We must try to radicalize the American people as so many of us have been radicalized–not by pushing them up against the wall, but by helping them to regain the sense of power over their destiny that should be their birthright.

 – The New Democrat, 29 August, 1970

Since #OWS is growing more powerful, and the powerful are flailing about with various degrees of violence in response, I guess it's inevitable that Kent State comes up in discussion.  A friend linked to this piece on FB yesterday, wherein Ann Coulter opines: It just took a few shootings at Kent State to shut that down for good.

Charles Pierce is right to be mad about the deadly implications in Coulter's comment, but he–understandably–missed an important myth contained therein.  As Allison Krause's younger sister, Laurel, wrote back in 2009 (emphasis mine):

To Allison, it was an obligation to show dissension to the government invading Cambodia. She made her decision, and we all know the outcome.
…
Allison’s death symbolizes the importance of our right to protest and speak our truths freely.
…
Looking back, did the Kent State protest and killings make a difference? Well, there was a huge response by Americans.

The Kent State shooting single-handedly created the only nationwide student strike with over 8 million students from high schools to universities speaking out and holding rallies afterwards.

Indeed, it turns out that violent repression often results in greater mobilization of the masses, and Kent State is a good example (emphasis again mine):

[T]he majority of Americans supported the Guard's actions at Kent State. Many parents viewed the shootings as the tragic lot of a generation weaned on permissiveness. This view directly contradicted student reaction and resulted in further division between generations. The country experienced its first national student strike, in which over one third of the Nation's campuses were involved. There were approximately one hundred strikes per day for the four days following the deaths, as universities throughout the nation were besieged by protesting students. One hundred thousand marched in Washington to protest the war and the killings at Kent. 

Jerry Rubin said afterward: It was the most significant day of all of our lives because in 48 hours more young people were radicalized, revolutionized and yippieized than in any single time in American history. 

What's more, in the wake of Kent and the Jackson State killings later that month, we saw “nearly a million marchers on both coasts in April, 1971; 12,000 activists performing civil disobedience in Washington in May; and 100,000 marching in 1972 against the mining of North Vietnam's harbors, and at the January, 1973, 'counter-inaugural' against the bombing of Hanoi.”

Interestingly enough, Kent State happened in the midst of the first rumblings of student strikes, and the massacre appears to have galvanized the movement and became a rallying event as much as the Maine, Pearl Harbor or even 9/11 (emphasis mine once more):

The slight hope and deep frustration on which the Movement had been floating was transformed to pure despair and pure rage. There was nothing to talk about, only sides to be taken. After Nixon's speech announcing the invasion, scores of campuses had gone out on strike in a contagious competition. After Kent State, it was hundreds, and it was untenable for students opposed to the war to cooperate with the part of the System with which they had the most contact and the most control, their universities.

Not just for students but for their parents, who were part of the Silent Majority Nixon needed, Kent State was a stunning event. A gasp of recognition rippled through mainstream America: these were their kids being shot down! The madness of the war, if not the war itself, had finally come home. These “average Americans” could accept the use of state power to draft lower and middle-class kids…They could accept the unleashing of the raw power of the state against unruly and disdainful foreigners. They could even accept police killings of black activists…What they could not accept was the state turning on their own kind, and when parents of Kent State's dead went on television, bitterly denouncing the attack, the Silent Majority listened.
…
When I and two other strikers began leafleting in an advanced science class, the professor recovered from his astonishment at the sight of these hairy barbarians and politely asked us to wait a few minutes until class ended. We complied equally politely, but after Kent State, bands of raging strikers roamed the campus in search of offending classes, and Chicago went down for the count.
…
Now America's ruling elite worried less about how to win the war and more about how to avoid losing the country. The young were gone, the troops were unreliable, and unions were starting to break ranks with the hawkish AFL-CIO. America's house was becoming divided, and the owners' strongest instinct was to tone down the war as much as was needed to save their power at home.
…
By the fall of 1970, America's elite, unrepentant but pragmatic, had moved to a new consensus, in essence telling Nixon and congress to cut the necessary deal: the end of the war for the end of the Movement. Now the war was really over…The Movement dwindled and died from 1970 to 1973 as all US forces came home…After the US air and ground combat role ended with the signing of the 1973 peace accords, the Movement could only watch the slaughter from the sidelines. It had become a Sword of Damocles, as the SWP's Fred Halstead said, hanging over Nixon and then Ford should they try to increase aid or reintroduce US forces, but the sword stayed in its sheath.

Kent State didn't shut down protest.  It did scare folks, but it wasn't The Movement: it was the very people we were resisting who had a vested interest in the status quo.  When did The Movement fade away?  After they'd essentially won.

While the level of thuggery from our current regime hasn't quite reached Nixonian levels yet–eerie coordination between DHS and city police forces notwithstanding–it's still dangerous, disturbing, and yet entirely expected.  What's been most amazing to me is the continued use of various nonviolent tactics in the face of brutality.  It's also been gratifying that so many observers now understand how violent repression only strengthens #OWS.

Let's keep flooding the streets and public places.  We're winning…

ntodd

LTE to the Freep:

I read Russ Charron's recent letter to the editor (Air Guard solar project only adds to deficit, Oct 23), and was puzzled by his assertion that Major General Michael Dubie's $8.5 million renewable energy project is “more of a reason for our deficit than the rich not paying enough in taxes.”  According to the Congressional Budget Office, a proposed surtax on millionaires would reduce the deficit by $6 BILLION which, if my math is correct, is a few orders of magnitude greater than the cost of installing solar panels for the Air Guard.

What's more puzzling is Mr Charron ignores the budget-busting Iraq War that in addition to costing many thousands of lives has added over $800 billion to our deficit (trillions of dollars in overall economic costs notwithstanding).  The risk of expensive, deadly wars like this to protect energy resources is partly why the Defense Department, our largest energy consumer, wants to have 25% of its energy come from renewable sources by 2020.

Beyond cost savings, reduced carbon emissions, and spurring greater innovation, the military has realized that investing in renewables makes a great deal of sense both tactically and strategically.  Senator Sanders was right to laud this development, as the Guard's solar installation is a great step toward increased energy independence for our military and nation.  It might “feel good” to attack such pragmatic, sustainable projects, not to mention Bernie, but it just shows us who is really living in denial.

Todd Pritsky, Fletcher

As we've watched labor become more engaged in protests–from Wisconsin earlier this year to OWS now–I think it's good to remember why this is so important.  Not just in terms of adding raw numbers to a growing popular movement, but also because of what unions do to help us all, whether we're members or not.

For starters, here's some Economic Policy Institute findings:

Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree.

Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries.

The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages.

That wage inequality item is of particular interest.  As Joseph Stiglitz notes:

Inequality in itself may give rise to instability…What happened in the United States before the crisis? The middle class was not doing very well. Because they were not doing very well, consumption—demand for goods—was limited. The central bank worried that because of the limited consumption the economy would be weak, lowered interest rates, and threw out regulations. The economy had a bubble. Housing prices soared. But as housing prices soared, the banks could lend them money to consume, so people were spending beyond their income. It was clearly not sustainable.

Unions help achieve stability and growth for the economy and society at large.  American Prospect:

Decent wages are necessary for social stability and for the purchasing power that the economy needs to trigger and sustain a strong recovery. The explosion of low-wage jobs is not the result of workers having inadequate education or skills. Over the past two decades, both education levels and skills have improved, while incomes have stagnated. This troubling trend is due, for the most part, to the declining bargaining power of America’s employees.

Enforcement of labor laws and setting standards for government contractors could change that equation, both directly and indirectly. More workers would earn good wages—and more would have the effective right to join unions.

…

Los Angeles provides a good illustration of how unions strengthen worker purchasing power and the economy. According to a December 2007 study by the Economic Roundtable, union workers in LA County earn 27 percent more than nonunion workers performing the same jobs. The higher wages for the LA union workers—who number about 800,000 or 15 percent of the workforce—add $7.2 billion a year in earnings. And there is a multiplier effect. As these workers purchased housing, food, clothing, child care, and other items, their consumption power created an additional 307,200 jobs, or 64,800 more than would have been produced without the higher union wages. The union wages also yield about $7 billion in taxes to various levels of government. If unionization rates were higher, these positive ripple effects would increase across the economy.

