Posted on 01/31/2010 11:44:12 PM PST by rabscuttle385
In the wake of the Haiti earthquake tragedy, something unusual has been happening amongst conservatives. On talk radio, the blogosphere and elsewhere, some have been wondering how our government can afford to help Haiti given the current economic crisis in the United States. Considering the magnitude of the tragedy in Haiti, I found this to be a rather insensitive question. It’s also a good one.
Republican opposition to the Democrats’ national healthcare agenda is in large part due to the exorbitant cost, perceived inefficiency and intrusive, bureaucratic character of the plan. Still, argue liberals, there are too many Americans suffering for government to do nothing. Conservatives argue that there is only so much government can, or should, do. It’s time for conservatives to apply their argument more comprehensively.
In 2007 during a FOX News interview, when Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul suggested that the US was involved too much militarily around the world, talk host Sean Hannity asked “Are you saying then that the world has no moral obligation, like in the first Gulf War, when an innocent country’s being pillaged, and people are being raped and murdered and slaughtered, or in the case of Saddam, he’s gassing his own people, are you suggesting we have no moral obligation there? Do you stand by and let that immorality happen?” Paul responded “We have, on numerous occasions.” Hannity’s co-host Alan Colmes chimed in “the fact is the Reagan administration stood by while the Kurds were being gassed, it happened in 1988, we didn’t do anything.” Paul followed up “And what did we do with Pol Pot, what did we do with Moscow, what did we do at the time? We stood by while they did it to their people.” Flustered, Hannity replied “We got it, Ron, you would stand by and do that, I would not… I think that’s immoral.”
President Obama and the Democrats believe it’s immoral for government to stand by and not help uninsured Americans receive healthcare. Hannity disagrees and devotes a significant portion of his radio and television programs to opposing national healthcare. Is Hannity being immoral? Or is he simply taking the conservative position that despite the suffering that exists, government benevolence has its limits?
A nation possessing the wealth and power of the US should be in a position to help Haiti, at least temporarily, and this is something countless Americans have already done privately, donating millions. But these same Americans might not think it’s a good idea to provide government healthcare in their own country. Does this mean they simply do not care? Americans who donated to Haiti may not believe, for instance, that we should send our military to stop the genocide in the war-torn nation of Darfur, something liberals have long advocated using the same “we can’t stand by and do nothing” logic many conservatives used with Iraq. In continuing to just stand by, does this make the US “immoral?” Will Hannity soon devote significant portions of his radio and television programs to highlighting Darfur, a country that’s “being pillaged, and people are being raped and murdered and slaughtered?”
Haiti is close to the US in proximity and the earthquake was so overwhelmingly disastrous that it makes sense to most Americans to lend a helping hand, something that occurred even without government prompting. The US should be able to afford to help Haiti and the extent to which we technically are not—our government operates on a monstrous debt—is due in large part to the hyper extension of our supposed benevolence in other areas. Yet, how many conservatives who now oppose national healthcare due to the cost, or even more strangely, now question the US’s ability to send dollars to Haiti given our own bad economy, didn’t blink an eye over spending trillions on wars in the Middle East, often citing humanitarian reasons as an excuse?
This week the US Senate is debating whether to raise the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion, totaling a whopping $14.3 trillion, which is about the same size as the nation’s overall economy. Some estimate the cost of national healthcare would be in the ballpark of $1 trillion. The initial relief donation to Haiti by the US government was a relatively measly $100 million while the cost of the Iraq war alone has been estimated at $3 trillion dollars. Regardless, our government, and the debt to maintain it, keeps growing astronomically.
The old fashioned, biblical concept of charity is that it begins at home, and once a man has taken care of his family, property and immediate surroundings he can then afford to address greater concerns. Increasingly and sometimes tragically, America can no longer afford to address greater concerns—not that affordability will prevent our government from continuing to do so. The conservative’s task should be to prevent it from doing so, or “limiting” government–and not promoting its unlimited use at home or abroad, and certainly not to save the world.
BUMP
Private charity can do awesome things if it is let alone. That being said, most of us have no problem with governments supplying things that only governments have, such as huge hospital ships.
Maybe we can’t re-build the place but we can give them a hand and maybe try to sort out some of the rampant problems. Let them bury their dead and give them some food and water. It should be for a limited time like 6 months—then we leave. If we stay on, the USA should get something—like a naval base for 99 years. Or an Airbase to cut down smuggling, keep an eye on Cuba, and watch for storms. We do not need another dependent population to feel and support forever.
The worldwide tug of war for spheres of influence goes on apace. Sometimes global strategy suggests to the USA that it is better to “overhelp” places like Haiti than let that fall to hostile world powers. Competing lines of reasoning do not always arrive at the same answer.
It would have been far cheaper in the long run regarding Haiti if we had some executive leadership in the White House.
The situation was obvious from day one. We needed to immediately clear the seaport and bring in cargo ships to set up large refugee tent cities, where people could receive water, food and medical treatment and be safe. Yes, refugee camps are miserable places but it is far preferable to the alternative.
After getting the tent cities set up, we could hand the keys to the UN and leave!
That was the only hope for avoiding what is now taking place, a massive health catastrophe unfolding in the weeks after the earthquake.
