People Are the Main Spring

UW Philosophy professor Lester Hunt recently wrote a post at his blog called "Completely Rebuild New Orleans? Sorry No." in which he argues against restoring the city to its pre-Katrina state. The issue of how to rebuild New Orleans is certainly contentious and Prof. Hunt's general position is certainly not one that I, someone who is ambivalent on the matter, want to dismiss out of hand. But I am sorely disappointed, if not outright dismayed, at how he chose to write about his opinion on the matter.

He argues that we (i.e. – taxpayers) shouldn't have to foot the bill to rebuild New Orleans in its entirety: "…completely rebuilding New Orleans would mean some of us indulging our sentimental attachments and aesthetic tastes at other people's expense". His solution?

Let's rebuild the parts of the city that make it great -- Tulane and the French Quarter, among others -- and move on. On to Baton Rouge, on to Houston! Some of the parts of the city that are just a place to live should be allowed to go the way of the Stutz Bearcat, the brontosaurus, and the liberal Republican.

Prof. Hunt does a great job of avoiding mentioning that the areas he does not want to pay to rebuild were mostly populated by poor black people. Indeed, he doesn't mention them at all and thusly tries to avoid race and, I would imagine, charges of racism. He does this by first saying, "I am a long time-time admirer of New Orleans, and of Creole and Cajun cuisine and music", as if admiring a couple genres of music and a regional cuisine somehow banishes all prejudices and makes one completely impartial. Instead of recognizing that his plan would actually affect human beings who somehow don't fit into his vision of what New Orleans is, he transmogrifies them into tracts of land. "Places to live" is a euphemism for the homes and lives of the poor and black. Those communities didn't have the romantic attraction of Rue Bourbon for the white libertarian(my term) university professor so they have to be reduced to mere areas of utility which are devoid of culture and all the intangibles that human beings create around adn amongst themselves regardless of where they may be. A couple paragraphs down Prof. Hunt notes: "Further, as I understand it, the parts that are below sea-level tend to be the parts that were built after the formation of the modern welfare state." Clever! Again, that actual human beings called those "parts" home is never directly stated and by using "modern welfare state" he can acknowledge that people lived there without ever having to mention them. Plus he gets to be critical of the evil, wasteful government that he despises. Two birds with one stone.

His argument comes down to not wanting to force "the taxpayers to repair all the bad effects of this government-caused mistake." It's mostly, if not all, about money so there's little wonder that he would neglect to humanize the situation. If he did, it would probably veer perilously close to "I don't want to spend my money to rebuild the home and communities of poor black people" and we all know that would go over like a lead balloon.

When confronted with trying to apply his reasoning to San Francisco and its attendant earthquakes, Prof. Hunt replies:

San Francisco can probably survive on the resources of people who find it profitable or in some other way worthwhile to pay for it. In other words, protecting the whole thing is worth the cost.

So, it's fair for taxpayers to fund projects that earthquake proof SF as much as possible because SF has rich private benefactors. But, since New Orleans doesn't seem to have such private benefactors, there shouldn't be a public one. If rich people find San Francisco profitable and thusly have much to lose, then why should taxpayers subsidize their businesses? They should pay for it since they have more to lose. If SF doesn’t need to suckle at the public teat, then why is Prof. Hunt saying that it's fine for them to do so?

Now I’m confused. This should hardly be surprising since I am without a PhD. If Prof. Hunt or anyone else does not want to pay to rebuild New Orleans to its pre-flood state, fine. If Prof. Hunt or anyone else (especially up on this side of the Mason-Dixon Line) wants to coerce the cities Houston or Baton Rouge, well, I guess good arguments can be made. But, please, don't gloss over the thousands and thousands of people whose lives were ravaged by the flooding and are now going to be affected by these actions; don't refer to their homes and communities derogatorily as mere "places to live" or the results of the modern welfare state so you can score points with your libertarian friends. Stop hiding certain parts of the tragedy under rhetorical cover.

I'm not accusing Professor Hunt of racism and I understand that the almighty dollar is an essential part of the recovery process regardless of what gets rebuilt and what doesn't. What got in my craw was that Prof. Hunt came across as issuing commands ex cathedra - Houston shall do this, Baton Rouge shall do that, and you poor folks will go here or there - without even paying lip service to the people who are going to make up the diaspora. Democracy Now! broadcasted from New Orleans last week and the programs were filled with the voices of the people who inhabit Prof. Hunt's "places to live" and to find them excluded in his post or reduced to inanimate units for economists and theoreticians to calculate was most disappointing.