"What Katrina Proves" (Autorefuting Editorials Edition)
I see that Will Wilkinson is as annoyed as I was by the spate of dim op-eds concluding that Katrina is somehow a refutation of "small government" principles. The latest instance of this—and possibly also the most obtuse, though competition is stiff—was posted today at Harper's.
What's really astonishing here is that the author sounds many of the same points that Jesse and Welch hit earlier this week about the tendency of early reports to emphasize the worst sorts of reactions to the chaos, about people's tendency for cooperative self-organization even during crises when authority has broken down. As she puts it:
But "the authorities" are too few and too centralized to respond to the dispersed and numerous emergencies of a disaster. Instead, the people classified as victims generally do what can be done to save themselves and one another. In doing so, they discover not only the potential power of civil society but also the fragility of existing structures of authority.
* * *
The events of September 11, 2001, though entirely unnatural, shed light on the nature of all disasters. That day saw the near-total failure of centralized authority. The United States has the largest and most technologically advanced military in the world, but the only successful effort to stop the commandeered planes from becoming bombs was staged by the unarmed passengers inside American Airlines Flight 93. They pieced together what was going on by cell-phone conversations with family members and organized themselves to hijack their hijackers, forcing the plane to crash in that Pennsylvania field.
In almost the same breath—not to mention a breathtaking display of equivocation—she blasts "an odd backlash against unions, social safety nets, the New Deal and the Great Society, against the idea that we should take care of one another, against the idea of community." In other words, the author quite effectively reminds us that "the idea that we should take care of one another" need not require chanelling our care through hierarchy or bureaucracy, then makes like the guy in Memento. It's a weirdly frustrating piece: You keep feeling sure that she must be on the verge of seeing what her own argument fairly straightforwardly entails, but nothing.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Apparently any politician with an (R) after his name is automatically a “limited government” enemy of the state, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Damn that W. and his reckless, budget-slashing ways!
American Airlines Flight 93
How many editors did that have to go through?
I’m with Kevin. Where is this small government wacko?
Sorry if this is already noted, but it appears the resume padding did Brown in. See NYT
Apologies in advance if that’s a temporary URL on the NYT’s part. And apologies as well for previous panicked thread jacking when 1031’s Newport transmitter went offline. And any misspellings.
The Reason would probably know better than me: Can a dunderheaded or axe-grinding editor twist and subvert a magazine writer’s intent this way? Not at Reason, of course! But at other publications?
But the article was written by the author in two phases — one before Katrina (on its way to a magazine stand near you) and one after (only on the web). And both the print article and the postscript contain the same (il)logical leap from the goodness of spontaneous cooperation to the goodness of statist order.
If it was a haywire editor, you’d think the author wouldn’t let it happen the second time.
Yeah no doubt. The government might have been able to focus on what it was supposed to do after the Hurricane (i.e. insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence) if they didn’t have their fingers in hella other honey pots.
It’s kind of bogus though that Wilkinson says Krugman loathes free markets, which is far from the truth. He’s done remarkable research into the undoubtable benefits of free trade and he did write this great article entitled “In Praise of Cheap Labor” http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html
and he’s criticized the bogusly large budget. Sure Krugman may not be totally doctrinaire laissez faire guy, but saying he loathes free markets is utterly stupid.
I think Solnit’s argument is self-consistent if you make the unstated assumption that intention equals capabilities. For Sonit and others left-of-center, knowing what to do in any particular situation and actually implementing the solution are relatively easy. All that is really required is the right intentions.
Solnits sees the failures of authority in crises as failures of intentions, not of capabilities. If the authorities wanted to solve everybody’s problems, they could. If authorities fail, they do so only because they simply don’t care. It is the selfishness of those in power that makes the world a bad place, not the inherent complexity of life itself.
So for Solnits there is no logical problem with asserting that people can take care of themselves in a crises but that authority can and should be trusted if the right people are in charge.