We may well end up with either immigrant boatlifts and airlifts to the United States to avert the growing disaster or going in and operating the disaster area of Haiti as a de facto protectorate for a substantial time, or both. Perhaps that was Obama’s plan all along.
Sometimes I wonder if Bummer is smart enough to even create a plan.
I can afford it and have given demonstrably.
It won’t cure anything but maybe it will help keep a child from dying today.
Medicines san Frontier and Samaritans Purse specific Haiti
funds
https://donate.doctorswithoutborders.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=197
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/Giving/Haiti_Donation/
The world's problem isn't that there aren't concerned and charitable citizens who want to help, or that nations dont respond quickly enough, and especially not exploitation by "big business" (whatever that is). The problem is instability at the trouble spots.
At least the Haiti government powers have some modicum of common sense and don’t wolf down most of the aid themselves. Corruption is probably the biggest obstacle to feeding the poor worldwide.
Yep. Think of the BILLIONS spent in Africa to help the impoverished. It ended up supporting the evildoers who keep their people down. So the eiltes could build palaces while their people starve.
It's just not true that "nations always respond quickly enough." It takes leadership to make things happen. It always has, an organization such as a government is not a machine. The ability and performance of the executives in charge make an enormous difference in the real world.
In the case of Haiti, it was known immediately that 90% of the structures had collapsed in an area with a population of about 3 million. It is simply not possible to bring in sufficient relief through a single third-world airport to respond to the situation.
There was no other actor in a position to render help as effectively or promptly as the United States.
Obama, instead of exercising leadership, opted for a photo op with the ex-presidents, tried to wash his hands of the problem and flew off to Massachusetts to campaign.
For political and ideological reasons, the decision was made to defer to the dysfunctional and badly-damaged Haitian government and to the UN. Over time, various military units were given ad hoc tasks, but there was no prompt, comprehensive assessment and action done by the Obama administration.
The underwater situation at the seaport was not even examined until a week after the earthquake, and only when it became apparent that the airport had become a bottleneck.
Only after about a week to 10 days after the earthquake was there talk of moving the people out of the rubble and the decomposing corpses where there was no clean water into tent camps to be set up on the outskirts of the city. And only then was the question considered, "how are tents to be supplied?"
But at this time it is too late to save many people - we are now hearing widespread reports of infection and diarrhea - what appears to be unfolding into a true human catastrophe.
Sure, one can always to point to the critic and say, "it's easy to criticize, the relief workers are working as hard as they can." And I'm sure they are. But it would have been far more effective with leadership. The emporer has no clothes, but this is not allowed to be said.
Good point about the stupidity of Foreign Aid to Africa & other hellholes from site that also publishes Jack Hunter: Yes, Africa Must Go To Hell: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/yes_africa_imust_i_go_to_hell/
I welcome James Jackson’s courage in pointing out the fact that Africa’s chronic dysfunction is the result of, not white European rule in the past, but black Africans rule in the present—that, rather than its being the result of European colonialism and post-imperial indifference, as is the Left’s contention, chronic dysfunction in the region is the result of European post-colonialism and post-imperial aid programs.
I will not accuse him of Leftism, but Mr. Jackson still commits the fallacy— characteristic of the Left—of judging sub-Saharan Africa by European standards, and still seems to assume that Africa would develop into a European-style civilization if only Africans stopped playing victim and got their act together, for once and for all. This latter assumption stems from the belief, held by the Left, that black Africans are Europeans with black skin....
Presidents are just not good at getting to the scene on time. I would not want their job in a million years, but if you see a huge hurricane and can’t tell that people need help well that is pretty sad. I guess the same can be said about an earthquake that destroys a country and nothing is done. Perhaps Presidents should not be put on the pedistal as superior beings.
I concur. Perhaps I didnt put it clearly. The intent of my statement was that it is organisation and distribution that is at fault in these circumstances, not actual aid or a willingness to help on the part of individuals and nations.
Agreed.
The Hatian situation is summed up in the following joke.
Three national leaders are allowed one question to be asnwered by G*d.
The USA President asks “How long before America achieves energy independence?”
Answer “Nine years”.
The American President begins to cry, saying “I’ll be out of office and will get no credit for all my efforts towards energy independence.”
Then the Israeli Prime Minister asks “When will the Muslims stop their terror attacks on us?”
Answer:12 years.
The Prime Minister sobs “I’ll be out of office and someone else will get the credit for peace with the Arabs.”
Then the Haitian leader asks when Haitian poverty and social degradation will end.
G*d began to cry.
Do remember that Haiti became a black nation when they killed all of the French whites and then were so socially inept, brutal, thuggish, and improvident that they reduced what was a garden spot to a denuded barren wasteland.
Even today, the Haitian/Dominican Republic border is clear from the air. One side is productive, the other is a stripped wasteland.
MORAL: Some things can’t be fixed by others. As Andrew Carnege said, “You can’t push a man up a ladder.”
A mere base doesn’t begin to matter.
Read World Oil - there is vastly more oil on the Carribean Plateau than Chaver has.
This time, drill for that oil, give the locals a small amount, and keep title to the oil wells.
We allowed the Sand Savages, A.K.A. Saudi’s to “nationalize” the wells dug by the West.
As the Israeli’s say, “Never Again!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.