And let's not forget labor's critical role in getting worker protections passed, such as:

• Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, providing an increase in the federal minimum wage.
• The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, a comprehensive federal law ensuring safety in the workplace.Workers' compensation laws, giving workers injured on the job medical coverage and compensation for lost time.
• Mine safety laws strengthening mine safety standards and protecting the rights of mine workers.
• The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, creating the 40-hour work week and the first minimum wage.
• The Social Security Act of 1935, providing benefits to unemployed and retired workers. 

So please remember, it's not a zero-sum game, pitting union against nonunion workers.  Labor works for everybody.

ntodd

Messenger (print only):

Mike McCarthy, 27, of St Albans City, was elected the new chair of the Franklin County Democratic Committee at a meeting of county party delegates Tuesday night.

Euan Bear, of Bakersfield, stepped down as chair after two terms and one term as vice chair.  “I feel like I've paid my dues and done the best I can, and it's time for new leadership,” Bear told the Messenger when asked about her decision.

…

Speaking of McCarthy, Bear told the Messenger, “The hope is that he will be bringing in a whole new cohort.”

McCarthy was unopposed.  Todd Pritsky, who previously ran for the legislature as an independent, was elected vice chair.  Lloyd Touchette and Pierrette Bouchard were re-elected secretary and treasurer, respectively.  There were approximately 40 delegates at the meeting.

“I'm really hoping to spread the tent a little wider,” said McCarthy of his plans for the county party.  McCarthy said he wanted to involve more people, including young people, in discussing issues, campaigning for candidates, and fundraising.

Nationwide, it's a problem that young people are not more involved in party politics, suggested McCarthy.  Being part of a party doesn't mean agreement with every position the party takes, said McCarthy.

The county chair organizes and runs the county meetings, supports candidates, raises funds for the county party, set-ups [sic] the county headquarters during elections.

I'd like to offer my congratulations in particular to Mike.  Not only for winning the approval of the committee, but for his willingness to step up with vision and energy as we head into an election cycle that presents us with a lot of challenges and opportunities.

ntodd

A lot of revolutions begin with assemblies of protest or support:

Opposition to the policies or acts of an opponent, or support for certain policies, may be expressed by public assembly of a group of people at appropriate points, which are usually in some way related to the issue.  These may be, for example, government offices, courts, or prisons.  Or people may gather at some other place, such as around the statue of a hero or villain.  Depending on the particular laws and regulations and on the general degree of political conformity, such an assemblage may be either legal or illegal (if the latter, this method becomes combined with civil disobedience).

…

In Berlin in 1943…about six thousand non-Jewish wives of arrested Jews assembled outside the gate of the improvised detention center near the Gestapo headquarters demanding release of their husbands.  And in the entry for March 6, 1943, Goebbels wrote in his diary: “Unfortunately there have been a number of regrettable scenes at a Jewish home for the aged, where a large number of people gathered and in part even took sides with the Jews.”

From there as the movement gathers steam, you can start escalating with a variety of other tactics including boycotts, withdrawing bank funds, and general strikes.  We've had a combination of these nonviolent methods brought to bear against repression just over the last year or so, and despite naysayers on the Left and Right, they've made a difference.  I wrote this past summer:

It seems that much of the change happens so stealthily and with little notice in spite, or because, of the “in your face” agitation that some folks complain “sets the movement back”.  Activists push the bounds of what's acceptable and next thing you know, attitudes have changed and the unthinkable becomes political reality.  Activism is the gravity that bends the arc of history toward justice.

Similarly, as we don't generally think about gravitational forces' impact on our daily routines over the course of our lives, many people often aren't consciously aware of the benefits and successes of forces for change.  For example, it's easy to take for granted the 40 hour work week and other things labor won for us all, whether we belong to a union or not.

Thus one could say the Wisconsin protests failed, as state GOP passed their anti-working class laws.  But they did change the dynamic: what would've been an easy, silent stripping of rights was thrust into the sunshine, showing the entire nation what extremists are doing; a safe race for an incumbent GOP justice turned into a nailbiter against an obscure Democrat; Governor Walker's approval has tanked; the whole situation has fueled a major recall effort that could tip the balance of power in the state and could even change the national 2012 environment.  None of that would be true without people bringing their passion to Madison.

