LEFT BEHIND

This week America, and perhaps the rest of the world, remembered Katrina and the death, destruction, and utter havoc in New Orleans and the Gulf coast. There was a certain tragic wistfulness about the commemoration. From the displaced African-Americans, many of whom will never return, to the pundits who commented sadly on the enormous relief provided to the victims of the tsunami that deviated Thailand,. Indonesia and other lands bordering the Indian Ocean. There was more than enough blame to go around when the point was made: the response to Katrina was dreadfully deficient and ironically far below the aid given to other countries stricken with a natural disaster,

The most delicious irony is that Louisiana, which has an Indian-American Republican governor, will probably continue to vote for the same people who ignored them five years ago. Is there bitterness? Wouldn’t you be bitter if you realized that the Katrina flooding offered a kind of bizarre “final solution” to the presence of so many black families and to the ongoing criminality that unhappily is affected by that fact? Yes, New Orleans is one of the most dangerous and corrupt cities in America. Yes, Katrina may have “cleansed” it. Was it ethnic cleansing?

Did the government fail to come to their rescue because they would prefer a “whiter” New Orleans? What a horrible thing to imagine. Even more frightening perhaps is that Katrina was the harbinger of disasters to come, disasters associated with climate change. (I dislike using the definition “global warming” because immediately the deniers will remind us how terribly cold and snowy it was in parts of America last winter.)

There is the Darwinian approach: survival of the fittest. Of course Darwin never said those words. It was Herbert Spencer. The point is that there is no population control that can equal natural disasters. Not only because it reduces the population, but it unerringly selects the poorest and most vulnerable, the forgotten and the neglected. But that is speculation. Thomas Malthus, a British clergyman said that it was famine and plague and wars that ultimately controlled population. And today there are population theorists who say we should not intervene when there is need. That “theory” is right up there with: “Don’t worry about the economy, it will regulate itself with natural market forces.”

In fact, that hideous Objectivist Ayn Rand, messiah to Libertarians, would always let “nature take its course.” Which is another way of saying only the strong should survive.

What is not speculation is that today three hurricanes are gathering in the Atlantic. There is Pakistan inundated. There are wildfires devouring thousands of hectares of woodlands and threatening communities. There are polar bears looking for ice to walk across.

Worst of all there are the naysayers. Between them and the “will of god” crackpots, we seem to be paralyzed when it comes to taking action.

A footnote: a new survey shows that voters, at least American voters, support post-disaster aid but have no time for the tax burden of preparedness. That, even though the cost of preparedness is a fraction of the cost of help after the fact.