Friday - February 16, 2007

New Orleans: Whose fault?

Or the Loss of Vigor and Virtue 

The Machiavellian came across two different, non-related stories about New Orleans today.  I'll comment on the two pieces towards the end.

The New York Times chronicles the plight of a couple who have finally given up on staying in New Orleans.  Listen to the description of life in the Big Easy:  

Not because of some great betrayal — they had, after all, come back after losing everything in Hurricane Katrina — but a series of escalating indignities: the attempted carjacking of a pregnant friend; the announced move to Nashville by Ms. Larsen’s employer; the human feces deposited on their roof by, they suspect, the contractors next door; the two burglaries in the space of a week; and, not least, the overnight wait for the police to respond.

A year ago, Ms. Larsen, 36, and Mr. Langlois, 37, were hopeful New Orleanians eager to rebuild and improve the city they adored. But now they have joined hundreds of the city’s best and brightest who, as if finally acknowledging a lover’s destructive impulses, have made the wrenching decision to leave at a time when the population is supposed to be rebounding.

Their reasons include high crime, high rents, soaring insurance premiums and what many call a lack of leadership, competence, money and progress. In other words: yes, it is still bad down here. But more damning is what many of them describe as a dissipating sense of possibility, a dwindling chance at redemption for a great city that, even before the storm, cried out for great improvement.

“The window of opportunity is closing,” Ms. Larsen said, “before more people like us give up and say it’s too little, too late.”

Mr. Langlois, who has repeatedly called the health and sanitation departments, the police and City Hall, said he despaired of receiving any response. In November, the couple bought their first house, and in December, they bought their first handgun.

The other item I came across is from a BBC television show.  

From the NYT's article, one takes away several themes.  First, New Orlean's government is in shambles.  It doesn't police, it doesn't pave the roads, it doesn't provide education, and it doesn't have the ability to do so.  Heck, it still hasn't fixed the traffic lights.

Second, there is an issue of morality and virtue that is destroying New Orleans.  The left created a dependent class.  So much of New Orleans depends upon government for income and for direction, that it is helpless now that government itself, under the stewardship of a Democratic Mayor and a Democratic Governor,  has abandoned the city through mismanagement.  Adding to that problem, the dependent class, cared for and lead by the government, has no moral or virtuous base to fall back on.  What do I mean by that?

What does the left stand for?  The left's moral compass can be characterized by: abortion, death by starvation, cowardice in the face of our enemies, equality of outcome, socialist markets, high taxes, education not so much as learning, but rather as a socialization process to instill the latest leftist cause, rampant anti-Americanism, group rights, anti-religiosity, homosexual rights, and larger government interference in everyday life.  How did people expect the dependent class in New Orleans to act after Katrina?  Were they brought up to be self-reliant, hard-working, and virtuous?  No, they were brought up to be dependent upon a government that taught them to be slothful and decadent.  Is it any wonder that when the horrible government in New Orleans failed after Katrina, that the dependent class would act out as they were taught?

It sounds like the couple mentioned in the NYT's article tried to be good citizens, but at some point, when the good are overwhelmed, they leave to find others like themselves.

As to the YouTube clip, you can take a couple of things away from it after watching it.  Of course, you see great swaths of destruction that haven't been touched for a year. Can you imagine your city or township doing nothing for over a year and a half?  I can't.   And of course, the British driver asks why the richest nation on earth hasn't done anything in New Orleans.  It would be impossible to explain to him, that in America, no one is going to help those who won't help themselves in the first place.

The better question would be why haven't the citizens of New Orleans done anything and why have the people of Mississippi successfully overcome the same hardships to rebuild their community?  The answer, I believe can be found in the writings of Machiavelli in his great book, The Discourses.

Nevertheless, since it is well to reason things out, I will not pass this matter by, but will assume, in the first place, the case of a very corrupt city, and then take the case of one in which corruption has reached a still greater height; but where corruption is universal, no laws or institutions will ever have force to restrain it. Because as good customs stand in need of good laws for their support, so laws, that they may be respected, stand in need of good customs.

That its original institutions are no longer adapted to a city that has become corrupted, is plainly seen in two matters of great moment, I mean in the appointment of magistrates and in the passing of laws. For the Roman people conferred the consulship and other great offices of their State on none save those who sought them; which was a good institution at first, because then none sought these offices save those who thought themselves worthy of them, and to be rejected was held disgraceful; so that, to be deemed worthy, all were on their best behaviour. But in a

corrupted city this institution grew to be most mischievous. For it was no longer those of greatest worth, but those who had most influence, who sought the magistracies; while all who were without influence, however deserving, refrained through fear. This untoward result was not reached all at once, but like other similar results, by gradual steps. For after subduing Africa and Asia, and reducing nearly the whole of Greece to submission, the Romans became perfectly assured of their freedom, and seemed to themselves no longer to have any enemy whom they had cause to fear. But this security and the weakness of their adversaries led them in conferring the consulship, no longer to look to merit, but only to favour, selecting for the office those who knew best how to pay court to them, not those who knew best how to vanquish their enemies. And afterwards, instead of selecting those who were best liked, they came to select those who had most influence; and in this way, from the imperfection of their institutions, good men came to be wholly excluded.

In essence, Machiavelli believed that good government was self-reciprocating.  It required good, virtuous people and good virtuous leaders.  At some point, as happened in Rome, the people of New Orleans elected, not the best and the brightest, but crooks and socialists like Ray Nagin who maintain power by catering the material needs of the people.  As a result, the population becomes lazy, unable to defend itself.  In the case of New Orleans, the enemy that the people wouldn't rise up to defeat wasn't an invading army, but a wall of water.  The Big Easy needs to elect officials who will nurture not on the physical needs of the people, but their spiritual and moral needs as well.  Until that happens, New Orleans will remain in ruins.

  Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rightlinx, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.