My latest column in The News Tribune:
I’m not convinced most Americans today know what it means to be free. If they did, I can’t imagine that so many would trade their freedom for the false promise of security.
The horrific portrait of human suffering unveiled in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is in many ways a direct result of this trade-off.
The suffering we’ve witnessed in the past few weeks didn’t start with the incompetence of local officials in the face of a storm (though it culminated there); it started when individuals began to believe that “freedom” means freedom from want, trial and challenge, and that it’s government’s job to guarantee this.
Many Americans today believe they are born with a lifelong right to some “minimum standard of living,” which includes a roof overhead, food on the table, clothes to wear, adequate health care and a basic education (for starters).
As children, of course, we never had to ask for or earn these essentials. We took them for granted. Long before we knew how to articulate thoughts, we learned we only had to cry out and some force outside ourselves (Mommy and Daddy) would bring us something to eat, keep us warm, alleviate our discomforts, entertain us, etc.
This is fine for a season, but then we need to grow up.
Parents who understand what it means to be free delight in nurturing their children, but they work constantly toward a day when that nurturing will end and their children will step out into the world equipped to meet their own needs, pursue and achieve their own dreams, and, in turn, nurture their own children to adulthood.
These parents teach their children at a young age what it means to accept responsibility for their own actions. They continually refine and reinforce this lesson as their children mature so that, over time, the consequences of their children’s actions become largely positive, both personally and in the world around them.
For example, good parents teach their children how to exchange their own time and skills for the things they need and want. They teach them how to apply their minds and talents to increase the value of their work through study, practice, efficiency and innovation. And they teach them how to cultivate civil, respectful and satisfying relationships with other people.
The freedom and ability to do these things is what allows people to turn dreams into reality. It’s the foundation upon which human hope, happiness and fulfillment are built. It’s the essence of human dignity. We can try to eliminate the potential for failure, but in so doing, we’ll also eliminate the potential for greatness.
Unfortunately, some people think government is supposed to nurture them once they’ve grown into their adult bodies and out from under their parents’ roof. They respond to discomfort and disappointment as children do: with loud complaints and indignation.
Such was the response of state and local officials in Louisiana who, instead of preparing for, facing and surmounting the storm, sat back wailing, pointing fingers and demanding that someone do something.
Such is the fate of thousands of men and women who banked on the promise that government would meet their needs, only to discover it hadn’t and couldn’t when the need was greatest.
Many of the victims of Katrina do not have even the most basic skills necessary to live independently or shape their own futures, in large part due to the decades-long failure of Louisiana’s public education system, where student literacy is the exception, not the rule.
Now, leaving aside a very legitimate debate about whether or not it is our collective responsibility to restore New Orleans (a city built below sea level), the question we must answer is: Will the city be rebuilt on the same shaky foundations that led to its recent demise, or will it be rebuilt on a solid foundation of personal freedom, responsibility and accountability?
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has the right attitude: “We’re not into the mode of whining. Our people are self-reliant, they’re helping their neighbors and they’re helping themselves, and that’s why we’ve been able to achieve as much in just three weeks as we have.”
Will the residents of Louisiana demand that government nurse them back into their false sense of security, or will they rise to the challenge and take responsibility for their own future?
The rest of us shouldn’t wait for a crisis to answer that question in our own lives. We have all been susceptible to what poet William Cullen Bryant dubbed the “sly imps” of tyranny that, “by stealth, twine round thee threads of steel, light thread on thread, that grow to fetters.”
Freedom is worth the cost of casting off those fetters.
1) You say "As children, of course, we never had to ask for or earn these essentials (food, warmth, love, health care, basic education, etc.). We took them for granted." Marsha, you and I took them for granted, but not everyone in the USA can. If the USA could guarantee these things to everyone through the age of 18, many liberals such as I would be happy to see other social welfare programs eliminated or sharply reduced.
2) Your distinction between individual and government responsibility assumes that individuals in New Orleans are just sitting around waiting for someone to take care of them. I suspect that the vast majority have struggled tremendously to keep their lives from completely falling apart during the past month, and to improve things as much as they can. Of course there must be some people trying to take advantage of the system, but that doesn't mean the system should be eliminated.
