Balkinization: The Governmentality Crisis

The Governmentality Crisis

Mark Graber

The most disturbing aspect of the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina is how badly virtually all American officials, state and local, elected and appointed, performed. Democrats and Republicans may debate who was worse, the Bush administration or local officials, but we are talking about the difference between a D- and an F. Moreover, a good case can be made that these awful performances are not simply individual failings, but rooted in several relatively stable features of contemporary American politics.

We live in the era of the permanent campaign. Once the next presidential campaign started after the congressional midterms, then it started after the last presidential election, now people are jockeying for position for the next presidential election long before the present one has ended. Similar accounts may be given of congressional and local elections. This system, not surprisingly, puts a premium on candidates will excellent campaign skills. This, also not surprisingly, is George Bush's greatest skill. From his youth, he has been fascinated by campaigns, taken part in them, and been very good at campaigning. The only problem with this child of the permanent campaign is that he does not seem to be fasincated with policy, takes little interest in policy details, and is not very good at matters of public policy (and this is not a Republican v. democrat issue--surely a President Lugar or McCain would have done substantially better). I suspect this is true of a good many elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Given our system rewards campaign competence over policy compentence, what we get are likeable people with little interest in the details in governance.

This is not to fantacize about the past. Our ancestors had their own set of faults. But it is to express a concern about the present. Perhaps our present crop of elected officials are as compentent as their ancestors. The problem may be they need to be better and they do not seem to be.

Posted 4:14 PM by Mark Graber [link]

Comments:

Perhaps our ancestors simply didn't rely on the government to save people who decided to live in holes next to the sea, and not get out of them when hurricanes struck? I rather get that impression, anyway.

It's rather difficult to save people who don't make a significant effort to save themselves; The problem here was not incompetent government, it was an incompetent citizenry.

Not that the government can't be blamed for encouraging them to be incompetent, of course...

# posted by

Brett : 8:36 PM

Brett's idle speculation about our "ancestors" is false (our "ancestors" formed FEMA in 1803, and fed relief for Mississippi flood relief dates back to the 1870s). Moreoever, it would be unilluminating even if true--though I admit a sociopath could think that using government instruments to aid fellow citizens in dire straits is a vice.

I suppose some of those who remained in New Orleans could fairly be accused of straggling, but then such evaluations come easily for those with cars and credit cards and internets. In any case, perhaps the truly "incompetent citizenry" comprises those willing to apply such loathsome formulae to their dead and dying fellows. My kingdom for a talking point.

Strange Doctrines

# posted by

Michael Drake : 11:41 PM

Such evacuations come easy to people with cars and credit cards. Where's a rolleyes smilly when you need one.

1. Enough of the poor population had cars that the entire poor population could have gotten out with a minor amount of car pooling. Are people who live 2000 miles away supposed to show more solidarity with the poor in New Orleans than their neighbors do?

And poor without a credit card in a destroyed city soaking in fedid waste, or poor without a credit card high and dry a hundred miles away. Tough call which is better...

I must insist: Attack others for failing to do all they can do for somebody, only after establishing that they did all they could do for themselves.

# posted by

Brett : 5:57 AM

brett, i highly recommend, first, that you read the op-ed piece by bob herbert in today's new york times, and secondly, that you go somewhere to get some lessons in humanity.

# posted by

phg : 8:12 AM

Shockingly, I agree with every word of Mark's comments. :o

Perhaps there really is something in the idea - endorsed, I believe, by Todd Zywicki - that it's time to admit that the 17th amendment was a bad idea, give it up as a bad job, and repeal it? If nothing else, it might staunch the "permanent campaign" in the Senate, and might even return some of the focus to the States where it belongs. Most of all, perhaps it would spare us the scene of 18 Senators bloviating in the direction of the TV cameras while a pained-looking nominee to the Supreme Court fidgeted nervously.

Plus, kudos for giving my Senator props. Sen. Lugar would make a marvellous President, but alas, I doubt he would get the nomination.

# posted by

Simon : 1:46 PM