South Carolina Governor Nikki Halley called it a “thousand year flood,” i.e., the scope and scale of the disaster was what one could expect every thousand years. Among other things this appeared to be Halley’s way of avoiding any discussion of extreme weather events brought on by the environmental catastrophe enveloping the planet. Nevertheless the terminology was quite powerful and captured the extent of the disaster that fell upon South Carolina. The rain, flooding, bursting of dams, sweeping away of homes, obliteration of roadways, and the deaths associated with this calamity captured the attention of much of the USA.
In watching news coverage of the flood I repeatedly heard the voices of South Carolina residents seeking much needed help. I immediately found myself wondering how many of them were Tea Party members or supporters? How many, in particular, had—at least until the flood—been insisting that government was too expansive and needed to be shrunk? How many of them, when thinking about government programs, assumed that they would not themselves need them and that such government programs were assisting the ‘un-deserving’ segments of the population?
I did not hear Governor Halley dismiss or decline federal government assistance. I did not hear her intimate that South Carolina could handle this whole crisis on their own. Perhaps I missed a speech on her part.
Recent disasters, including but not limited to the South Carolina flood, should offer evidence of the critical need for a vibrant public sector. Yet I quickly learned, once again, that the facts do not speak for themselves, irrespective of how obvious the conclusions might, at first, appear to be.
In the aftermath of the South Carolina flood I had an exchange with a very wealthy Republican (don’t ask how this came about!). In the course of the exchange I made the point of how the South Carolina disaster represented a strong argument for the important role of government, and specifically a strong public sector. This wealthy Republican immediately disputed my position and argued that government should NOT be called upon to assist those devastated by the South Carolina flood. Instead, s/he argued, it was up to the people in South Carolina to have taken it upon themselves to get insurance. If they had not obtained insurance, s/he argued, it was their problem.
To say that I was taken aback by this argument would be like saying that the Mount St. Helena eruption had been a firecracker, or, indeed, that Hurricane Joaquin had been a wind gust. The lives of countless thousands of people in South Carolina have been destroyed as a result of this flood. Many of these same people were living in zones that were not subject to floods. As a result, they did not obtain flood insurance.
Yet, leave that all aside for a moment. This wealthy Republican was actually making the argument articulated by the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when she alleged that there was no such thing as society; there were only individuals and families. In other words, according to Thatcher and this wealthy Republican, we are all on our own. For the two of them, there is no particular reason to care about anyone else as long as we take care of #1. Thus, whether we are talking about the destruction of Interstate Highway Route 95; the contamination of drinking water; the flooding of automobiles and homes; or the loss of life, it was no one’s concern except those who were directly affected and if they had not taken precautions, it was their problem.
My horror at this line of argument was summed up in my response. I said that there was a short distance between this argument and a warlord-type scenario of guarded, gated and militarized communities where those lucky enough to have such protection condemn the rest of the population to oblivion. I pointed out that there was a word for such a scenario: dystopia.
The argument that I had with this rich Republican reminded me not only that the facts do not speak for themselves, but that there are those who have constructed an impenetrable ideological fortress in order to justify their writing off much of humanity. There is very little point in trying to convince such individuals—and institutions—of the irrationality and barbarism of their position. They hold much too firmly to such beliefs. Just as in the case of the European Union’s blackmail of Greece, there were not enough good, sound and logical arguments in the galaxy to convince the EU power brokers that Greece should receive an economic reprieve. It was not about logical arguments; it was about power, and specifically who had it, who did not, and how it was to be used.
Unfortunately my exchange with the rich Republican reminded me of just this fact. There is no debate that I can engage and win that will change this person’s mind. What can change, however, is the power balance in the USA if we are sufficiently organized and mobilized in order to guarantee that those who hold such barbaric beliefs are kept as far away from power as is humanly possible.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the host of The Global African on TeleSUR English.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
1 Comment
As a public high school teacher in my former life I was always impressed with the ability of a group of students to perform a task, solve a problem together, so much more quickly and accurately than individually. Sure, there was alway the smart kid who could solve it alone, but where did that leave the rest? I was keenly aware of how the group can illicit participation from each member to the extent that they are capable. There is harmony in community. “From each according to their ability…” someone famous wrote. America today is busy unteaching societal harmony. We are busy trashing our nation. “Without the commons, there is no nation.” I believe Americans, particularly my neighbors are good people. I believe that the Eloy in H.G. Wells’ “The Time Machine” were good. They were in a stupor, but what’s new. We face existential problems, and most people couldn’t begin to articulate what they are. The freest thing in America is propaganda, and few can even see it. Was that not true in Orwell’s “1984?” You talk to people, and they don’t have a clue. They have no idea that such a phenomenon could be by design, yet the evidence is all around us. Of course, it takes a bit of moral courage and intellectual curiosity to get through the ideological screen surrounding our senses.