The Blame Game

by hilzoy

Via Atrios:

"Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats, it is a call to conscience. And though it requires sacrifice, it brings a deeper fulfillment. We find the fullness of life not only in options, but in commitments. And we find that children and community are the commitments that set us free.

Our public interest depends on private character, on civic duty and family bonds and basic fairness, on uncounted, unhonored acts of decency which give direction to our freedom.

Sometimes in life we are called to do great things. But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small things with great love. The most important tasks of a democracy are done by everyone.

I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well."
-- George W. Bush

***

Matt Yglesias has a very good post:

"The Blame Game: A brief comment on the subject of this game, which, apparently, it's a bad idea to play. First off -- it's not a game. Assigning blame is a deadly serious matter. It's also integral to any sort of viable social practice. The criminal justice system relies on assigning blame to various people and punishing them. So does the civil tort system, and so does the non-criminal regulatory system. So, for that matter, does any kind of coherent business or non-profit enterprise -- when mistakes are made, you need to decide who's to blame for them, and ensure that the culpable are sanctioned. If you don't identify and punish the blameworthy, then people will have no reason to try to do their jobs correctly.

Politics is the same way. There's a very serious principle-agent problem associated with public policy -- the interests of government officials tend to diverge quite sharply from those of the citizens they're supposed to be serving. This is why dictatorships tend, in practice, to ill-serve their citizens and be beset by corruption, malgovernment, and all kinds of other problems. In democracies we try, through elections and the ability of elected officials to fire their subordinates, to align those incentives. The way that works is that when bad things happen, people are supposed to blame someone, and then elect someone else to replace him. For that to do any good, you need to "play the blame game," which is to say find out who's actually responsible."

Matt is absolutely right. And since thinking about blame, responsibility and guilt is part of my day job (a fact which, oddly enough, has never gotten me eliminated from a jury pool during voir dire), I thought I'd add a few things. And to try to eliminate any confusion arising from the mixed motives people might have in blaming others, I want to start with what we are doing when we blame ourselves.

When I do something that I think is wrong, the first thing I need to do is ask what I can do to make it right: to make restitution to anyone I have harmed, for instance. Suppose I've done that: what then? One impulse I usually have when I've done something wrong is to wish that I could literally undo it: that I could go back through time and do things differently, or at least reach back in time, grab my former self, shake her, and say: stop! think!

Unfortunately, that's impossible. But there is a next best thing: to try to figure out what on earth I can do now in order to prevent myself from doing the same sort of thing in the future. And it won't be enough just to resolve not to do it. After all, the next time I find myself in a similar situation, I don't want to confront that situation with the same flawed character or judgment that led me to do the wrong thing in the past. And if I am not to confront that situation as the same old flawed me, I will need to figure out exactly what it was that led me to do the wrong thing, and try to change it.

I will need to ask: What was it about me that led me to do this? Did I not bother to think about what I was doing? If so, why not? Was I just oblivious to the issues at stake, or afraid to think too hard about what I was doing, or what? Did I know that what I was doing was wrong? Why, then, did I do it? Was I afraid I'd look like an idiot if I didn't? Did I give in to some cruel or spiteful impulse, or was I perhaps just lazy or selfish? Did I think, at the time, that what I was doing was right? If so, why did I make this mistake? Had I not bothered to think hard enough about my own values? Did I allow myself to distort them in order to rationalize something I wanted to do independently? What, exactly, is it about me that explains why I did what I did?

Once I have answered that question, I can set to work changing my character in whatever ways seem necessary. I can try to become more perceptive, more thoughtful, less careless or callous or cruel, more willing to do the right thing even when the people around me are doing the opposite, or whatever I think might have made a difference the last time around.

Trying to figure out what led me to act wrongly is unpleasant. No one likes to admit their mistakes, and they like admitting their character flaws even less. However, in trying to figure out why I acted wrongly, I'm not motivated by self-hatred, or by a desire to cause myself pain or make myself feel guilty. (At any rate, I shouldn't be.) I am trying to figure out what about me accounts for what I did, because it's only by answering that question that I can see what I need to do in order not to do the wrong thing again. And trying to change the future is as close as I can come to changing the past. The pain is just a by-product; what motivates me is the desire to do the right thing.

