In the last entry on this web site, I discussed the importance of remembering our past - good and bad - to light our path to the future. I was in earnest. Those who would say, often critically, I am "living in the past" do not understand the previous sentence. Allow me to clarify: I do not live with a misty-eyed longing for past glories, either personally or for my country. I do deeply believe that there is very little lying furtively in wait in our future that we cannot be better prepared for if we vigilantly study our past. Wars we have fought, domestic crises we have faced, interracial and intercultural conflicts we have addressed can all teach us valuable lessons about what we face in both our immediate and long-range futures. Santayana famously observed: "Those who do not learn from their past are condemned to repeat it."

Not as well-known is this gem, also from Dr. Santayana: "We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will be the past; and we must respect the past, remembering that it was once all that was humanly possible." [Emphasis added] Our past truly is our prelude. But, for us to make sense of where we are and where we are headed, one must be acutely aware of what has gone on before. If we listen to the whispers of our past disasters and triumphs, we can make better, wiser decisions about the path upon which we tread. Let us examine just one of the lessons that cry out to us from the past. In examining the lesson, let us also look to our Constitution to discern what provisions might be spelled out in that document for handling the unforeseen and unpredictable that might befall our citizenry.

We should all know that monumental natural disaster will occur to our cities and our people. Control over these calamities are seldom in our hands. We may think that we have conquered and, more presumptuously, can predict cataclysms in advance but we are mistaken. For example:

• The hurricane of 1900 that virtually wiped Galveston, Texas - a booming city of nearly 50,000, "the New York of the South" at the time - off the map in 1900 is a pertinent example. It was the most deadly hurricane in American history, dwarfing all that came after. It was estimated that 10-12,000 people died in the storm. The point I wish to make is that no one cried out for help from faraway Washington, D.C. Relief efforts were spearheaded - not by federal intervention - but by the Red Cross and, of all people, William Randolph Hearst. Private contributions were key to helping survivors of the disaster and, for the most part, rebuilding the city of Galveston. In those halcyon days, those in need looked to their fellow citizens first and government only as a last resort.
• A hurricane devastated Key West, Florida in 1919 and killed nearly 1000 people and, after crossing the Gulf of Mexico, killed an additional 1000 souls in Texas.
• The 1906 earthquake that virtually destroyed San Francisco is another reminder of the cruelty and serendipity of nature’s power. Close to 2000 killed in a matter of minutes. Rebuilding was not directed out of Washington but was lead by far-ranging philanthropy from England and Canada and within the private sector of American citizenry.

There is no end to the suffering that nature can and, lamentably, continues to inflict on our and other nations. And the lesson we have before us is that, despite the ingenuity of man, the wrath of nature will always be a threat to our repose. The regularity with which we are bludgeoned with this irrefutable fact should be proof enough. Yet, despite the sledgehammer of history, we seem to remain shocked and dismayed when the inevitable recurs. We look for someone or something that must be responsible. We seem to urgently need to find something "broken" that we can fix or someone negligent to blame lest we be forced to accept that, in the end, we are helpless and defenseless.

It was not always so. In the tiny sample of disasters listed above, those effected understood that life is perilous and serendipity, particularly when facing nature, is hazardous and, often, tragic. Once upon a time, we were a self-sufficient, strong people who understood personal responsibility and accepted the cruel realities that frequently entails. We hoped for (and usually received) help from our families, our neighbors and our friends but never thought that government was the answer to our sorrows. Charity abounded in these hard times because our forefathers understood history’s one undeniable principle: misfortune can befall anyone at any time. Life - as nature - is an unforgiving instructor.

In contemporary America, attitudes and expectations have changed and lessons are quickly forgotten. The most dramatic change, in my eyes, is that citizens of this country, after years of insidious government dependence, have come to the odd conclusion that the federal government is not only to blame for nature’s calamities, it also should pay the price for restoration of the status quo. It is a sad commentary, I think, for a people to become so dependent on government subsidy that they believe all their tragedies - natural or otherwise - are the rightful responsibility of government.

If we have learned anything from our history it is, simply put, that government is not the answer (certainly not a cost-effective one; every dollars spent on relief requires an additional $1-2 for administrative costs) to personal misfortune. If assistance is forthcoming, it would be tardy, inadequate and overly expensive. But from where does this burning desire of government to assist in everyday tragedy originate? What is its Constitutional basis?

