September 10, 2005
The
government response to Katrina, aside from being riddled with error
and incompetence, has been downright cruel – forcing people to leave
their pets and property behind, keeping charity out of the city,
turning away private volunteers and assistance, treating people
who might only be scavenging for abandoned and rotting food like
dangerous criminals, disrupting private transportation and burdening
flights out of the city with ludicrous post-9/11 security measures,
expropriating private property, separating families and forcefully
corralling human beings onto buses and into buildings without adequate
fresh air, water or plumbing. Reading the news reports, we see the
government reacting with a mixture of ineptitude and martial law,
appearing to do everything it can to prevent civilization from surviving
and rebounding after the flood.
Last
week, Governor Kathleen Blanco described the National Guard troops
arriving "fresh back from Iraq" to impose order in the
Gulf States as "locked and loaded" and ready to "shoot
to kill."
Military
personnel, recently stationed in Iraq, have described what they
see on the ground in New Orleans. A
Washington Post article quotes one troop saying, "It’s
just so much like Iraq, it’s not funny. . . except for all the water,
and they speak English." Another called the situation "like
Baghdad on a bad day."
Tens
of thousands of National Guard troops and active-duty personnel
are or will soon be deployed throughout the Gulf Coast. "But,"
according to the Washington Post, "the massive military
effort remains severely disjointed and hampered by a lack of basic
communication between units, Army officers here say. Ground commanders
for New Orleans have been functioning without the ability to track
the location of some units reporting to them – something unheard
of in Iraq, the officers say."
The
article continues,
"Much
work remains for U.S. soldiers in this gutted no man's land, where
looting, drive-by shootings and other crime are rampant. Much
as in Iraqi cities, the troops are moving by the hundreds into
makeshift bases in schools and other public buildings, setting
up checkpoints and 24-hour patrols. The guardsmen have been authorized
to seize weapons and detain people.
"'We're
having some pretty intense gun battles breaking out around the
city,’ said Capt. Jeff Winn of the New Orleans police SWAT team.
'Armed gangs of from eight to 15 young men are riding around in
pickup trucks, looting and raping,’ he said. Residents fearful
of looters often shout to passing Humvees to alert the soldiers
to crimes in progress.
"'Hey,
stop!’ a man wearing a baseball cap yelled to an Arkansas Guard
team Sunday afternoon as it drove through the city's Metairie
district in Jefferson Parish. 'Those people don't live here!’
he said, pointing to a white sports car parked outside a large
brick home.
"Atkinson
sped over to the car, hopped out and pointed at it with his M-4
rifle. He and Capt. Derald Neugebauer, 36, of Vilonia, Ark., questioned
the two men about looting – but because they had no radio communication
with the New Orleans police, they had to flag down a passing patrol
car to hand over the two men."
So
we see here a bumbling, draconian military reaction to an
enormous government failure. Yet all too many left-liberals
seem to think the problem is simply Republican mismanagement and
not enough government spending. I have heard very few on the left
denounce the imposition of martial law and the treatment of human
beings in the area as livestock or worse. They complain that the
federal government has been all tied up in Iraq and so it has neglected
New Orleans, but they have not been as quick to note that perhaps
the federal government’s efforts to bring relief and order to the
flooded American coast, however well funded, will prove as problematic
and counterproductive as its attempts to bring "freedom"
to the Middle East. Do they really think that the U.S. government’s
military occupiers are suited for disaster relief?
What
might be worse than the liberal critique is the conservative reaction
to it. Americans on the left are at least upset and unhappy with
the system, as they should be. Liberal news outlets have not appeared
as critical of the establishment in some time. The rightwing, in
contrast, upholds Bush’s handling of the situation, saying he’s
doing everything as well as he can, and that the only problems are
the local authorities and the recalcitrant population unwilling
to follow orders and evacuate. The federal government doesn’t owe
the indigents anything, so say the most brazen conservative pundits,
borrowing rhetorically from libertarian opposition to welfare statism,
but doing so for the perverse purpose of vindicating the federal
response and upholding the big-government Bush regime. Sure, it
is wrong and wrongheaded for the feds to tax Americans for disaster
relief. But the feds are hardly blameless for what has happened.
Sure, to blame Bush alone for the catastrophe is out of line and
unproductive. But to portray Bush as the victim is an obscenity.
