Cynical Nation

By now, we've heard Katrina's devastation blamed on everything from racism to abortion. I honestly believe, however, that the most farfetched explanation yet is that conservatism is at fault. Not the actions of a handful of conservative politicians, mind you, but the political philosophy itself. The idea seems to be that over the past quarter century, a band of heartless conservative ideologues led by Grover Norquist have eviscerated the federal government to the point where it is wholly unable to handle crises such as hurricanes and floods.

Astonishing, huh? Looking at a chart of government outlays from 1962 to the present, I would love for some of these people to help me to identify in exactly which years this evisceration took place. Indeed, the only year I can find in which government spending was actually cut from the previous year was in 1965, in which expenditures were "slashed" all the way to $118.2 billion from $118.5 billion -- under a Democratic president.

Hell, the abortion and racism scenarios are more plausible than this one. At least we knew that abortion and racism do in fact exist. But here we have supposedly intelligent people blaming the Katrina disaster on an entirely imaginary conservative gutting of the federal budget. Granted, conservatives have enjoyed talking about cutting government spending, but they have very seldom demonstrated any stomach for actually doing something about it.

And yet here's Russell Shaw in the "Harridan Post" who opines with a straight face that things in New Orleans might be going swimmingly right now (okay, that was a bad choice of adjectives) had Carter only beaten Reagan in 1980.

Economist Paul Krugman espouses a similar argument in the New York Times:

But the federal government's lethal ineptitude wasn't just a consequence of Mr. Bush's personal inadequacy; it was a consequence of ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve the public good. For 25 years the right has been denigrating the public sector, telling us that government is always the problem, not the solution. Why should we be surprised that when we needed a government solution, it wasn't forthcoming?

Radley Balko, however, isn't letting Krugman get away with it (emphasis in the original):

The right may be denigrating the public sector in word, but it's doing so while massively expanding it.. I'm awestruck, here. Government leaves thousands dead, and Krugman lambastes people who are skeptical of government? How does that follow?

Balko continues:

Krugman's making two false assumptions, here. The first is that the ruling GOP doesn't believe in government. In Iraq, this administration believes it can build a liberal soceity from scratch. It believes government can save marriages, convert convicts to Christianity, eradicate the drug supply, save public schools through nationalized testing, stop unwed sex by teaching abstinence, and solve the problem of high drug prices by forcing the rest of the country to pay for the medication of elderly people. That's an off-the-top-of-my-head list. This is an administration that has added an entire cabinet department to the federal rolls (also the largest bureaucracy in the history of U.S. government), spent money at record levels, expanded the regulatory state, and -- at the same time -- has been the most secretive administration in American history. If Krugman believes these to be signs of an administration, political party, and philosophy with "contempt" for government, I'd hate to see what "faith in government" looks like.

Ouch. Professor Krugman seems to be the proud owner of a brand new orifice, courtesy of Mr. Balko. Notwithstanding the good doctor's admittedly impressive academic credentials, it's a minor miracle and a major disgrace that he's still taken seriously in some quarters.