- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Joe Conason: The Politics of Earthquakes
If the earthquakes in Chile and Haiti carry any message for those of us fortunate enough not to live in those places, perhaps it is that government regulation could save your life — while right-wing ideology may kill you someday.
For those of us unfamiliar with geological terminology, it may come as a shock that the Chilean quake, rated 8.8 on the Richter scale, was about 500 times more powerful than the Haitian quake in January, which rated 7.0. Yet in Haiti, probably more than 200,000 lives were lost; in Chile, the number of dead is estimated at about 800. While that is still a terrible tragedy, the Chilean death toll is far less than 1 percent of that in Haiti.
The two disasters were different in ways that certainly explain at least part of the huge disparity in loss of life and property damage. The tectonic shift that hit Haiti was much closer to population centers, and of course Chile is a wealthier and more developed country, with a functioning government, a literate population and a recent history of coping with earthquakes. In 1960, the largest quake ever recorded struck near the Chilean city of Valdivia, killing thousands there and stimulating a tsunami that damaged coastal cities in Hawaii, Japan and the Philippines.
But that big quake in 1960 also led the Chileans to think about how they should cope with the threat of another such disaster — as a nation. To strengthen new construction against earthquake damage, they legislated a strict revamping of building codes. And when democracy returned to Chile after two decades of military dictatorship, those regulations were rewritten, in 1993, to make them even more stringent. The seismic requirements demand that every structure use a “strong column” design to ensure that it remains standing even in a severe quake.
In a society with sane politics, rules and regulations needed to safeguard life don’t provoke much debate, even on the furthest ends of the ideological spectrum.
Everyone realizes that there are certain dangers to which anyone can fall victim; protecting and insuring against those dangers is a social responsibility, a government function and a measure of human progress.
Here in the United States, however, anti-government ideology is a pandemic mental tic that has now developed into a virulent disorder afflicting a large number of citizens — including many of our self-styled conservatives. Infuriated because their party can’t permanently control the White House and Congress, they have gradually persuaded themselves that all government is evil, that all taxation is theft and that all regulation is tyranny. Or at least that is the tone of their rhetoric.
If the Chileans had adopted this kind of manic and reflexive attitude, many more of them would undoubtedly be dead today. The “free market” extremists who call themselves conservative probably wouldn’t worry much about the loss of life, because they are far more concerned with ideological consistency than with practical effects. But the rest of us might consider the wiser approach of Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian economist whose work is often cited by the extremists when they claim to be defending freedom.
In The Road to Serfdom, perhaps his most popular work, Hayek explained that he saw no reason why “the state should not assist individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.”
To Hayek, there was “no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.”
It is worth noting, not so incidentally, that the great philosopher of the market was writing about health care rather than earthquakes or tainted food or untested drugs in the passage quoted above. But the principle is the same — and ought to be remembered whenever we hear the preposterous din of the Tea Parties and their corporate sponsors.
— Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 03.05.10 @ 09:23 AM
Joe, what on earth are you babbling about? Are you really trying to say that because of earthquakes we should invite fascist totalitarian government into our lives? Man-o-man are you ever screwed up. How does some one grow to your age and still not grow up?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.10 @ 12:17 PM
I understand the temptation to exaggerate to make your point the clearer but it is sloppy and false to do so and still consider your argument sound.
The Conservative that I am does believe that government is clumsy and inefficient. It is a “last choice” option to handle disasters with The Red Cross and thousands of other dedicated disaster relief organizations in operation being preferrable.
No, you and I won’t die in greater numbers under a conservative policy administration…but we will all be better informed on what our Emergency Services cost and limiting the “ear-marks” that go along with those policies.
Mark
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Wayne Mellinger: Triple Challenged Can’t Grapple with Their Demons Alone
For the homeless, the mentally ill and the addicted, society needs to step up with institutional help
George Runner: New Tax Interpretation Will Help Farmers Switch to Solar Power
California Board of Equalization clarifies exemption, ensuring its availability for agricultural expenses
Patty DeDominic: What’s On the Minds of High Achievers?
Take control of 2012 with a look at your health, wealth and time management
Adam Probolsky: Voters Are Receptive to Raising Local Revenues
Recent elections indicate voters don't lump in local government with institutional dysfunction in Sacramento and Washington
Helene Schneider: Mayor’s Year-End Message to Santa Barbara Community
There were many accomplishments in 2011 for which the city's residents can be proud, with much work still to be done in 2012
Weather: Fair 54.0º
Search Noozhawk »