Moreover, if I am not willing to do what it takes to avoid repeating what I did, that calls into question the sincerity of my belief that what I did was wrong. If I think that what I did was wrong, I must think that doing the same thing in the future would also be wrong. While I cannot affect the past, I can affect the future; and therefore the most direct way of acting on my belief that what I did was wrong is to try to ensure that I do not do the same thing again.

Likewise, if I find reflection on the moral faults which my conduct reveals mortifying, that is presumably because I think those faults are bad; and if I think that, then I must think that I should try to remove them. If it hurts me to think that I cannot erase my misdeeds from my life, then I must think that allowing myself to disfigure it further would be at least as bad. The source of my pain and the source of my efforts to change are one and the same: the fact that what I did was wrong. And while guilt does not consist solely of attempts to change those faults in me that led me to act wrongly, to the extent that it is disconnected from any such attempt, it is motivationally incoherent.

Or, in short: if you care about doing the right thing, then you should not avoid recognizing your own responsibility just because it is painful: to do that would prevent you from doing what you need to do in order not to keep on doing things wrong. Nor can you wallow in guilt at the expense of seriously trying to change your character: that, in my view, is either self-hatred or a way of avoiding the tedious work of actually becoming a decent person while using all that guilt to convince yourself that you still care about morality.

***

It's also worth noting that responsibility is the flip side of agency and power. It is, of course, possible to be active in the world without ever being responsible for anything bad, the way (by her own account) Miss Manners does: "guilt is an emotion Miss Manners does without, having taken the simple precaution of doing everything right the first time." But when you have knowingly done something wrong, the only way not to be responsible for it is not to be an agent at all.

If you are, in fact, completely powerless, the mere passive plaything of irresistible psychological forces, then no one can hold you to account for what you do. (Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say this of anyone who doesn't have a fairly serious mental disability.) But this is not a condition anyone should want to be in; and to attribute it wrongly to another person is a deep, deep insult.

Agents are responsible. It comes with the territory.

***

So what does all this have to do with the matter at hand? Well: government, according to me, is the means whereby we undertake collective action when we think it's necessary. As Matt said, it's essential that we try to figure out whether the people we have deputized to act for us are doing a good job on our behalf, and if not, try to change it. And this requires that when something goes wrong, we ask: what, exactly, caused this? And how can it be changed, so that nothing like this ever happens again?

One reason is, as Matt says, that if we never hold public officials responsible for anything, we will deprive them of any incentive to do their jobs right. But I think that this reason for holding people responsible, though very important, is a sort of by-product of another reason that is more fundamental: that holding people responsible for what they do is the only way we have of figuring out how to prevent something that goes wrong from being repeated.

As before: we cannot change the past, but we can try to ensure that we don't repeat our mistakes. And the worse we feel about what went wrong, the more reason we have to try to figure out exactly what accounts for it, and to do whatever we can to see that the problems we discover are corrected. Typically, we conclude either that some policy or administrative structure should be changed, or that some people should lose their jobs.

Because losing their jobs, or at least (in the case of elected officials) having a harder time winning reelection, is always a possible result of doing things wrong, correcting faults in our government does, as Matt says, provide incentives for public officials to do their jobs well. But I think that the need to correct our government's faults is more fundamental.

I take it this is why Matt says that "assigning blame is a deadly serious matter." It's serious partly because to blame someone for the serious problems in the response to Hurricane Katrina is a serious matter, and should not be done lightly. Much more importantly, though, it's deadly serious because getting the right answer to the question, 'why did things go so badly wrong? Which people, or which policies or institutional arrangements, are responsible?' is the only way we have of making sure that we never again have to watch tens of thousands of our fellow citizens trapped for days without food, water, or medical care needlessly, or see them die on the sidewalks when they could have been saved, or listen to them beg for help that we should have ensured would be provided. And it doesn't get more deadly serious than that.

