Katrina: One Year Later

Below I've attempted to discern (as impartially as possible) the two opposing viewpoints on the fundamental causes (outside of the hurricane itself) of the Katrina disaster, and what should be done today in its aftermath.

Liberal view:

Katrina represented a failure of capitalism, as illustrated by the gross inequality in New Orleans. The poor had no resources to escape the city, and this helps illustrate why the government must intervene to fight poverty. Thus we need more federal spending on social programs, government schools, and we need to enact a "living wage" to help lift these people out of poverty. In rebuilding, the bureaucracy should spend whatever it takes to create lots of new jobs, and to carefully plan the city's reconstruction, and to do whatever necessary to make New Orleans "what it once was."

Conservative view:

Katrina represented a failure of the welfare state that keeps nearly 70% of New Orleans' residents trapped in poverty. Because of the countless inefficient, counterproductive social programs already in place, the poor have no incentive to leave the city and its public housing, to get jobs, and pursue their own interests. In short, they have been made slaves to government by paternalistic federal and state entitlement programs that treat them like irresponsible children, commanding them where to live and how much they can spend per week. If you treat people irresponsibly, they will act irresponsibly.

In rebuilding, we all know that "job creation" plans are a sham. Politicians don't create jobs, entrepreneurs do. If we want the area to truly be prosperous, we should abolish the Louisana state income tax, the minimum wage (which prices low-skilled black teenagers out of the job market), and most importantly the disasterous entitlement society that has kept so many of the city's people trapped in a black hole. We should also privitize the bloated, inefficient government monopoly that is the public school system and give the poor vouchers so they can be free to choose where they want their kids to go.

In essence, we should allow New Orleans to develop spontaneously, free from government red tape, bureacracy, and cumbersome planning. Private developers, not government planners, should lead the way. Profit-seeking, not public subsidies, will then unleash the dynamic forces of the market, creating wealth for both the rich and poor.

I, of course, tend to side with the latter view. I would add that I watched the New Orleans mayoral debates back in December and noticed that all candidates, Republican and Democrat, unfortunately seemed to embrace the first view instead of the second. The media, it seems, has also taken this side. All are calling for more government to solve problems that were created by too much government in the first place. And worst of all, it seems our so-called "conservative" president is a fan of this first view as well. And maybe you are too, and maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe I've spelled out these views wrong. Let me know what you think.