Editorial
Do most people live in a fantasy world structured by an illusion that we are somehow entitled to a perfect life supplied by our government and political leadership? This reliance on such a false expectation becomes a slippery slope to tragedy when we find our beliefs are actually misplaced. Did the sense of "entitlement" in this country play any part in the tragedy in the early hours after disaster struck the gulf coast? We expect homeland security, food on the table, a job, shelter, good health, medical care, free attorneys appointed to us, civil protection, a free pass when we are a first time offender for virtually anything, cures to all our ills and countless "benefits" of life in the Great Society. Sure we believe we pay for all this through our taxes, so we are entitled. But how much of it is realistic vs. a false illusion and promise? Does anyone really believe that ANY agency can protect ANY country from another 9/11 type of terrorist attack given the will of an evil minority to cause great harm? Do we believe that our world health agencies will ALWAYS find a vaccine for the next deadly virus that might threaten all of humanity making the devastations in New Orleans moot?
Are these entitlement expectations realistic when it comes to "natural disasters" that are NOT man made? What IS the yardstick by which someone measures these things? Consider Katrina....or the recent pacific tsunami, surely a "natural disaster" and part of the evolutionary pattern of earth physics, whether you believe that global warming is a root cause or not. The arm chair pundits sitting in the comfort of their own "illusion of protection" [like myself writing this piece] might take a moment and expand their consciousness. Is this idea that collectively we as a species can dominate our environment also extend to ideas that we can prevent asteroids from hitting this planet or other such natural calamities? Do we unconsciously believe that even earth itself is "entitled" to exist in the universe as we know it today? We certainly try to fool ourselves into believing so. After all, won't scientists find a way to save us from such things? Surely our leaders are EXPECTED to save us. Yet man is insignificant in the scheme of things on a cosmic scale. There ARE catastrophies both natural and man made (WMD) that are certainly even more horrific than a category 5 hurricane. It's enough we have to deal with the natural ones, let alone the ones of our own making!
Article comments
1 - Kurt
Very eloquently said; however, I must disagree on a few points. As a survivor of a disaster (fire) in which I lost everything I owned, and neither asked for nor received a penny of public money with which to recover, I can agree that we should not automatically look to someone else for help. However, the government of our United States is Constitutionally charged with protecting & enhancing the health and welfare of our citizens (neocons hate that part). Government employees are our employees, from top to bottom - they like to forget that. As their boss, I expect that they will perform. We pay them well - except for the military - and have every right to expect, not perfection, but excellence. I have seen little/none of this at the top ranks, where the Buck Stops. I will do my duty by pointing out failures, holding the appropriate people accountable, and firing the incompetent. I can't imagine any responsible citizen complaining about this, regardless of which silly "team" they are fans of.
2 - Z.Z. Bachman
Agreed... Of course there is a duty for government to protect it's citizens, but we should also, as citizens, not be so naive to think that any one particular group of politicians has a lock on integrity, honesty and fundamental intelligence, organizational skills and common sense. Our "two party system" is getting in the way and perhaps itself needs to be re-examined !
3 - Jon Sobel
Still, there is a real difference, worth bearing in mind, between the "liberal" and "conservative" views on what government is for. A case can be made that the overall "let's starve the federal government" philosophy of the Right reduces the overall level of competence at the agencies we depend on to help us get through disasters, whether natural or man-made.
4 - Lee Richards
You raise interesting questions and make some good points.
It's foolish to argue that a Democrat in the White House would have handled disaster assistance and recovery better. It's vital to question whether a really competent president and administration would have.
5 - RJ
Great post, ZZB.
People have strange views about the power of our government.
I know one guy who seems to believe that the Red Chinese could easily invade and conquer us...they just need to build some more boats to get over here!
Of course, that's silly. We would know well in advance of any Red Chinese Armada headed our way, and could easily sink them if they did not turn back.
This SAME guy, however, thinks the US government could EASILY crush an armed revolt from a million or more armed American civilians, spread throughout the country.
Sorry, but an uprising of that scale would lead to total chaos, which would pretty much destroy the federal government.
So, people have lots of opinions, many of them contradictory, about our government.
Anyway, the point is, it is capable of doing a lot of things, but it sure as hell isn't omnipotent...
6 - Jewels
Love your post. Brilliant. You so grabbed me I had to check out your blogsite.
Superior; I am in awe.
My main focus in the New Orleans tragedy was regarding the elected officials we put in power as well as the groups such as FEMA designated to 'take care' of situations such as this; folks need to be aware of who and what they are getting in their government positions.
You have targeted in on the big picture. Good job. I am in awe.