It’s been six years, so in case anybody needed a reminder of how
unsuited former Gov. Kathleen
Blanco was for that job, they got it courtesy of her
remarks concerning the jackpot justice lawsuit filed by the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority –
East.
The suit, dubious
both as to whether it was filed legally and whether there is any legal
merit to it, wants to extract from about a hundred companies potentially billions
of dollars in purported tort damages in order to fill the coffers of the agency
to pursue an ambitious agenda decided solely by itself, which far exceeds its
statutory resources. All of Gov. Bobby
Jindal, apparently legislative majorities, and a number of other state and
local agencies have expressed opposition to the suit on the basis of its merits
and in how it subverts statewide coastal restoration and protection policy.
Yet some observers have praised
its action, seemingly unperturbed that an agency with little accountability is
trying to stretch its power to exercise that in ways never intended by the
legislative majorities and in all likelihood Blanco herself when it was drafted
into law seven years ago. Its members are selected by the governor for fixed
terms from nominations provided by professional and political interests that
may be removed only through impeachment, serving with confirmation of the
Senate.
Insulation of this nature was
inserted by lawmakers in order to decrease the chances of politicization of the
agency, but was not the end goal itself, which was to maximize
depoliticization. Thus, impeachment power and the ability of the governor to
appoint with Senate confirmation are checks against members who would take the
agency in directions that the representatives of the majority public did not
favor. As it is, since a majority of the board now serving is under terms
expiring now or soon, Jindal seems poised not to reappoint these members.
But this seems to disturb Blanco.
Referring to previous times when local levee boards often had members, through
their actions, seem appointed less for nonpolitical flood protection agendas
than for political ends, she opines that “Instead of going forward, we’re going
backward.” Also, she stated that “Those boards have constitutional authority
and they are created to be independent and run independently” in explaining why
she is hesitant about lack of reappointment of those that agitated for the
suit. The problem here, she asserts is that this would mean “we’ll go back to
the old way of doing business and having people that are not independent
thinkers.”
In these digressions, Blanco is
making two errors. First, she seems to have confused board independence as the
ends, not the means to the ends of encouragement of depoliticized policy-making,
as if board independence in and of itself guarantees any decisions made by it
are nonpolitical and therefore optimal policy in this area. In fact, she fails
to understand that by definition one cannot depoliticize even the most trivial
decisions made by government. No matter how slight the amount or obscure its
area, the exercise of power by government creates policy winners and losers.
The only question then is, who decides?
In this system of government,
that determination made long ago was that majorities through a fair and
impartial democratic process would govern policy-making through their representatives
elected fairly and freely according to basic rules (recorded in a charter) assented
to, even if implicitly, by the citizenry. While they may assign to unelected others
the exercise of this power, they still exercise authority over those agents who
they have given contingently that power. Unelected policy-makers require
oversight to ensure that they remain accountable to majorities that govern by
the rules.
Thus, when they use their
relative insulation to move in ways to which that majority objects, in that
they have made a decision the politics of which runs counter to the majority to
which they are accountable, it is entirely appropriate that this deviance be
corrected if necessary by their removal. Yet Blanco would take the odd view
that the merits of decisions made by an insulated body, even if they featured
grasping at power over policy beyond what it is entitled to have, are
unimpeachable regardless of the content of that policy. She stupidly seems to
believe that a depoliticized appointment process automatically equals
nonpolitical and optimal policy.
If she does, she knows nothing
about how governments make policy. However, this probably does not inspire her
thinking on this issue, relating to her second error in thinking that the
depoliticized process of necessity puts “independent thinkers” into positions
of power where this tendency to think “independently” creates optimal policy.
In fact, “independence” lacking accountability can allow decision-making to
veer off into extremely bad policy. It makes it that much easier for cabals
that desire to follow their own agenda – one that can be completely independent
of what best policy the public desires – to form in these agencies that can use
their insulation to subvert the will of the people and optimal policy.
Unfortunately, this attitude of
hers smacks of one of the political left’s basic tenets, that there exists a
small strata of nomenklatura – who
have superior wisdom and knowledge, defined as strict adherence to a body of
suppositions based upon ideology, not fact – whose Manichean faith backwardly declares
opposition to it is ideological, if not ahistorical and thereby it must lead the
masses, who generally are captive to false consciousness. Here, Blanco assumes
the board, through its purity established by appointment method, is the
vanguard group of right and good in this policy area while others therefore
must be enemies of those – completely discounting that the merits of policy
stand on their own terms, not as a product of an appointment process.
1 comment:
What an obvious but failing attempt to shift the focus to something else and to avoid one of the main issues here.
Does anyone actually believe that Governor Jindal is going to "depoliticize" and make independent this Board with his actions and appointments?
Never, never, never!
The old tactic of don't watch what I am doing, just listen to what I say and watch over here instead, is tiredly at work again with the Professor.
And, he has to call our former Governor "stupid" in the process!
Way to go, Professor!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment