The horror of the tornado in Oklahoma, death, injury and communities destroyed, is a human tragedy beyond what those who have not experienced it, or anything like it, can ever fully comprehend. As a disclaimer, this diary entry is not intended to reflect on the people who are victims, but is intended to raise some questions about politics and values such victimhood raises. After all, "there but for the grace of god..." (a quote which begs its own question, but for another day).
Listening to the interviews with survivors, rescuers and politicians on TV, aimed at finding some deeper meaning in the flow of events, puts a human face on the immediate aftermath of the event, but begins to stimulate some thought in me about what we, as individuals and a community, take away from the recounting of the personal experiences, and some insight into the larger context within which these recounted experiences lie.
These thoughts jelled, somewhat, reading John Schwartz's article in The New York Times today (05/22/2013, page1) href="http://NYTimes.com">Why No Safe
I start with the question, why did so few people in the area, which has, repeatedly, been pounded by tornados, take precautions in the building, or modifying, of their homes? There follows, as the article points out, the question of why no standards or codes were created to require that, at the very least, public buildings -such as schools - be mandated to be built to standards capable of handling tornados?
The Schwartz article cites interviews with officials and home builders who expressed concern about the added cost to housing that putting in underground shelters, or even "safe rooms" would entail. One even suggested that allowing "the market" to control the building of shelters, rather government regulation was the way to go, since it would leave the decision up to the buyers.
That attitude, which reflects a more general attitude towards government, and regulation in particular, has some logical consequences, if viewed objectively. If the decision to build shelters is to be dictated by individuals, are not the consequences of failing to build shelters also an individual responsibility? Taken further, the decision to live in a known tornado-prone location is also a choice, is it not? If so, what responsibilty does the government have to the victims of frequent, and expected, storms?
Following the extreme, and somewhat twisted, objectivist view (ala Paul Ryan), those able and willing to take care of themselves should not be burdened with the needs of those who are unwilling of unable to take care of their needs. What is the collective obligation in the ultra-individualistic society? Shouldn't help and aid be an individual choice? Those moved to be helpful should help, but why should the government be obligated to take action, as the organ of the collective, and use resources collected from those not personally interested? Doesn't a tornado turn its victims into "takers"? Their choices, their consequences.
Along comes Tom Coburn, Senator from Oklahoma (!) who argues that no more money is needed for disaster relief. He even argues that additional funding should be accounted for by offsets elsewhere. Then, of course, there are the likes of E. W. Jackson of Virginia, who doesn't believe (as opposed to know?) that the Constitution gives the U. S. Government the power to provide disaster relief. He thinks, (thinks?) that "power" is left to the states. Although extreme in the extreme, such ideas are not unique.
What obligation does the government (representing, in this case, the society-as-a-whole), have toward people who knowingly and willingly put themselves in harm's way, without even making provision for some kind of security or protection?
Coburn, if morally wrong and intellectually shallow, is at least consistent. Of all that he might be, he is not a hypocrite. Flat earthers who see the world only as far as the horizon may be loony, but they are not hypocrites.
The far edge libertarians and objectivists (after Ayn Rand), however, cannot claim any middle ground or limited view. To be consistent, the notion of collective action, using resources "taken" from those not effected, would be immoral (in their amoral universe). Whether this is done by raising more revenues, or cutting funds from elswhere, the result would, objectively (sic) be the same. The "takers" would be getting what the "makers" have made. This might make an interesting argument to pass a rainy Sunday afternoon, but has little to add in the world of hard, amd harsh, reality.
The weakness of such ideas comes clear in the light of catastrophe. Of course we are part of a collective, a society. The government is a central part of that society, and it serves not only to control us ("We the people" controlling ourselves) but to serve the needs of the members of society ("We the people" taking care of ourselves). The role of government, spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution includes the function of promoting "the general welfare," an (intentionally?) vague phrase. Yet, there is nothing vague about disaster relief. What, better, fits under the rubric "general welfare"?
Ultimately, humans are, by evolution, definiton, nature (however one chooses to frame it) social, and thereby, interdependent. The "rugged individual" is a myth, possibly a noble myth, but an imaginary (if symbollically loaded) figment of the human imagination non-the-less. We were, in fact, social before we were human. What emerged as the genus Homo emerged from social ancestors. Whether the society in which we are immersed is a collection of hunting/gathering bands or a multi-ethnic nation-state, each of us is formed by and part of the whole.
As to Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, E. W. Jackson, Rand Paul, (and, in memoriam, Ayn Rand), et. al.,
"...send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee. "
. John Donne