Wednesday, October 12, 2005

The Root of the Problem is Conservatism Itself.

We saw in the case of the New Orleans flood control levees, that despite a 2001 FEMA report detailing that a major hurricane hitting New Orleans was one of the 'three most likely, catastrophic disasters' that could hit the United States, funding for the levees were cut in order to finance Iraq, tax cuts, and some of President Bush's other priorities. Now it turns out that the same has been true of the funding for the Center for Disease Control, as the spectre of an Avian flu outbreak which could dwarf the 1918 pandemic which killed over 20 million people comes into focus.

Other countries have been stockpiling antiviral medicines. It turns out, however, that the United States has only enough for 2.3 million people. There is a plan unveiled recently in response to the Avian flu threat to build up the stockpile to cover 20 million (IF there is time to do so), but that is expected to take years, years which we may not have, and in any case, it may not even be enough.

So why do we have these kinds of problems, in New Orleans and with antiviral medication?

Call it a failure of conservatism.

I don't blame conservatives personally, but rather the philosophy which leads them to believe that government is overfed, needs to be slashed, and that any problem that is non-military in nature, can be better served by the private sector.

Of course, this is nonsense. There is no profit to be made in stockpiling drugs which may be used this year, or they may not be needed for several more years. There is no profit to be made in providing them at all to poor people without health insurance (the price for a course of the antiviral medication oseltamivir, marketed by Roche as Tamiflu and one of the two known antiviral medications known to be effective in treating Avian flu, is $75 in the US). There is no profit to be made in selling it ahead of products like Viagra or diet pills that earn the pharmaceutical companies billions. But in a case like this, it should not be about profit, but about the responsibility of Government to protect its citizens.

This is where conservatives fail. In a national emergency like this, people should be able to turn to the one institution that is supposed to have both the authority and the ability to access anyplace in the country: the Federal Government. But as we saw six weeks ago, and are seeing again here, that the successes of conservatives to cut, delay and hamstring the Government has weakened it to the point of ineffectiveness.

Then today, we learn, that whoever the fault may have been for the infighting between FEMA and the governor of Louisiana in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, 9,000 homes meant for victims have been parked, uselessly, in a Birmingham, Alabama staging lot for six weeks. SIX WEEKS! Hard to blame that on the governor of Louisiana, it is pure and simple, incompetence on the part of FEMA.

When conservatives win, everyone loses.

5 comments:

dorsano said...

The "conservative movement" was hyjacked in the mid 60's and early 70's by the likes of Paul Weyrich and Ed Feulner.

It's not conservative - it's libertarian. Libertarian tax policies fail daily in states like Mississippi and Alabama and many others. These states all take in more money from the federal government than they contribute.

The only reason they succeed to the extent that they do is because their ideology is subsidized by the Federal government.

We have the 16th amendment for a very good reason, the nation was going broke without it. The only difference today is that rest of the world is willing to lend us money.

Karen said...

very well said! There are times for caution, then there are times for saving lives. Some might say that proactive, preventive measures like using a ton of money to protect and save American lives is ACTUALLY good conservative values!! Seriously, look how much we are spending to rectify the damage because of a failure to spend money for proactive, preventive measures that would have cost a fraction of what must now be spent.

Who says "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? Isn't that conservatism at its finest, most well-oiled moment?!!!

Doesn't "conservation" come from the same root as "conservative"!!

Karen said...

oh, what I started to say was that indeed, the friggin' point of our federal government should be the protection and saving of American lives - this is what our tax dollars SHOULD be used for.

The other point of our federal government should be to bring together the basic institutions of society (economy, law, education, religion, and family) into a cohesive plan for America's future, a vision of sustainability to help us thrive and survive? Actually, we do have that now, but instead of bringing together the best minds of these institutions, they've brought together the best lobbyists. Sigh.

shrimplate said...

Hey, if you're rich and stupid, conservatism is great. I wish I liked it. But alas, I have little reason to.

Brandon said...

Certain strains of conservatism seem anything but libertarian when you look at their social policies. They talk about a smaller government, but they don'ty mind if it intrudes in our personal lives. Denying gays the right to marry; using the power of the Federal government to fine broadcasters because sexually obsessed individuals are "offended." These are hardly the actions of libertarians. More to the point that the modern conservative movement has become a bizarre collection of would be theocrats, Country Club Republicans, Neocons, and Paleocons.

This became quite obvious on the Thursday evening, 21 October 2005 rebroadcast of ON POINT on our very own Wisconsin Public Radio, where they featured conservatives from various think tanks and pressure groups. These people are PISSED. They're mad at Bush and at each other. The hardliners though--they are anyghing except libertarian. The war between the libertarian (social darwinist) conservatives and the theocratic conservatives is breaking out into the public forum. May they eviscerate one another in the process.