or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| What happened in New Orleans? |
ETWolverine |
10/12/05 |
Hey guys,
I’ve been thinking about everything that went wrong in New Orleans for the past few weeks. There’s no question that things went wrong in the aftermath of Hurricane Katerina. But what caused the situation to be so screwed up? I believe that the problems began long before Katerina ever hit.
In order to determine where the system failed, I compared New Orleans to the response in New York in the aftermath of 9-11. I know that there are many differences between these two tragedies in terms of scope, area of effect, logistics and so forth. But there are a number of similarities too, in terms of number of lives affected, the fear involved, etc. So there is a fairly good basis of comparison.
As I said, I believe the problems began long before Katerina. If we compare New Orleans to New York, we find some important trend differences in terms of crime and law enforcement: to wit, New York has experienced a decade-long decrease in crime rates. The decrease in the NYC crime rate has been so extreme that it has both led the country in rate of decrease, and increased the national average rate of decrease. By contrast, New Orleans has experienced a decades-long increase in crime, especially violent crime. New Orleans is (or was until Katerina hit) the murder capital of the USA. Most muggings in New Orleans end in murder, because the criminals believe that it is easier to kill the witness than risk being caught. And where there are no witnesses, the NOPD doesn’t seem to be able to solve cases.
Another trend difference is with regard to “nuisance” crimes and simple cleanliness of the streets. New York has been cleaning up its act (literally) for over a decade now. Times Square, once the toilet of the USA, is now the exemplification of big-city family oriented tourism. The bums are (for the most part) gone, the pot-holes are being fixed, the sex trade is relegated to limited areas, and nuisance crimes like littering, loud music and graffiti are aggressively handled by the cops. By contrast, Anew Orleans is a pig sty. It’s dirty, its broken down, it’s a slum, and bums sleep and piss wherever they feel like. The streets are broken down, and nuisance crimes are simply something that residents and visitors have to deal with.
And then there’s the way the cops are treated by the local government. In NYC, the cops, under Giuliani and Bloomberg, have been given the authority the freedom and the tools to do their jobs. And because of that, the cops are usually seen as a) doing their jobs effectively, and b) real authority figures, even by those who dislike them. As a result, the cops see themselves that way, and are proud of who and what they are. By contrast, the policies in New Orleans have stressed criminal rights over the ability of cops to fight crime. The cops have their hands handcuffed in dealing with crime, because they are more worried about covering their butts than fighting crime and risking being sued or jailed for doing their jobs. And as a result, the cops are viewed as ineffective and lacking in authority… and that is how they see themselves as well.
What does all of this have to do with Hurricane Katerina?
Simple: if cops see themselves as ineffective, useless and lacking authority for long enough, and if they are faced with a big enough problem, they’ll stop doing their jobs and just look out for their own families instead, just as 1/3 of them did when Katerina hit. On the other hand, if the cops see themselves as worthwhile, effective, valued and good at their jobs, they’ll run into a burning building to try to help save a life because it’s their job and they are proud of their job.
If the people see that their streets are a pig sty for long enough, and the local government doesn’t care enough about them to do something about it, then they will stop listening to and relying on the government when they need to. If they are so lacking in self worth for such a long period of time, they stop valuing everyone else too, and it becomes a situation of “every man for himself”. On the other hand, if the people see that the government cares enough to clean up their streets and get rid of the garbage and the potholes, it makes them feel valued, and that in turn allows them to value others, and thus help others in a time of crisis.
If crime is a way of life, then looting and shooting will occur, because that is how people survive. If crime is looked upon with disdain, then people will not (for the most part) become criminals during a time of crisis.
What I’m saying is that the policies in place for years before the various tragedies occurred set the stage for the peoples’ and the authorities’ reactions in the aftermaths of the crises.
Most people think that Rudy Giuliani was a “great leader” for how he reacted in the wake of 9-11. Hogwash. Rudy became a great leader long before 9-11 by implementing policies that created a leadership environment. He created the situation in which cops would be listened too, firemen would be listened to, and he himself would be listened to. His reaction during 9-11 was simply the culmination of the effectiveness of those policies. Rudy became a leader when he started leading after his election, long before 9-11 hit.
By contrast, Ray Nagin has been anything but a leader during his administration. He has kept the old policies of his predecessors. He hasn’t led the way on a single issue of note. He certainly hasn’t curtailed crime or given cops the power to do their jobs. Ray Nagin’s failures as a leader took place long before Katerina hit. And the same for Kathleen Blanco. If you lack leadership policies during normal times, then don’t expect to be able to lead in a crisis.
But what about the “failures” of FEMA and the Bush Administration?
Let’s compare and contrast again: FEMA’s reaction to 9-11 was just fine. FEMA’s reaction to Katerina and Rita in Mississippi and Alabama was just fine as well. It was only in Louisiana that large-scale problems occurred. One could infer from this that Louisiana was different because of how the people reacted to them… which was a direct result of the policies discussed above. The people didn’t listen to the authority figures of FEMA because they distrust and lack respect for all authority figures. Their basis of experience is that authority figures are ineffective. They shot at FEMA rescue workers because in their experience if you want something you shoot in order to get it, and that includes wanting to be rescued.
Any failures on FEMA’s part were a direct result of the policies of the policies in place in New Orleans. Just as the successes of FEMA and the rescue workers after 9-11 were the result of the policies in place in New York. It’s all about the leadership.
Elliot |
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/13/05 8:08 am:
G’mar Khatima Tova Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 10/14/05 11:53 am:
Gam l'cha ("and to you").
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/14/05 11:59 am:
I have been reading his essays about America for a couple of months now in 'Atlantic'. He finds much of our culture 'foreign and incomprehensible'which is why I suspect 'Atlantic' is publishing them in the first place
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
