Recommended article in the NYT today about conservative groups' reactions to the Katrina debacle.
The spinmasters at the big conservative think tanks do a stellar job, arguing that Katrina spending should be offset by cuts elsewhere, and/or that this just proves the federal government has become, in the words of the Cato spokesman, "a fat, bloated conglomeration that should shed other functions that divert it from the core functions." Hey, at least these guys are intellectually consistent, as in their opposition to the obscenely expensive war in Iraq.
Anyway, to the point.
More interestingly, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) says "that the post-Katrina reaction shows 'people have a more expansive view about what the role of the federal government is or ought to be than is warranted by the Constitution or the principles of good governance.'"
[Just because I smell blood, it should also be noted that Flake took a stand as one of 11 Congresspeople to vote against the emergency supplemental for Katrina aid.]Let's discuss this. In fact, let's parse it out and overanalyze it.
Flake seems to imply that "people
want the government to take an active and effective role at preventing things like what happened on the Gulf coast recently, but the people are wrong, and that's not actually the role of our government." I.e., the expectations or understanding that the public has about the government's role in this particular case are out of step with what the government's role actually is or should be. (Well, should be according to Flake, that is.)
"Principles of good governance" are a more subjective thing than Mr. Flake implies. Where I come from (ummm, America), what the public thinks government
should do is, ideally, what government in fact
does do.* So if there's a disconnect between expectations and reality, it's the role of government that should change, not what the people are demanding of their government.
Yup, the people want a big [enough] government, but they are wrong, according to Rep. Flake.
You heard it here first, and remember it next time you hear bullshit about all the elitist, socialist liberals. Perhaps it's not only wealthy Northeastern latte-sippers who believe that our state should not be leaving the poor, elderly, disadvantaged, and weak to die--literally, as in New Orleans last week, or figuratively, as when key social programs are gutted while the ultrawealthy receive tax cuts and billions of dollars in subsidies are granted to certain special interests.**
*Most of the time.
**Yes, yes, I realize the small government types occasionally oppose that kind of spending too--but not nearly as frequently as you would expect.