I think #OccupyWallStreet is a direct evolution from what we've seen in Wisconsin and elsewhere.  A truly organic, grassroots and distributed exercise of power that is growing as folks start to realize what's at stake and to see others get engaged.  And I still admit to a certain level of satisfaction that the stuff I've been doing and talking about is really coming to a head.  

I was hoping something like this might happen to push for universal healthcare:

• Weekly vigils in front of local Congressional and insurance offices.
• Coordinated national marches in state capitals and/or major cities.
• Weekend march in DC in conjunction with mass lobbying on the Hill.
• Boycotts (at least secondary targets like cable companies if not riskier focus on primary targets like ins cos).
• “Sick-in” strikes.
• Weekday marches in DC and around the nation, mass lobbying, and civil disobedience.

Sounds like the People have figured it out all on their own.  The way it should be.  Let's keep it up…

ntodd

Last night over 140 townspeople gathered at the Fletcher Elementary School to debate and decide whether we would retain our traditional Town Meeting or move to Australian ballot voting.  The bottom-line result: we opted by about a 2:1 margin for the status quo.

There were actually two meetings.  One was hosted by the School Board and the other by the Select Board.  We had a total of 5 articles at stake, asking if we should use Australian ballot for:

• School budgets: defeated by secret ballot, 95-47
• School officers: defeated by secret ballot, 89-43
• Town budgets: defeated by voice vote
• Town officers: defeated by voice vote
• Other public questions: defeated by voice vote

I'm not going to speculate as to the motivations for bringing this question to the town.  I will note, however, that the petitioners' remarks last night and during this whole debate have tended to focus on the small number of folks showing up to vote on the school budget, which is a fair enough point.

Indeed, we had 96 people attend Town Meeting this year, but only 43 stayed for the school issues.  Out of 863 registered voters.  So last night's attendance was significantly higher than usual–about 50% more than for town business and over 3 times as many for the school meeting.

An interesting attendence stat from the Secretary of State (based on 2008 info):

Towns that held both traditional town meeting and Australian ballot voting:

• 10.4% turnout – traditional meeting
• 47.8% turnout – Australian ballot
• 13.6% – Absentee ballot

Towns that held only a traditional town meeting:

• 21.1% turnout 

Meeting attendance is low in general, but on average twice as many people go if that's where business is done.  Of course more people can vote by ballot because it really just takes a few minutes to drop by a polling place or do it absentee, so the numbers unsurprisingly are much, much higher.

I am all for expanding participation.  Democracy depends on as much active engagement as possible.  Yet I don't think 100 percent or 50 percent or any percentage really is a magic number for democracy to function–something above zero strikes me as fine so long as people are exercising their franchise as they see fit, whether voting or opting not to vote, and not unconstitutionally being prevented from doing so (e.g., Jim Crow, voter ID laws, etc).

As many pedants love to point out, we do not live in a democracy per se, but a republic wherein we have democratic processes to make certain decisions, like who will represent us in the Legislative branch.  So we never vote on all questions that impact us, but rather have pre-defined times when we can weigh in on the job our proxies are doing and on particularly important issues.

That said, when you get down to smaller levels of self-government, like towns, we do have the opportunity to have more direct democracy.  That can be unwieldy in urban places like Burlington, but not so in little, rural Fletcher.

There's a great deal of power in gathering to debate issues and then voting on them.  For instance, merely voting a presented budget up or down may seem like you're getting your say, but without publicly discussing each line item, offering changes, and stating your opinion openly, it's not clear why voters–individually or in aggregate–voted in a particular way, nor have you actually arrived at a real consensus.  Anybody can introduce any business for action.  Your voice is amplified when you show up and interact with your community.

As Henry David Thoreau observed, the obligation of voting “never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail.”  

Contrast that with last night's gathering where no speaker was feebly expressing desire, but literally standing up for what they believed.  Even those who did not stand up to speak expressed their interest by being physically present.

That's perhaps why Thoreau's friend Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “in a town-meeting, the great secret of political science was uncovered, and the problem solved, how to give every individual his fair weight in the government.”

Beyond every individual having a say, I'd submit that every individual will be more informed with discussion beyond what's printed in the annual report.  If turnout at meetings is lower with Australian ballot, we're merely increasing participation for participation's sake while reducing how informed the participants are overall.  Not only that, but showing up in person is always more effective than any more removed action, whether it be writing a letter or casting a ballot, so it provides for better accountability and transparency in government.

