of Governor Blanco but I'm relatively certain she had to campaign as a conservative in a state like Lousianna.
Liberals and progressives believe in a robust public sector that can lift the poor and unfortunate and act decisively in domestic crises. Modern conservatives believe in a lean public sector focussed on "defense." Bush's cuts to the levee reinforcement, failure to follow through with planning for a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane, and failure to support the wetlands restoration were not inconsistent with the philosophy of many of his supporters. (Perhaps his appointment of incompetents has nothing to do with conservatism). The fact that the mayor and governor did not follow through with a local alternative also owes much to the conservative political milieu that they were operating within.
Previous PostIf one wishes to pursue the local responsibility, however, it is important not to just identify the local actors just as Republicans or Democrats but to pay some attention to philosophies of government. Louisiana Democrats in modern times have tended to be very conservative and certainly aren't liberals. Their attitude toward the role of government is more like Republicans than even SLC Democrats. Senator Breaux voted with the Republicans much of the time and even Senator Mary Landrieu has made an effort to not come across as a liberal.
QUOTE
She has spent most of her six years in the Senate making sure she doesn’t come across as too liberal. She votes with Bush three-quarters of the time and supported his tax cut, which mostly rewards upper-income voters. Her one major break with the White House was over John Ashcroft’s confirmation as attorney general; she opposed him for the job.
Campaign Article
The mayor was a Republican shortly before he announced that he was running for mayor. I'm not sure whether that implies he was a progressive still clinging to the Lincoln/TR tradition and opposing the positions of conservative Southern Democrats or just an opportunist. If ADers know more about his philosophy of government, I would be interested in hearing it. I'm also ignorant of the political philosophy of Governor Blanco but I'm relatively certain she had to campaign as a conservative in a state like Lousianna.
Liberals and progressives believe in a robust public sector that can lift the poor and unfortunate and act decisively in domestic crises. Modern conservatives believe in a lean public sector focussed on "defense." Bush's cuts to the levee reinforcement, failure to follow through with planning for a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane, and failure to support the wetlands restoration were not inconsistent with the philosophy of many of his supporters. (Perhaps his appointment of incompetents has nothing to do with conservatism). The fact that the mayor and governor did not follow through with a local alternative also owes much to the conservative political milieu that they were operating within.
It is precisely the Democrat versus Republican dichotomy I was trying to avoid. The Clinton and even Carter administrations turned away from a real commitment to lift the poor partially as a result of pragmatic political considerations. The Reagan and Bush I and II administations largely abandoned them. The Great Society programs sought to really address their plight before running aground on the rocks of Vietnam.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.