Thursday, May 22, 2008
Is Every New Orleanian Deep Down a libertarian?
Posted Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:22 PM
by Sam Winston
"restoring neighborhoods is a job far better suited to citizens and organizations than to government. " - City Journal
The piece goes on to explain where it thinks government should be more of a leader in areas like blighted properties and crime.
I've always found it fascinating how the battle of ideas constantly influx in Washington squared off time and time again in New Orleans over the last three years. From charter schools, to charity, to housing, and to law enforcement, it was a non-stop fight. Now, it seems some ideas are clearly winning out.
This piece is a classic example (see Paul Vallas and charter schools for another).
I'm honestly not ready, however, to declare a winner or a loser, much less who I agree with more. I would point out that its only natural for the people of New Orleans who have been failed by government so catastrophically on multiple levels to lean towards the concepts of self-reliance and remain skeptical about government effectiveness in certain areas. Yet, that doesn't mean we should all be ready to make New Orleans into Paulville either ( btw this is actually not a joke).
The glaring hole in the City Journal piece was a complete omission of the New Orleans communities that are still struggling (aside from a 'yay for Brad Pitt'). It is likewise the glaring hole in the libertarian-esque argument championed by these prevailing policies and ideas in New Orleans schools, housing, and law enforcement. Why haven't these great virtues of self-reliance, free-market forces, and choice worked as well for those communities ie for everybody? Before we can declare these ideals as universally superior over their competitors, it would seem to me that would need to be addressed. That or we would need to admit that these principles aren't actually universal, mainly in those communities like most of New Orleans East, the Lower 9th Ward, and Central City.
My guess is that the answer lies somewhere in the subtler parts of the City Journal piece.
"True, a strong government role was necessary at first to set the stage for New Orleans’s progress. Federal agencies, especially the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Army Corps of Engineers, worked with contractors to clear millions of tons of debris from lawns and streets, unclog waterways, and provide trailers so that New Orleanians could live in their driveways while fixing their houses. They also repaired levees and are working on upgrading flood-control infrastructure in general—crucial steps in making homeowners more confident about weathering future hurricanes. But government, while critical for acute recovery, hasn’t driven the long-term rebuilding work."
Mainly that one can embrace a shift in his/her relationship with government for a particular circumstance without embracing an entire political philosophy whose blueprint doesn't ever provide a perfect fit for the real world. That goes either way, whether its libertarianism or big government liberalism.
Because while it may be a battle of ideas in Washington or in the City Journal, this stuff is real life in New Orleans.
Comments (3)
Showing 1-3 of 3
"It is likewise the glaring hole in the libertarian-esque argument championed by these prevailing policies and ideas in New Orleans schools, housing, and law enforcement." "Before we can declare these ideals as universally superior over their competitors, it would seem to me that would need to be addressed. " These ideas embody a great misunderstanding of libertarianism - mainly, that libertarianism should have prescribed social goals and outcomes. A real non-sequitor. That is nothing more than socially acceptable (politcally correct) collectivism, the antithesis of libertarianism. When I hear such arguments I have to wonder if the author is simply mistaken or whether he is diverting the argument and taking a cheap shot at libertarianism as well. His argument should be take a different direction. Actually, libertarianism is an individual path. Self-reliance and the realization that government 'assistance' requires force, coertion and a loss of freedom are two prime features of libertarianism. It requires the understanding that governments, by nature, provide disincentives to do well and incentives to, well, provide what New Orleaneans have received. That will not satisfy those who do not understand they are their own responsibility first and who believe that I should be forced to pay for what you receive, no matter the quality of what is received or at what cost. I cannot argue against such irrationality, exept to turn the cards and say, "Fine, I will send all my utility bills to the government and they will make you pay for them. " It wouldn't be long before my lights are cut off.
like
dislike
I love how all libertarians think they are misunderstood (or that their critics just aren t up to the task of grasping the concept). A careful reading of my post would see me giving libertarian ideas credit in certain circumstances, and not "a great misunderstanding of libertarianism" or "taking a cheap shot ot liberarianism". As for libertarianism not having "prescribed social goals and outcomes", that was the kind of admission I was asking for when I said, "The glaring hole in the City Journal piece was a complete omission of the New Orleans communities that are still struggling (aside from a ‘yay for Brad Pitt’). It is likewise the glaring hole in the libertarian-esque argument championed by these prevailing policies and ideas in New Orleans schools, housing, and law enforcement. Why haven’t these great virtues of self-reliance, free-market forces, and choice worked as well for those communities ie for everybody? Before we can declare these ideals as universally superior over their competitors, it would seem to me that would need to be addressed. That or we would need to admit that these principles aren’t actually universal, mainly in those communities like most of New Orleans East, the Lower 9th Ward, and Central City." That last sentence, which you left out of your quote, was key. Your admission was what was missing from the City Journal piece. That these libertarian ideals hailed in multiple examples throughout New Orleans never intended to fix the social problems and outcomes of the Lower 9th Ward, New Orleans East, and Central City. At least not directly. Some people have a hard time with that admission and its easy to see why given the current general mainstream American perception on government, liberal or conservative. Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic and the Times in London elaborated on this point of what he calls "conservative" aims, though they are very libertarian, versus liberal goals recently. Interesting stuff, and it all comes down to that admission we just discussed. See link below. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/conservatives-n.html
Who says they have not? They have not only through the prism of the writer. News reports indicate that New Orleans East is back to about 50% of pre-K numbers, as good as any of the heavily flooded areas of the city. Perhaps the decision not to return to the lower 9th ward by most as well as to Central City is a "libertarian" decision by the residents based on pre-K conditions in those area and the failure of the so-called Great Society. Certainly most project residents have made the decision to stay in more successful cities. If the problem is that construction costs are so high now that poorer residents cannot afford to return, is that not also a condemnation of pre-K failure? Whatever was going on pre-K failed to lift these residents out of poverty or very low working income status, and since there was no libertarian approach to doing so -- quite the opposite -- it is not a failure of the same. Considering the trillions spent on failed Great Society programs, it cannot be considered a failure of untried libertarianism.
