Steyn on Katrina

I can’t imagine what the Government could’ve done that would have eroded the self-reliance and resourcefulness of the citizens of New Orleans substantially more than what they actually did. People’s ability to fend for themselves is somewhat curtailed when they are herded together and then held at gunpoint in a confined area with no supplies for days on end.

The argument about Big Government versus Small Government is fairly irrelevant here: the issue is about Staggeringly Incompetent Government.

Did you know Mississippi is richer than Sweden?

How would they have fared if they had seceded a long time (1865) ago?

On that story, see something I wrote here.

http://fistfulofeuros.net/archives/000401.php

I presume that logically Steyn must also be opposed to inherited wealth. Surely that erodes “self-reliance and resourcefulness” too?

Change is in the air. Will it be progressive or reactionary?

Shldn’t lwr yrslf t ngg Styn? My ndrstndng s tht y’v bn mttng hm–wtht th xprssv skll nd ny f th hmr–fr wk.

Dn’t flttr yrslf bt hvng ny lwr t g.

Carlos,

pleased to say that I ‘got’ it (so there, Chris!). But I wouldn’t have done yesterday.

According to some Dutch water experts who have been on the Dutch radio in the last days, the dykes in the Netherlands have a probability of breaking down once every 10.000 years…
This is nonsense. The Dutch have exactly the same problems with the dikes as NO did. The inland body of water accumulates sand from erosion by rainfall, etc.; it is pumped to the outside of the dikes together with water, resulting in higher ground levels outside and subsequent rising water levels during storms. Rising sea levels and increased rainfall also place severe limitations on the future effectiveness of those dikes. The Dutch (I am one) are well aware of the limitations of their delta project and the risk to the people who live in that area.

Eudoxis,
If you are right, then some official spokespeople for the Dutch watermanagement are lying on the radio. Would be interesting to find out. I’m just reporting what I heard, but if you have evidence that this is wrong, I’d be interested to know more.

It seems not implausible, though, that maintenance and investment in public goods such as dykes is very important to either prevent waterdisasters, or limit the damage. In both cases, a anti-government ideology and believe in people’s own indvidual responsibilities and agency doesn’t help much, I’d think.

“If you are right, then some official spokespeople for the Dutch watermanagement are lying on the radio.”
Perhaps those official spokespeople are just ignorant of such predictions as rising sea levels in the next ten thousand years due to global warming.

Oh, how disappointing. I thought Chris Bertram at least would steer clear of this awful orgy of self-righteousness – one of the most disgraceful exhibitions by academics I have seen since… (well, since the Israeli universities furore, which wasn’t so long ago)… and all from people who have never managed anything in their lives (and often never even managed their own lives).

As a matter of interest, I thought there was acceptance that the U.S. welfare system to some degree does encourage economic and psychological dependency (no – not that “black people are morally blameworthy”) This was surely likely to have been a factor (complex, interactive, not monocausal) in the way events played out. Or is empirical investigation and disinterested analysis of conduct to be abandoned along with the rest of the baggage of scholarly professionalism?

As it happens I think the general culture of alcohol and drug-induced intoxication (and for individuals all the physical, economic, attitudinal and psychological consequences of addiction and use), lawlessness, and hedonism, that New Orleans sustained — and indeed, in a glamourised version, sold as one of its principal attractions — had much to do with many residents’ responses to worsening conditions, and the collapse of civil order.

I do think it is worthwhile to look at the exent of alcoholism, drug addition and use, and endemic violent crime in New Orleans, as factors that helped destroy the civic trust and competence, in which self-help and external assistance would have been functionally complementary, mutually intelligible and capable of managed integtration.

But it is clear that any such suggestion is heresy. There is only one way in which events are to be permitted to be understood and that is as part of the predetermined critiqueof the war in Iraq. I think those teaching academics participating in this characde are a disgrace.

I vowed never to read another column written by Mark Steyn when he used the attack on the World Trade Centre to take a cheap swipe at the Americans With Disabilities Act; this latest salvo, however, makes that one seem respectful in comparison.

djw, thanks for the laugh. Personally, I like that thomas’ posts now make as much sense visually as they do intellectually.

“One reader writes that it’s the government’s responsibility to protect people including against natural disasters. Is that really true? I would have thought that the prime person responsible for protecting me against disasters is me…”

Only in America could you say this with a straight face.

#30: However, you seem to have the causation pretty much backwards.

That’s not how I understand the issue. I know people differ. Like everything, it’s complex. I do not think you will address any of the issues of poverty and crime-ridden poverty (or ending up powerless or a victim) until you get the drugs out.

The direct and indirect effects on the whole population of poor people in New Orleans of widespread drug addiction, use, and illegal trade is devastating. It certainly played an important part in the dynamics of disaster in New Orleans – but most people appear to prefer to ignore this.

charlie:

Sure, it’s clear there are things you don’t understand about the issue :)

But seriously, you are talking about *symptoms* of endemic urban poverty. Yes these things are huge problems, but they are symptoms. To make real headway, you have to address the root causes.
The breakdown of civic trust, as you put it, is important and has nothing to do with drugs and alchohol. People don’t trust civil authority when that civil authority has proved to be unworthy of trust over time. Of course this can lead to a vicious cycle, but that is where it starts.

