Politicians who preach faith in government sow disappointment then disillusionment. Government can no more erase the suffering of natural disasters than it can create an oasis of freedom in a desert of oppression. Worshippers at the temple of the state--from both sides of the political spectrum--have recently been left disappointed and disillusioned by the failure of programs and policies to live up to their promise. There are more powerful forces than government. Hurricane winds and centuries of tradition are two that come to mind.

Don't forget market forces upon the price of finance!

Dan, I'm afraid you're correct; anyone placing their ultimate faith in men is bound to be disappointed.

Interesting items on Fox News last night. Brian Wilson reported that Bush had ordered the federal emergency machinery into gear two days before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. Furthermore, it appears that the wonderfully critical Mayor of New Orleans only ordered the mandatory evacuation of his city after being goaded by the President.

This is not to say that FEMA and others couldn't haven't operated more efficiently and more quickly. But the more I hear and read, the more it appears the vast majority of the criticism of Bush's performance during and after Katrina is yet another left-wing MSM hatchet-job.

My bad: it was the Governor who goaded the Mayor into issuing the evacuation order, but only after receiving a personal call from the President.

When you see Bush's allies, as opposed to his vicious detractors, give him low ratings you will know he screwed up. The media, the Louisiana democrats, his enemies? Please!

Why in the midst of disaster does anyone waste energy, better spent helping, by jumping on the people trying to help? Because they'd rather take advantage than lend a hand.

Government should be there TO HELP PEOPLE HELP THEMSELVES. Not to take care of their every need and take them by the hand to direct them on what to do every step of the way.

However, the politicians will gladly babysit and nanny citizens if the citizens want them to. For a nominal fee.

"Don't forget market forces upon the price of finance!" -Bruce

Bruce: I'm sorry to be so dense. I assume you are making a valid point. Could you make it a bit less obliquely?

I'll try... a whole paragraph got snipped from my post (immediately on posting)... dunno why...

Basically, monetary policy in a number of countries has been heavily deregulated to the extent that interest rates can't be influenced by government. Back in the 70s, it was standard practice for governments to set the interest rates.

These day, in Australia, the reserve bank set's interest rates in responce to market forces (ie calculated price of finance based on GLOBAL supply and demand). This is done independent of government, and is pretty much standard practice.

However, in our last federal election, political parties campaigned on interest rates (and other economic phenomena) over which they had no influence (the size of government spending was orders of magnitude too small to have an effect).

Taking credit for low interest rates, or making accusations of potential high interest rates in such circumstances is like attributing responsibility for the weather. This kind of Voodoo economics occurs the world over, in various ways.

Hope this post works - crossing fingers...

Thanks Bruce. Sorry I'm slow today. Not only did your explanation help very little (The fed is part of government, no? Is your complaint that the Australian fed doesn't have enough power?), but now I suspect that your comment has little to do with the original post, apart from making a very distant a-nalogy to weather. What am I missing? Oh, nevermind. I'll let other people comment on the "first commandment of politics" stuff.

Well, it was in reference to Dan's "Worshipers at the temple of the state..." and "There are more powerful forces than government..." statements. Wasn't actually a comment advocating or condeming state power, but rather criticising government for propagating the beleif that they have some miraculous power over XYZ.

I'm more or less agreeing with Dan (on a very general level).

I thought I got Bruce's point.

Interestingly, in American politics the citizenry has been less apt in the last couple of election cycles to give politicians much credit or blame for economic questions, specifically monetary policy, inflation rates and such. This has frustrated most Democratic strategists but may be partly due to acknowledgement of what Bruce points to as the independence of the "fed." So to specifically "Americanize" Bruce's point, Alan Greenspan is another "force" greater than government along with hurricanes and tradition.

And human nature I would add.

Well, I'd argue the economic conditions (demand for finance) steering Alan Greenspan were more powerful than Alan Greenspan. Just as the same forces steering the Reserve Bank of Austalia are larger than the RBA. It's probably safe to say that Alan Greenspan has more power over global monetary conditions than the RBA, but I still think that market forces have more influence than small groups of people (politicians or otherwise).