If we care about getting it right in the future, we have to care about figuring out who or what is responsible now, and changing whatever needs changing. And the sooner we do this, the better. Of course anyone who is in a position to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina should be helping them. If any firefighters or National Guardsmen or EMT workers in Louisiana or Mississippi are reading this, and it's not part of needed and scheduled down time, I thank you for your hard work, and politely urge you to return to it.

For the rest of us, though, there's not a lot to do besides giving whatever we can. One thing we can do, however, is precisely to try to sort this out. It might be good to wait if we could be assured that there wouldn't be any further catastrophes in the time we spend waiting. If we knew that hurricane season was over, that no terrorist attacks would happen in the next six months or so, that all the earthquakes were on holiday and all the floods in check, then we might have the luxury of waiting until "the right time", whenever that is.

But we don't. All of us in the USA, presumably, have asked ourselves what would happen if a major disaster, whether natural or man-made, befell the city we lived in. And none of us, in the wake of Katrina, has any real reason for confidence that the Federal government would manage to do whatever it needed to do quickly and efficiently. The longer that situation continues, the more likely it is that our luck will run out once again, and disaster will strike. We need to act as quickly as possible to make sure that when that happens, we are better prepared than we were for Katrina.

This is, as Matt said, deadly serious. And it is not a game. It is quite literally a matter of life and death.

Comments

[bob mcmanus]

"Real and rational is that they let it [dying babies] happen. On National TV. Think about it."

Hell,I haven't been able sleep for years. Sorry after this I will go away. Assume for the sake of argument that Rumsfeld and Rove et al aren't idiots, that somebody with weight might have been watching TV on Monday or Tuesday and saw a mess. And let it go.

1) They don't care about black people. Maybe true, but not the point.
2) Thullen's "destroy the gov't" okay, bt still not good enough.

Who or what in modern American political history would not totally completely public relations freak out over a baby dying of thirst on National TV, Geraldo crying at the sight? So:

3) They are saying: "We can do this. We can get away with it. You can not stop us or hurt us. You cowards will even make our excuses for us, rather than actually confronting us."

Reichstag Fire.

[Jeff]

I believe it's important to assign blame for the reasons you've stated above. My concern is that due to the enormous complexity of this situation I question our ability to accurately assign blame at this time. And I have a feeling that as time goes by people on both sides will feel regret for assigning particular blame to certain groups that didn't deserve it. It's a difficult balance though. Because not criticizing at this time is also frought with problems as you've mentioned. So where do we err?

[Gary Farber]

I wrote this, in a post I entitled "The Blame Game," at 12:35 p.m., (which is to say, almost exactly 11 hours ago), presciently getting my comments in in advance. (I've addressed the general issue in other posts. Here, for instance, modifying a comment I made on this blog.

[Catsy]

So where do we err?

We err on the side of asking the questions that are necessary to unearth the facts.

[Pinko Punko]

hilzoy,

Your efforts are really appreciated. This is a great post. Part of finding out what went wrong is to stop things that may currently still be going wrong, identifying policies that need to change immediately and in essence, have someone start ruling by fiat in FEMA. Someone smart enough to master the logistics, i.e. someone with experience. If you have incompetant people running the show, they will continue to make mistakes and essentially kill people.

The entire country has been demoralized by these atrocious events, and hundreds of thousands displaced and traumatized in addition to those killed.

[hilzoy]

Gary: that's somewhat eerie. I often do read your blog, but not since that came up.

I'm with Catsy: we err on the side of asking questions and weighing the facts.

[ral]

I have written before, and no doubt will again: thank God for objective reality. Also for hilzoy.

[Jeff]

[i]We err on the side of asking the questions that are necessary to unearth the facts.[/i]

I'm all for asking questions. I'm a bit uncomfortable though with making categorical accusations that might turn out later to be incorrect as new info is revealed down the line. And unfortunately, when that info is revealed, people's focus on Katrina will have passed and I'm worried the rebuttal will not get as much attention as the accusation.

