Ever since the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American citizens have demanded more and more things from their federal government. They expect the government to, amongst other things: Regulate morality and decrease vice. Fund arts and sciences, no matter how trivial. Prevent individuals from harming themselves. Root out offensiveness in society. Make certain everyone can get a job. Ensure those who don’t have jobs don’t suffer too much. Manage the economy in futile efforts to end the cyclical occurrences of recession. I could go on endlessly, but I’ve made my point that modern Americans expect the federal government to take care of us. And they reward politicians who make the most grandiose promises in that regard. So our leaders in Washington, D.C., have transformed into the nation’s babysitters.
This, naturally, entails a massive bureaucracy that can’t help but act inefficiently and slowly.
Considering the morass in New Orleans, I’ve been wondering if all the bureaucracy weighing down government might have slowed its response. If the government didn’t need to allocate resources for the nanny state, perhaps it could concentrate its attention on areas such as law enforcement, national defense, and disaster response. Maybe that then would have allowed FEMA and the National Guard to respond more swiftly and effectively.
As events happened, President George W. Bush began to mobilize government responders for Hurricane Katrina before the storm tore across the Gulf coast. But they didn’t achieve a significant presence in New Orleans until a few days after the hurricane had hit! More victims probably died after Katrina, waiting for rescue or aid, than during the hurricane itself.
Maybe, if the government could have reacted more quickly, thousands of people would still be alive who perished in Katrina’s aftermath. Does a lesson exist there, not to pull the federal government in too many directions at once?