The
rightwing sentiment seems to hold that the government is correct
in imposing martial law, and that it should shoot all looters and
troublemakers on sight and implement order with an iron fist where
the flood has swept it away. Clearly, most conservatives have little
opposition to government involvement in addressing the disaster
per se. If anything, their qualm seems to be the idea of their tax
dollars going to welfare recipients rather than on hiring more National
Guard troops to tame the disorderly hordes in Iraq and New Orleans,
and, if that fails, to shoot to kill. Nor does the right seem any
more likely than the left to object in principle to coercively detaining
American citizens in a convention center or sports arena. Mandatory
evacuations and detentions – the very cause of much of the looting
and violence – receive conservative approval.
In
contemplating the situation here in America, a
U.S. officer in Iraq said, "If anything I'm kind of embarrassed.
We're supposed to be telling the Iraqis how to act and this is what's
happening at home?" Whereas at first we might have expected the
conservatives to realize that the same federal authorities who have
bungled so much in New Orleans are probably not apt to bring freedom
to Iraq, instead they have only inflated their endorsement of the
right and power of the U.S. government to suspend civil liberties
for the sake of the common good. In New Orleans, the conservatives
have had their chance to see what federal freedom really means,
and thus what it likely means when imposed on the rest of the world.
And the rightwing sentiment is to bring it on.
Crises
have led to America’s largest expansions in government power. Every
major war, along with the Great Depression, account for the vast
majority of current government powers and major agencies. Despite
their occasional (and constantly diminishing) anti-government rhetoric,
conservatives are especially prone during times of crisis to call
upon the government to do something drastic. After 9/11, there were
calls to nuke parts of the Middle East, infiltrate every Mosque
in America, and intern Americans of Arab descent. At this moment,
the conservatives, now on the defensive as their president is being
accused of not doing enough to address a disaster, revert back to
their signature rhetorical strategy of saying that the government
can’t fix every problem. But they still defend the federal government’s
most egregious measures in response to Katrina, and they will likely
support any federal aid that Bush provides. Some of them continue
to call for price controls in response to the rising price of gas.
If
America falls victim to another terrorist attack, as bad as or worse
than 9/11 and as devastating as or more so than the Katrina aftermath,
can we expect the right to keep its cool? Or will it be time for
martial law throughout America, forced evacuations everywhere, crackdowns
on dissent and a shoot-to-kill policy for all people unwilling to
follow federal orders and be herded around like sheep? On the other
hand, can we expect the left to keep its cool? Will it cave
in to any and all suspensions of liberty so long as the government
is "doing something – anything" to create order out of
chaos?
We
have come to the point in America when the real domestic issue has
frighteningly become not one of whether government should grow a
little or shrink a little in one area or another: although it might
not yet be out in the open, the issue before us is the wholesale
abolition of civil liberty and whether such totalitarianism is ever
justified, even in times of crisis.
The
conservatives and "liberals" who say yes, who endorse
martial law as sometimes necessary and proper and massive state
violence as the cure to calamity, natural or manmade, are on the
wrong side of the most important domestic issue of the day.
America
is indeed at a crossroads. We do not yet know whether this disaster
will lead to a revival in collectivist thinking or a new widespread
disillusionment
with the state. Somewhat ironically, our chances of surviving
as a nation with any freedoms intact now rely on converting much
of the left to our suspicion of government power at home as well
as abroad. For the moment, the partisan elements on the right
appear far too preoccupied with covering up the federal crimes in
New Orleans and Iraq and calling for new ones to be terribly bothered
by the quaint notion of individual liberty.
Our
only hope might be that enough liberals and mainstream Americans
finally realize that the problem is not small government, or Republican
government, but government. This is sort of what happened in the
wake of Vietnam and Watergate, when the left followed its anti-establishment
impulses and shook off its managerial pretensions just long enough
to discover that the whole system was rotten. America had several
years of glorious skepticism and cynicism of centralized power.
Then the Republicans brought back faith in the federal state in
the form of Ronald Reagan. David
Brooks worries that we might now be entering into another 1970s,
but I would view a new universal discontent with the state as the
only possible silver lining of the flood’s dark cloud.
The
government’s handling of New Orleans could cause people either to
demand a return to normalcy or to be more than ever open to dictatorship
at home. To make the best of the horrible situation, we must explain
to everyone who will listen that 9/11, Iraq and New Orleans are
government disasters. We must expose how they have been so
far followed by government failures. We must demonstrate
that even
something like city planning can be done – and done much better
– in the voluntary sector, without government. And we must not falter
in our defense of civilization and our opposition to its destructor,
the state.
September
9, 2005
Anthony
Gregory [send him mail]
is a writer and musician who lives in Berkeley, California. He is
a research analyst at the Independent
Institute. See
his webpage for more
articles and personal information.
Copyright
© 2005 LewRockwell.com