Actually, the state has promised to aid victims of disaster and done so since 1927. This: “One reader writes that it’s the government’s responsibility to protect people including against natural disasters. Is that really true? I would have thought that the prime person responsible for protecting me against disasters is me” ignores history. But one thing was made crystal clear from the response to New Orleans: if the “me” involved is white and upper class, then the government provides plenty of protection. One assumed that the racist structure of unequal distribution of government aid — which Barry chronicled in his book on the 1927 flood — was somewhat impacted by the civil rights movement. Alas, that good and liberal vision of American progress has been dashed.
There is a report from the representative of the Green party in Lousiana, Malik Rahim, about what the state did do during the flood. What they did do is block self-aid, while at the same time vanishing as a force of security. It was a double whammy: since the only people who get real policing — the governing class — had evacuated, the policing structure concentrated on collecting people and making sure they starved while waiting to be picked up and dumped in a camp, where they could be assaulted. Meanwhile, they were allowing gangbangers to do what they wanted in the collection points and around town.

There you go: the U.S. in action. As Lou Reed put it in a song long ago,
“Give your tired your poor I’ll piss on ’em/
That’s what the Statue of Bigotry says/
Your poor huddled masses, let’s club ’em to death/
and get it over with and just dump ’em on the boulevard.”
A little prophecy there.

About those Dutch dykes …

There is a law called “de wet op de waterkering” (“the law concerning the dykes” ??)

It states which waterlevels should be protected against. Those levels should be such that the odds that those waterlevels are exceeded are x, where x is determined by the consequences of a breach. For rivers that gives a once in 1250 years odd, and for the Dutch shoreline that protects the cities those odds are once in 10.000 years.

Neither the Dutch experts nor the spokespeople are ignorant, but as always take their words in the appropriate context. (And don’t rely on what I just wrote, since I haven’t read that law either.)

Link (Dutch)

A consequence of specifying it this way is that if the circumstances change, whether it is because of global warming or something more mundane, the law doesn’t need to change, but the dykes need to.

call me Mickey Meteorologist but I suspect that Dutch flood management practices might be radically different if the North Sea were frequently subject to hurricanes.

> I know that there are people who think that we
> shouldn’t lower ourselves to engage with the likes
> of Mark Steyn,

I hope that the same people think you shouldn’t lower yourselves to linking the likes of Daily Kos…

Anyone willing to make the opposite argument (to Steyn’s) explicit? I.e., that a shameful lack of social benefits in the US has created a culture of rugged individualism, which lead directly to looting and shooting on the part of the Hobbesian residents of Louisiana.

souzbriquet hinted at this in #35, by the bye.

It may be a rascal’s argument; I’m inclined to think with Michael Mouse that big v. small government ain’t the issue.

Tim:

I’d also be inclined to think that it isn’t as simple as big v. small governement (for many reasons)

I’ll note however,reducing the discussion to `social benefits’ is an oversimplification. There has been in particular an urban culture created in the US which, among other things, expresses societal values (variously, across the socio-economic spectrum). I believe you could argue quite convincingly that this was a factor in how the disaster has played out, and particularly in the *speed* at which security devolved.

One would have to step carefully to achieve meaningful dialogue about it though. Avoiding both the sort of blame-the-victim drivel that charlie seems to be veering toward, and simplistic romantasicm of the urban poor would be difficult.

tim: one further comment. Even from the more questionably objective media sources, there seems no evidence that `Hobbesian’ is an accurate portrayal of the vast majority of residents…..

call me Mickey Meteorologist but I suspect that Dutch flood management practices might be radically different if the North Sea were frequently subject to hurricanes.

I doubt that. Though hurricanes are a lot stronger than North Sea storms, the danger to the levees is coming from the water, not from the direct impact of the wind. So there isn’t that much difference. And the more “modern” approaches of using wetlands etc. are also relevant in both areas. But then I ain’t no expert.

But I posted those comments because I thought the discussion about the 10.000 years number veered a bit of course. In comment #21 it was called “nonsense”, and I thought that a bit, well, wrong.

I wonder whether New Orleans has anything to learn from the Dutch response after the dykes collapsed in, when was it, 1953? I presume a lot of towns were flooded (thousands drowned, as I recall). It seems surprising that nobody has mentioned this — I wonder if U.S. intellectual isolationism has anything to do with it?

In today’s Times there is a telling little story:

An official told of a message found in a wine bottle drifting in floodwaters: ‘To whom it may concern: Please send with immediately, (one) ice cold chest of Coors Light. I’m out at this time. Down to wine. Some shrimp and oysters would be appreciated. Thank you,” said the note, which gave an address. The patrol found the author sitting on his front porch. Between sips of wine, he told them he was staying. The official who found the note intends to fame it because it is “pure New Orleans.”

Hilarious! Do I really need to say anything about alcohol and judgement, and just how continuously this addled sot might have been drunk before Katrina hit. But I blame the President – this irresponsible sponge clearly is a victim, and his conduct is outside his own control.

It was a story about one person, and about what it was about. But then, I just don’t buy that sociological method where everything can be made into evidence for anything you like. Note – the same reporters who brought us this heartwarming story viewed other porches, and prospective relaxation on them, somewhat differently. (uncle kvetch – have you been drinking?)

The shot was intended to be of the same order as Chris’s, which began the whole thread.

The sarcasm was directed at arguments employing theories of causation in which all unwelcome events or characteristics are attributed to the President, irrespective of his direct involvement or political responsibility (and I am not saying that none are, or that he has no involvement or responsibility); or to (white) society in general, of which Mr Bush is the head, symbol or upholder. It did not imply my views on the responsibility of anyone for specific events not mentioned. So snide, yes. Exonnerating, no.

Re: #49 (re my #45)

Admitted — they’re both rascal’s arguments. The idea of making the one argument shows how silly the other is, though, don’t you think?

Or do you think we could find someone to shout it loud enough to get on TV with it?