Well, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, folks do sometimes trip over the truth; generally though, they manage to shake it off and move on…
The only reason I’m here is because I’m on the lookout for Slippery Pete.
(He doesn’t label himself “slippery” for nothing.)
Perhaps we are witnessing the moment of metamorphosis as a liberal worm transforms into the libertarian butterfly. Many of us began from a philosophy far removed from exhausting individual liberty above all. Enlightenment often comes unbeckoned as we struggle to maintain our delusions in the face of harsh reality. As we struggle comprehend and rationalize our reason boxes in and forces us to confront our fundamental errors. Ms. Solnit isn?t there yet, but if she continues to muse over this train of thought, we may soon be able to welcome her into the fold. Then again, she might just be a zealot, unwilling to change her view no matter what evidence confronts her.
Yes, she should just let herself sleep…then she will understand, she will see it is so beautiful.
The viciousness of the pre-mortems on the handling of this crisis have ensured that the next crisis will see even more bureaucratic CYA than this time. When you kink the hoses before the fire is out and shoot the chief, don’t expect fire fighting efficiency to increase.
For a people (libertarians) why are forced to constantly decry the one-dimensional, either/or, liberal or conservative fallacy of political idenfitication, you certainly do like to engage in a similar, reductive conceptualization of politics.
Maybe a line with “power to the people” at one end and “government” at the other isn’t a good way to capture the actual dynamics of how communities and individuals functiton.
Maybe, just maybe, there are differences in how government efforts are arranges, with can influence the degree to which the grassroots are empowered or marginalized.
joe,
You are correct in stating that some type of theoretical government involvement might actually encourage grassroots solutions to problems. However, in reality, a government with any power is not composed of idealists, it is composed of the power-hungry, who have no use for interference from the little people.
That ideal level of involvement is as unattainable for a government as an orbit between energy levels is for an electron.
The fallacy of the article is the notion that governmental coercion can equal community cooperation. That they can be essentially one and the same thing, if only the goal of government coercion is to force you to be cooperative, or community minded. And that is why the ultimate form of government coercion for such purposes, the logical extension of leftist statist thinking, is Communism. Now joe will surely protest and make sarcastic comments about me, but I see this fallacy underlying liberal assumptions all the time, and it only differs from out and out Communism in degree. If you are against having your money taxed for a good cause, the left calls you stingy and greedy. Nevermind that you may simply want to be able to make such decisions without the threat of force. The right has forms of the same thing. If you are against regulating others’ morality, you are immoral yourself, etc. But the failure to see that genuine cooperation is voluntary cooperation and not coerced (so-called) cooperation is perhaps the primary underlying fallacy to all of state-liberalism.
The fallacy of your argument, fyodor, is the assumption that all action by governemnt is “coercion.”
Some of us continue to believe that government gets is power from the consent of the governed.
Others, self servingly, declare that it comes from the barrel of a gun.
I know which band of revolutionaries I’m throwing my lot in with.
Some of us continue to believe that government gets is power from the consent of the governed. Others, self servingly, declare that it comes from the barrel of a gun.
The beauty of an armed populace is that those options are not mutually exclusive.
Please, show me an example of an unarmed “governed” whose armed government gave a shit about their consent.
The fallacy of your argument, fyodor, is the assumption that all action by governemnt is “coercion.”
Some of us continue to believe that government gets is power from the consent of the governed.
Actually, the government gets its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
But it indeed get its “power” from the barrel of a gun. And just because your liberal idealism hides you from that fact does not make it any less true.
As for government action versus coercion, of course not all action by governemnt is coercion, and I never said it was. But laws are indeed enforced through coercion, otherwise they would not be called laws. And it is through law that liberals aim to enforce “cooperation.” Just because I recognize the legitimacy of our overall governmental system does not mean that the government is not being coercive when it tells me to do something or else I am hauled to jail. Resist and you die. That’s coercion, joe, regardless of whether the folks doing the coercing have the consent of the population to be in their positions of power.
test
I know which band of revolutionaries I’m throwing my lot in with.
