The Lose-Lose of Disaster Relief

With the hurricane season coming up, I'm beginning to hear all kinds of stupidity regarding disaster preparedness. The primary argument involves to two primary facets: prevention (pre-disaster) and reaction (post-disaster). As typical of the analysis of those who have never actually gotten their hands dirty, it sounds pretty good but is completely off base. "Prevention vs. Reaction" just isn't the issue.

We can never adequately prepare for every disaster that may befall us. So 100% of our resources devoted to prevention would be a waste of money. But not prepositioning disaster relief material (whenever possible) prior to a major event is just irresponsible and places too much stress on those who must respond. The real debate that happens among professionals is more tweaking resources towards one thing or the other.

But this brings me to the real issue: disaster relief is about people but not the people you may think. In my opinion, the definition of a disaster is something that we were unprepared for. Now that lack of preparation could be due to negligence or an honest mistake but that's for history to decide long after the first response has taken place. You need to have the right people in the right place to make it through a real disaster because when a real disaster strikes, the systems in place are generally insufficent or completely worthless. All the preparations in the world, all the prepositioned materials don't mean a single thing if the leadership can't deliver the goods. Hurricane Katrina made this very clear. There was a lack of leadership at every level: municipal, State and Federal.

But you know what? We got what we had coming. We get exactly the leaders we deserved. This isn't a Republican/Democrat issue. Both parties are guilty of taking advantage of trying situations to increase their power. If you work for the government in any policy capacity, you can be sure that any plan that you have that doesn't go perfectly or doesn't preciently account for every eventuality will be used by someone to gain power for their party. Our standard has become perfection for even the most complex issues. When did this happen? When did criticizing from the sideline just plain overpower action? Has it always been this way?

Michael Brown was exactly what we deserved because he was able to negotiate the treacherous water of Federal Leadership. He got to his position because he didn't rock the boat. And in the GOV, you don't rock the boat by not doing anything remotely risky. Why should we have been surprised that Michael Brown wanted to adhere to administrative protocols instead of cutting through the red tape? He never did that his entire career. In fact, you can't reach that position unless you are risk-adverse. He watched people through his career get fried over unintended mistakes and it taught him that it is more important to cover your own ass than it is actually do something. But that's not his fault. This system that created him is the system we want.

We want our respective parties to rule so badly that we don't think through the long term repercussions of our actions. This phenomenon is even common in the military where a policy of "zero tolerance" has created Officers who will not risk their careers to give their men realistic, hard training that might save their lives.

One of the lessons I have taught in my leadership courses and to anybody who has ever worked for me is that it is more important to be effective than right. We as a people have to start looking out for the good of the Country and not just our own provincial needs. In this day and age, the idea of wanting to improve your Country has become hoping your Country fails in a war. The idea of "speaking truth to power" has become a teenager's senseless rant. And saying you support the troops has become a cover for spurious vitriol directed at the President.

I don't see a solution to this. Aristotle said that democracies become republics which change into monarchies then slide into despotism. I had always hoped that we might avoid this vicious cycle but due to human nature, we seem to be part of the stream.

My main point in this incoherent piece: It's about the man in charge. Systems will not protect you from an evil man (Enron). Systems will not protect you from an incompetent man (Katrina). Only the right man in the right place in the right time can bring stability out of disaster. And unfortunately for us, in our lust for political power, we often destroy those men before they can save us.