3) You further try to distinguish between local/state government and federal government, as if it is moral for the former to be responsible but not the latter. There is no basis for such a distinction. Rather, it is common sense (and policy) that the federal government take overall responsibility for major disasters that are not cost-effective for every locality to prepare for.
Posted by: Bruce on October 3, 2005 10:55 AMA prominent attorney from New Orleans posited that one possible silver lining in the Katrina cloud would be to rid New Orleans of that class of people, thereby forcing them to see that life can, in fact, be better.
Finally, it is not the federal government's responsibility to provide or guaranty squat. There are only two proper roles for the federal government: provide for the common defense, and regulate interstate commerce. Everything else is simply buying votes in one way or another.
It is precisely because of liberals like you with your faux assistance that we have such a ridiculously large dependent class. Most of us have seen the tape of the New Orleans man complaining about the $2,000 debit card, demanding instead $20,000 for every individual who got hit by Katrina.
But, unfortunately, you will get your wish. The feds are already committed to throwing money at the area with zero real accountability...kind of like Olympia government.
Posted by: Danny on October 3, 2005 11:11 AMYou have failed to quantitatively identify any defects, much less three....
(but I'm sure that arguing made you all warm & fuzzy ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 3, 2005 11:12 AMBruce -
Typical liberal cut and run. If your points have any validity, why not stick it out and argue them. Some fairly worthy debate has occurred on SP. Grow some and try to support your arguements.
I read this after passing by a high school in Sno. County sporting the (school directory) "opt out" (i.e. anti-military) loony protesters. Do they think the U.N. can do a better job at giving such bounty and opportunities to Americans?
We all came into the world naked and taking our next breath but for the grace of God. Everything from that moment is up to us and our families. Some of us have a good start. Others do not. Life is not fair and we can be personally responsible for ourselves when able to lessen the workload of helping those who are unable.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on October 3, 2005 01:07 PMFree will- I will stive to achieve, I will do unto other as I will have them do unto me, I will make the best of what I have and what I'm given, I will...
Free won't- I won't strive to achieve, I won't do unto other as I won't have them do unto me, I won't make the best of what I have and what I'm given, I won't...i.e. liberal mindset.
This friend came from poverty and is now a multi-millionaire. He said this while he was still poor.
Freedom does indeed matter!
Posted by: Jeffro on October 3, 2005 01:55 PMMy grandfather barely finished high school and never went to college. He got married and had four kids before the age of 30 (my poor grandmother!). And he was a SUCCESSFUL business man in a very small town that, because of liberal anti-logging environmentalism, has declined to almost nothing. But yet he survived and thrived.
Same story for my great-grandparents. And my mother & father who lived on canned sauerkraut in college (yuck!). And myself for that matter. I wasn't rich. My mom didn't prop me up with money to get through college. I got a job and kept moving up as fast as I could (sometimes too fast for my own good) to pay for my own schooling, graduate, and now have a great job. It's about accountability and responsibility.
America isn't about 'class'...you can BECOME anything no matter what your background. It's easy for a rich kid to end up a crack addict on the street...it takes a little more work but a poor kid CAN become rich with hard work, dedication, and persistence.
I'm so tired of namby pamby whiners who think other people "owe" them. I don't owe you anything! I worked hard for what I have and expect others to do the same.
P.S.
I of course will be accused of heartlessness (or of spouting *shudder* coldhearted platitudes), but just to clarify, I donate lots of time and money (as much as I can) to charities...being GOP doesn't make a person heartless. I know that's a hard thing for some liberals to understand. I do acknowledge the difference between those in TRUE need and those who greedily suck on the tit of government.
Sadly, one only need to look "next door" in the blogosphere at HA.org to see the infection of the progressives right here in the Puget Sound area. Over there it's all about what the government did not do during Katrina and blaming local conservatives for disasters like the collapse of the Alaskan Way viaduct, that have not even happened yet, so as to fuel the demand for our tax dollars.
We've got a long way to go to role back the tide of dependence started by FDR.
Excellent Marsha!