Who’s committing the either/or fallacy now?
I’ll throw my lot in with those who have a realistic understanding of power and how it’s derived and used and who use that realism to create a system under which that power is limited to circumstances in which it is called for and individual rights are respected. Realism and principle are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, one might venture to say that that’s what libertarianism is all about.
You seem to think the “consent of the governed” gives the government the authority to do any damn thing the majority says it should do. Well, except for those ten exceptions, eh? Of course, one of those exceptions, the ninth, makes it clear that at least those who framed this system understood that these were not isolated exceptions but rather that the whole concept of government was to be limited, and not just to what the majority is able to constrain itself to at any particular moment.
These articles are hardly the only ones of their type. I remember one from the New Yorker a year or two back in which the author decried the Drug War and its effects (and I, reading, was going, Yeah, yeah, come on, you’ve got it!)…and then mysteriously concluded that the answer was to elect more Democrats. (WTF?)
Firstly, I think, being able to see one part of a problem doesn’t equate to being able to see all parts of the problem. Secondly, people really cling to their beliefs. If you’ve been raised all your life to think that the Democrats (or Republicans) are the source of all light and truth and goodness, you’re not likely to conclude “throw the bums out” even if you do notice problems with what they do – it must just need some tinkering and fine-tuning, right?
I’m reminded of the discussion here recently about arguing politics, or not arguing it. If you encounter someone who seems on the fence, don’t push or argue…just set out your case in a logical, positive, non-histrionic way and hope for the best.
fyodor, “You seem to think the “consent of the governed” gives the government the authority to do any damn thing the majority says it should do.” Given the effect of the modifier “seem to” on the rest of the sentence, I agree completely.
Larry A, “Pointing M-16s at people, confiscating their firearms, and rousting them out of their homes is not a very good example of drawing just powers from the consent of the governed.” I agree with you on this. My point was not to defend this particular action as just, but to address a philosophical point about the legitimacy of government force, and where it comes from.
fyodor, let me try again.
“The fallacy of the article is the notion that governmental coercion can equal community cooperation.” In a democratic nation like ours, the creation and operation of a government, coercion and all, IS an example of community cooperation. If you’d like to dismiss this sentiment, so effectively captured in the phrase “deriving their just power from the consent of the governed,” as overly idealist and unrealistic, that’s your call.
Fyodor,
The problem is that the fallacy that you mention isn’t just that of the article; it’s the fundamental fallacy of liberalism. The idea that “government, coercion and all, IS an example of community cooperation” is total nonsense.
Government, with coercion, is the best expression of the *failure* of community cooperation. The less cooperation within a community, the more government (with more coercion) you need.
Saying things like
“an odd backlash against unions, social safety nets, the New Deal and the Great Society, against the idea that we should take care of one another, against the idea of community.”
is just nonsensical. Being against the New Deal and/or the Great Society has nothing to do with being against commuity or “the idea that we should take care of one another.”
It’s about being against the idea that government should take care of all of us as it sees fit or that it can replace community by doing so.
Shannon Love
Never said better. Wizard’s Second Rule in action.
complexisomorphism:
cool, another mathematician.
mewslfer,
Not to split hairs with someone who agrees with me, but I hope you understand that: The problem is that the fallacy that you mention isn’t just that of the article; it’s the fundamental fallacy of liberalism is exactly what I said, and that The idea that “government, coercion and all, IS an example of community cooperation” is total nonsense was precisely my point.
joe,
You’re talking in circles. Either you think the derivation of the government’s (okay) just powers (but I still think the key word there is “just”) coming from the consent of the governed gives the government the right to do whatever the majority empowers it to do (except for those specified exceptions that some find so pesky) or you don’t. You still haven’t said which it is. My point is that the “consent of the governed” gives the state legitimacy as a state, but that doesn’t mean that the state can do whatever it damn well wants, and it doesn’t mean that law doesn’t operate on coercion, because it most clearly and obviously does. And thus my ultimate point is that the discussion over whether to coerce one’s neighbors into contributing to what’s seen as the common goood is NOT a discussion over cooperation, it’s a discussion over coercion. Now maybe you can argue that such coercion is good, but please recognize that it is most certainly coercion.