While the meeting was generally civil, there was one thing that bothered me: a number of people told us that we had taken their right to vote away.  I'm not unsympathetic to their personal situations vis Meeting and can appreciate the passion of the moment, but I cannot brook such an incendiary charge.

There most certainly is hardship involved with attending meetings as opposed to dropping your ballot in a box, yet there is no legal bar to your exercise of voting rights with Town Meeting.  This is unlike the disenfrachisement we saw in the Old South, or the obstacles now being erected in Tea Party states like Wisconsin.

It was observed that some people might have to take vacation time to go to meeting.  It was also observed that members of the Board regularly take unpaid time off or vacation time to attend, so why can't everybody else who feels it's important to take part in Town business?

Is your say critical?  Absolutely.  So it's a good thing that the date of Town Meeting is as predictable as any other election, and is publicly warned well in advance so you can plan ahead.  It's also a good thing that it is a state holiday and employers are required by law to at least give you the day off unpaid–again, planning ahead can most likely mitigate the impact of losing some work time.

I'm appreciate the problems, being someone who could not attend for many years, but really it's about making choices.  If this is something so important to you, I would expect you to prioritize using the means available rather than pushing everybody else to change to meet your needs.

No mechanism will be perfect, but we are trying to accomodate people as much as possible whilst maintaining a vital democratic process to govern our town.  A town, mind you, that's small enough for your voice to have more impact any day in between elections than it does in Montpelier or DC, even if you don't vote or attend meeting.

As I've observed in various fora, I find it interesting that a town can opt to get rid of the annual meeting, but must do it by holding a meeting.  And to undo the changes?  Hold another meeting.

I have to ask why, and I wonder if that's because making an alteration to self-governance–and dealing with other fundamental questions–requires some great deliberation and really more skin in the game than a mere vote.  Not unlike holding conventions to change constitutions.

Almost as if to prove the point, more people came last night than usual because something unusual was at stake.  In fact, the difference was pretty much equal to the number of people voting for the Australian ballot.  So despite protestations that they cannot attend meetings known well in advance, they somehow were able to muster the effort to show up on much shorter notice.

Frankly, I would've been more inclined to accept the not entirely unreasonable opinions of the Australian ballot petitioners if there had been some glaring problem with meeting outcomes, lack of responsiveness by our elected officials on issues or whatever.  Some data showing that Meeting caused too much hardship and a vast majority of Fletcherites felt that they had absolutely no say in how things operate would've given me much more pause.

They possibly made a tactical error in not polling the community first.  It had been discussed online, and we certainly have the mechanism with a monthly newsletter sent to everybody, online channels, and plenty of time before the next meeting (this also could've been a question added to the annual agenda).  Apparently 70+ people signed the petition in a few days, while the pro-ballot folks could only muster about 40 votes at Meeting. 

I signed one of the petitions (I admit to not noticing there were two separate ones) because I had every intention of allowing this question to be debated even though I disagreed with the objective.  I didn't fear debate, even if I was invested in a particular result. All this leads me to believe the petitioners misjudged how universal their concerns were and failed to realize that even those of us who didn't support their goals supported having their voices heard because we trust the process.

Our grand juror, who was elected at last year's Town Meeting, stood to make that important point: this is all about trust.  Trust your neighbors who go to Meeting–they're going to vote their conscience and with the community in mind.  Trust your town officals–they're going to do right by the Town.  Trust your school board members–they're spending our money wisely and frugally while protecting our kids.  

They all live here, they all stop by the General Store for milk, they all pay taxes to keep our roads maintained and whatnot.  They all want this to be a good place for us to live.  And don't forget to become more involved during the rest of the year–go to the regular, public, warned budget meetings before Town Meeting, for example–to help these people who have stepped up for their community.

Most importantly, remember that democracy is alive and well in Fletcher.

ntodd

In which I revisit things I've said before to save myself some labor on Labor Day…

The corporatists have done a great job on the divide and conquer routine.  I've seen so many comments online (which may or may not be representative of anything, but I'm a blogger, so whatever) that reflect this: if unions are so great, why aren't more people in them; why do the unions only protest when stuff impacts them; why didn't the public sector unions fight when we private sector folks were getting laid off; etc?