Our founding document declares that governments are made:

• to provide order for a people
• to protect - one against another - mutually agreed upon rights and privileges
• to provide for the common defense of the nation against threats from other nations, and
• to promote the general welfare

These are the ideas presented in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. I believe, for most people, the clarity and purpose of the first three purposes of government can be - perhaps universally - agreed upon. We should maintain order (i.e. avoid anarchy), protect each individual’s rights (as mutually agreed upon) and defend the nation against incursions from foreign powers. Few would argue that these are not legitimate purposes for accepting the yoke of government.

It is upon the fourth promise of government that the waters become murky and subject to mischief. What does it mean to "promote the general welfare"? Some reductionists would say that by doing the first three principles, government sufficiently supports the fourth. If one is free of fear from attack from his fellow citizens (against property or person) and to insure that the nation will not be conquered by another, these per se guarantee "the general welfare." If threats on person, property and sovereignty are assured, citizens are granted "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This minimalist view is adequate for many.

However, there appears to be a growing belief among the citizens of this country (perhaps, now even a legitimate majority) that government is required to attend to a more active "promotion of the general welfare." And, if there is one overriding principle of government, it is simply this: government, just as the second law of thermodynamics declares of nature, abhors a vacuum. When there is a "vacuum" - a "need" - voiced by a critical number of citizens (and not necessarily a majority; militancy, vociferousness and fund-raising is often sufficient), governments feel compelled to fill that need, that vacuum, if you will.

If, for instance, a vocal segment of the population requests government intervention or assistance in insuring they are not destined for homelessness and destitution when they are unable - due to infirmity or old age - to work for their daily bread, government (in the milieu of an interventionist President or Congress) is all too happy to step in. Thus, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. If a segment of the population petitions the government to assist them if they are fired from their job, the government will fill the void with FUTA. If women who have children are unable (or unwilling) to support themselves due to lack of self-control, social pressure that encourages childbirth, lack of access to counseling on birth control options or whatever excuse they might choose to explain away their behavior, the government is more than willing to use tax dollars to feed, cloth and support them and their children. Government, as the American people have come to believe and (at least these days) expect will solve all their problems. If any misfortune - due to social pressures or nature at its cruelest - befalls a critical mass of the nation’s citizenry, it is the government that is ready, willing and quite able to apply a financial balm. In the current climate of expanding government services, all they need do, apparently, is ask.

But is this what is meant by "promoting the general welfare"? Permit me to think out loud: If a hurricane destroys a private citizen’s home, is this the government’s responsibility? Before you answer, ask yourself this question: if a tornado, fire, mudslide, earthquake or other natural catastrophe levels a single private dwelling, is it the government’s obligation to use tax dollars to rebuild that citizen’s home? If you choose to live in an area especially prone to any of these disasters - admitting, surely, that they may occur in areas previously immune to these events - do you not have a individual duty to provide for this probability or, at least, this possibility?

If you answered in the affirmative to the previous query, let us examine the issue more closely: does the magnitude of the cataclysm, in truth, determine who qualifies for federal assistance? Is the cutoff five houses? 10? 50? And, if there is a cutoff, where and by who exactly is it determined? And, pray tell, what is the legal basis for rebuilding an area devastated by a hurricane when the government does not replace or rebuild the solitary dwelling destroyed by a pinpoint touchdown of a tornado with no surrounding losses? Can the federal government legally (much less Constitutionally) be as inconstant and arbitrary as nature itself? Where and how does the financial standing of the victim come into play? If someone is financially able to use personal resources to reconstruct their lives after a natural catastrophe, does this make them ineligible for the Government’s financial relief? Why?

If we can expect government to take over the burden of all misfortune - be it from the whim of nature or the fickleness of circumstance - what of the citizen who dutifully saves a portion of his salary and pays insurance premiums for the guarantee of relief and restitution from these hard historical lessons? What of those who do "learn from history" and diligently applies the teachings to his life? Is he just a "chump" for having foresight and dutifully planning for the ineluctable harshness of the world in which we live?

If this is our contemporary reality, then we must all rethink our conception of self-reliance and personal obligation. Randolph Bourne once said (1920) that "War is the health of the State." This implied that in wartime, growth of the State is augmented. It began with Lincoln, continued (dramatically) with Woodrow Wilson and achieved its full bloom with F.D.R. Apparently, in today’s political climate, natural disasters can also fertilize the State.

With the regularity of war and natural disasters, we who view this with a wary eye can count on "creeping government" to continue to flourish for the foreseeable future.