Fyodor,
I quite realized your point; I’m don’t think Joe sees it …. hence my comments.
mewslfer,
Ah, okay.
joe,
Let me put this as bluntly and straightforwardly as possible.
If someone puts a gun to your head and says, “Do [whatever] or else,” that’s coercion. Plain and simple.
Now, just because that someone may be justly authorized by the larger society to be doing what he’s doing does not change the fact that what he’s doing is coercing you.
And all your mumbo-jumbo to the contrary won’t change that.
Government is required because most don’t really believe in cooperation. The more government you like, the less you believe in cooperation as a solution.
Democracies derive legitimacy from the people, which is to say that of all forms of coercion, democracy at least ensures that 51% of the populace cooperates on creating the terms of coercion. I suppose dissenters who remain law abiding are cooperating in some sense, but I don’t know that celebrating such a low bar for cooperation is really appropriate.
I keep coming back to the idea that notions of community and cooperation, if employed as terms of moral signifigance, can’t really be divorced from notions of choice.
fyodor, ” Either you think the derivation of the government’s (okay) just powers..coming from the consent of the governed gives the government the right to do whatever the majority empowers it to do (except for those specified exceptions that some find so pesky) or you don’t.”
No, that’s bullshit. You’re making the same logical fallacy as the people defending the Padilla snatch – stating that if you accept that the government has some powers, you cannot argue against anything it does under those powers. Nonsense.
I’ve never disputed that the governemnt operated via coercion. I’ve disputed your assertion that this coercion eliminates the status of our government as a cooperative enterprise. We have consented to be governed, as well as chosen to be involved in the governing. The existence of a governemnt is a cooperative venture through which we achieve cooperative ends – that there is, sometimes, coercion involved is incidental.
joe,
Can you give some examples of governmental cooperative ventures that don’t have a coercive element behind them?
The entire point of forming a government is TO coerce, there would be no point otherwise because the cooperation would be sufficient without it.
We have consented to be governed
Fallacy numero uno!
Russ D,
Technically you’re correct, but I’m granting joe that one for the sake of argument.
joe,
More mumbo-jumbo. The real issue is whether rejecting coerced attempts at so-called cooperation is tantamount to rejecting cooperation. The left (and this article) says it is, I says it’s not. See if you can tell my how you’re right and I’m wrong without resorting to tangentially related abstractions.
Heh, coercion = cooperation. Orwell missed that one!
You’re making the same logical fallacy as the people defending the Padilla snatch – stating that if you accept that the government has some powers, you cannot argue against anything it does under those powers.
So what delineates what it can and cannot do? Libertarians make that very clear. I don’t think you do, and that’s my point. You say that the government is a “cooperative enterprise/venture,” but what does that mean? Would it be fair to say (and I ask this quite honestly) that under your formulation, everything the government does is a form of cooperation? Because really, that’s where your logic seems to go. If not, what makes one thing the goverenment does a form of cooperation and not another?
You’re making the same logical fallacy as the people defending the Padilla snatch – stating that if you accept that the government has some powers, you cannot argue against anything it does under those powers.
So what delineates what it can and cannot do? Libertarians make that very clear. I don’t think you do, and that’s my point. You say that the government is a “cooperative enterprise/venture,” but what does that mean? Would it be fair to say (and I ask this quite honestly) that under your formulation, everything the government does is a form of cooperation? Because really, that’s where your logic seems to go. If not, what makes one thing the goverenment does a form of cooperation and not another?