Posted by: Deborah on October 3, 2005 07:22 PMThat is your opinion. Fortunately it is supported by 0% of the Supreme Court and, I am confident, less than 1% of the American people.
Posted by: Bruce on October 3, 2005 09:42 PMI can't wait to see what the next initiative or city/county council vote does to limit even more freedom.
Posted by: Mark D on October 3, 2005 11:35 PMHowever, spend a wee bit of time in our founding documents and the federalist papers. (right)
Right is right and wrong is wrong, quite apart from what you personally feel about it, Bruce.
Posted by: Danny on October 4, 2005 07:38 AMOne dissenting point: re-building New Orleans is important to our country, and must be accomplished for the U.S. to be whole again. The city has great cultural significance, and I don't just mean Jazz music, Mardi Gras, etc.
While I agree that Bush's comment to "Re-build New Orleans" under any circumstances was somewhat over done, the city must rise again.
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on October 4, 2005 03:04 PMThere are many examples of people trading away their freedom and basic civil rights for a false sense of security. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a perfect example. VAWA denies due process and equal protection under the law, while funding radical feminist organizations that pursue a goal of eliminate the role of fathers in families.
It's easy to sell a law like VAWA, because who would be "for" violence against women. Anyone against VAWA is painted as being "for" violence against women.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. If a civil court can tell a man he can't go into his own house, what's to stop government from going the next step and telling a man what he can and cannot say?
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on October 5, 2005 10:07 AMThere are many examples of people trading away their freedom and basic civil rights for a false sense of security. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a perfect example. VAWA denies due process and equal protection under the law, while funding radical feminist organizations that pursue a goal of eliminate the role of fathers in families.
It's easy to sell a law like VAWA, because who would be "for" violence against women. Anyone against VAWA is painted as being "for" violence against women.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. If a civil court can tell a man he can't go into his own house, what's to stop government from going the next step and telling a man what he can and cannot say?
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on October 5, 2005 10:08 AMThere are many examples of people trading away their freedom and basic civil rights for a false sense of security. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a perfect example. VAWA denies due process and equal protection under the law, while funding radical feminist organizations that pursue a goal of eliminate the role of fathers in families.
It's easy to sell a law like VAWA, because who would be "for" violence against women. Anyone against VAWA is painted as being "for" violence against women.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. If a civil court can tell a man he can't go into his own house, what's to stop government from going the next step and telling a man what he can and cannot say?
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on October 5, 2005 10:08 AMPatrick, I must respectfully disagree. NOLA most definitely should not be rebuilt at any cost. It should be rebuilt on the basis of its strategic location and its contributory value with regard to American commerce, yes. It should be rebuilt as the traditional home for many people.
But if you want to use "culture" as a basis for rebuilding NOLA, I would argue that NOLA's current "culture" is precisely the reason it should be razed, not rebuilt.
"Jazz" is not a commodity. Any musician will tell you that music is not found in a city, but in a person's heart and soul. And a laissez-faire political culture that supports corruption is a leech on society and commerce.
Rebuild NOLA? Certainly. But don't even think about cutting the ribbon on my dime unless you first do away with the institutions and cultures that caused this to be the human disaster that it has become.
Posted by: ERNurse on October 5, 2005 11:48 AMI could extrapolate that to fit the likes of Bruce et al:
"People who forfeit self-reliance in exchange for a handout deserve neither."
Please, oh sexy please, run for public office would you oh sexy please?
(I'd change my handle if you did)
P.S. Sexy please is my play on pretty please. If anybody takes offense, sorry.
Posted by: David Irons Supporter on October 5, 2005 02:17 PMGrow up; you might enjoy autonomy and adulthood.
Otherwise, Claire is looking for a soul mate and she might have a (rent control) apartment.
Besides, she likes to be spanked, and she doesn't care about reasoning, facts, or truthfulness so you're in.
Just a helpful little suggestion.
Thanks for the humor.
1. Self-reliance, though noticeably out of fashion, is still the key to survival.
2. Given the opportunity, whiners and liberals (but I repeat myself) will risk life & limb falling all over themselves to blame someone else for their problems.
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 6, 2005 06:44 AM