On Hurricanes and Nationhood

Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, had a comment a day or two ago about the question of federal storm relief for areas damaged by Hurricane Sandy. The gist of it was basically, sure I care about people who are suffering, but I want to make sure those naughty easterners won't just take the money and spend it frivolously before we agree to give it to them. This feels to me like it gets very deeply at the question that's kind of awkwardly at the center of American political history, "are we a nation?" For a lot of time, we kind of weren't really a nation. Nowadays, people tend to think that we are one. But consider, for example, Europe's current troubles. Europe, as it happens, is not a nation, but it has substantial governmental ties throughout the continent. And these days you've heard a lot from the wealthier German nations that they don't want to be on the hook for bailing out the naughty, irresponsible periphery countries that have gotten their economies in deep trouble after the creation of the Euro. Never mind that it really is more the fault of the Euro, the creation of European financial elites, than the periphery countries themselves. The point is, there's a feeling in Germany and Sweden and other such places that it's unfair for them to be forced to sacrifice to ease the suffering of less fortunate European nations.

Now, that's very similar to what Steve King said about disaster relief in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Iowa is virtuous, the East Coast is irresponsible and frivolous with their Gucci bags etc., why should we have to pay to help them? But note that, in this country, we have a massive system of permanent fiscal transfers from states to states, effected through the federal welfare system. That system is designed to send money from rich people to poor people, but it therefore also sends money from rich states to poor states. That tends to mean sending money from blue states, like Maryland or Connecticut or California, to red states like Kentucky or Mississippi or Arkansas. But we never discuss it in those terms. There are people who don't want the federal welfare system to continue as strong as it currently is, there are people who want it stronger than it currently is, but it's not a geographic issue. It doesn't play out as Maryland vs. Kentucky, it plays out as, well, liberal people, many of whom are in Maryland, against conservative people, many of whom are in Kentucky. Because we're a nation, so we don't tend to view the transfer of money from a rich person in Maryland to a poor person in Kentucky as anything other than the transfer of money from a rich American to a poor American. Whereas in Europe, transferring money from a rich German to a poor Greek is not seen as a transfer from a rich European to a poor European; the nationalities are very much the thing, even more than the different socioeconomic statuses of the individual people.

But Steve King's comment does not reflect this nationhood. People from the great eastern Megalopolis are not just treated as Americans, and suffering Americans at that, for whose welfare we are all obviously responsible and to whose aid, in a time of crisis such as this one, we should all gladly come. They're not from where Steve King is from, and he mistrusts their culture, so he wants no part of their troubles. He does not want, in other words, to be part of a nation that includes New York City and its environs. This side has a very long history in American politics, with its most notable manifestation coming during the Civil War but with genuine influence at most other times. It's the wrong side of the question, and it needs to lose. The whole Tea Party phenomenon has kind of felt like it at least flirts with the idea that we should stop being a nation, and Steve King's comments definitely reflect a sense that we are not, quite, entirely a nation. I suppose it's probably too much to ask that King himself actually lose his seat next Tuesday, although the race is only "Leans Republican," but it's pretty important to see that the side he represents loses as badly as possible.