Is Govenment really the answer?

Longish quote from David Brooks (NYTimes Op/Ed).
Counter to the liberal/progressive demand for more government, in the wake of Katrina.

Much like the old saw that the best-laid battle plans go to hell when the fighting actually starts, the same for natural disasters.
There is a need for leadership, from the squad to the general staff, flexible and adaptive.

The eastern (in the late 20th Century the Soviet) model was successful when you could throw masses of troops at the enemy, the democratic model succeeds when you unleash individual initiative.

The Best-Laid Plan: Too Bad It Flopped - New York Times:

"...the brutal fact is, government tends toward bureaucracy, which means elaborate paper flow but ineffective action. Government depends on planning, but planners can never really anticipate the inevitable complexity of events. And American government is inevitably divided and power is inevitably devolved.

For example, the Army Corps of Engineers had plenty of money (Louisiana received more than any other state), but that spending was carved up into little pork barrel projects. There were ample troops nearby to maintain order, but they were divided between federal and state authorities and constrained by regulations.

This preparedness plan is government as it really is. It reminds us that canning Michael Brown or appointing some tough response czar will not change the endemic failures at the heart of this institutional collapse.

So of course we need limited but energetic government. But liberals who think this disaster is going to set off a progressive revival need to explain how a comprehensive governmental failure is going to restore America's faith in big government."