So we're siloed.  In a union or not?  Private sector or public?  Work at a company with good benefits or shitty/no benefits?  And we fight for our small piece of the pie instead of fighting to make sure everybody has a decent piece.

We need to defragment ourselves and defragment our social benefits.  And that's where unions come in, and eventually get rid of themselves.  Unions need to fight as they have been to hold the line against corporatist dilution of our rights and power.  And non-union people need to join in that struggle, as we've seen in Madison and elsewhere.

Then we finish the job and move away from reliance on employer benevolence.  We all fight united for single-payer so we might benefit from the political entity we incorporated to promote the general welfare, and unions will be no longer necessary–they kept us from succumbing to socialist revolution, and now they can provide a bridge to the next progressive stage before riding off into the sunset.

As Uncle Abe said in his State of the Union message to Congress in 1861

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. 

We need to stop operating with old assumptions about the relationship between capital and labor.  Capital may have lots of dollars and lackeys in government at the moment, but we have the numbers and are starting to show our collective will all around the country.  We have it in us to defend what so many people fought and died for, and to make additional gains if we keep the momentum.

I'm not sure if Edward Bellamy (author of Looking Forward) would've been surprised that in 2011 we still aren't a workers' utopia.  He can be forgiven for not exactly predicting the future of labor (yet he was uncannily prescient about a lot of interesting technological and societal developments).  Even though most of the folks standing up for our rights in WI, IN, OH and all over the US haven't read his book, they are helping realize an important component of Bellamy's vision: The enfranchisement of humanity…may be regarded as a species of second birth of the race.

It's not just a philosophical thing.  It's about being able to lead a decent life now and pass opportunity on to our posterity.

Of course we're heading into the campaign cycle, and I'm sure even more than in 2010, these issues will come up because now we're reacting to the extremely anti-labor legislation that's been passed in states less enlightened than Vermont.  Here's a bit of what I discussed on Channel 15 last year.

Anyway, on this day we need to remember and thank the veterans of class wars from ages not too long past for giving everybody, not just union members, the better working conditions we take for granted today.  And we need to thank hard working folks like the Vermont Workers' Center for all they do to protect our rights.

We're all in this together.

ntodd

The confederation appears to me to be little more than a shadow without the substance.   – Geo Washington, 1785

Our first president delicately told James Warren that the Articles of Confederation–first draft authored by one of my favorite Founders, John Dickinson–fundamentally sucked.  But hey, I'll cut them some slack since everybody was involved in fighting for their lives and a little leery of any central government at the time.  The defects were fairly pronounced, however, and quite obvious almost from the git go, so when the dust settled and realities of governance became clearer, the revolutionaries turned once more to the question of how best to establish a union of new states.

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, noted the Articles suffered from a “want of concert in matters where common interest requires it.”  And Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist 21:

I'm sure he hates Hamilton anyway (what with his zeal for a central bank), but Paul should consider Federalist 23:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE OR DEFINE THE EXTENT AND VARIETY OF NATIONAL EXIGENCIES, OR THE CORRESPONDENT EXTENT AND VARIETY OF THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THEM. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.

When Paul says this:

“The whole idea of FEMA is a gross distortion of insurance”, Paul argued. “It’s so far removed from the market and what insurance should be about.”

He not only grossly distorts what insurance is about–hello, spreading risk–but also what our constitutional, central government is about, how it came about, and why it came about.  Now Paul won't be impressed by the effective Federal response to Irene, but I hope others reading Dana Milbank will be.  I just take issue with one thing he said:

Don’t expect anybody to throw a tea party, but Big Government finally got one right.

I wouldn't call this Big Goverment.  Rather, let's borrow from Hamilton's title of Fed 21: Irene has demonstrated The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union.

Now it's great that small Vermont communities like Rochester and Pittsfield have pulled together in the way that Paul and Marco Rubio wax nostalgiac for, but energetic government is essential to overcome this kind of devastation.  Concert in matters where common interest requires it is the raison d'être of government–a larger community to work on larger matters.

Anyway, what Milbank calls Katrina Government–which is more government than Paul, et al, dream of–and Irene Government is really the difference between bad/big government and effective/energetic government.  It's the difference between shadow and substance.  I prefer the latter to being crushed beneath the ruins of the former.

ntodd