I will say though that most of the accusations on this board I've agreed with.

[hilzoy]

Jeff: I am too. I mean: it's exactly because figuring out what went wrong is so important that mistakenly deciding that the culprit was one person when in fact it was someone (or something) altogether is such a disaster. It lets you think you've solved the problem when you haven't at all; and then the next time disaster strikes, you're unprepared. And of course it can also ruin someone's life.

That said, I think there are also risks on the other side. If you hold back from reaching any conclusions about what needs to be done unless you're completely certain, you'll never act at all.

In this case, at least, there are a few obvious things that I think we can tell even at this point. FEMA seems to have been terribly run -- besides the obvious evidence of this, a lot of the stories I've read about them have the feel of an agency full of people who genuinely don't know what they're supposed to be doing, and are terrified of making a mistake. This is, in my experience, always a sign of bad management.

Appointing Brown to be head of FEMA is an action by Bush that I find unforgivable. I mean: there are certain jobs you just do not give to people without any discernible qualifications.

I also think we really need to look at evacuation policies for people without cars. The Superdome was better than nothing, but better still would have been to evacuate people out of NO entirely. But where would they go? Who would put them up? Who would pay for it? I think this needs to involve federal assistance, to pool the risk, so that we don't have every city saving up enough money to evacuate their indigent and disabled populations if necessary. This is, I think, a task for Congress.

Finally, I think too many people vote for Presidents without really asking themselves: is there any reason to think this person would be actually good at the work of being President? We are basically voting to elect the CEO of a very large organization, and the qualities that make someone good at that are not the qualities a lot of people look for in a President. I think that really has to change.

But clearly there will be a lot of lessons to come.

[Gary Farber]

"I think that really has to change."

I agree, but the cynic in me, or the pessimist, or the realist, or whomever these damn people who have their interminable little conversations in my head are, says "good luck with that."

I'm not optimistic about significant change on this in the next couple of Presidential cycles, at least. Of course, one never knows what events will bring.

[bob mcmanus]

Don't mind me, I am sleep-commenting. Last one, I promise, and nothing incendiary.

Watch Yglesias. I have noticed TAPPED has been quite restrained and light in coverage of Katrina, as has Matthew. Ezra Klein, about to be a TAP intern, started that way, and was criticized for ignoring the big story. He has since increased his Katrina posting.

Hmmm. I have seen TAP go light on stories before, never mind when (I avoid sensation). Yglesias has mentors, colleagues. I like the hell out of Harold Meyerson. I worship the ground Bob Kuttner walks on. Kuttner is one grizzled 60s veteran who has never given an inch or sold out or compromised, yet has not been dismissed as a wingnut or moonbat or irrelevant. He has seen it all. If the word at TAP is to be maximally cautious on Katrina stories, it means we are in very serious territory indeed.

Me, I am a labile moonbat. Forgive, if you can't ignore. I wish the valiums were more than fives. One more. 500 channels and no "Predator".

[Gary Farber]

Jacob Weisberg argues the moderate case for a political aspect to the response from the top of the Administration. It's not a bad case.

[Tim]

Wait around for months and I have no doubt that by the time Frist and Delay are done, the Katrina reconstruction bill passed will include an estate tax repeal, Social Security private accounts, and free ponies for all Halliburton executives. These people are so shameless that you must start early.

[cleek]

the next elections are still over a year away. and in the coming months, the GOP version of the Song of Katrina ("The Dems Did It / Them Dems Did It !") will have been played so many times, through a combination of payola and sheer bad taste on the part of DJs, that only introverted internet wierdos will even know how the original went. when they run the 2005 year in review, it'll be the GOP version playing in the background, for the 10 second montage. trying to get anyone to listen to the original Song of Katrina will be like trying to get people to listen to the original Handy Man - people will run away wondering why would you know about it, and why would you want to listen ?

[Blue Neponset]

Everyone, even Bush, knows why accountability is important.

The reason Bush & Co. don't care about accountability is because it gets in the way of the President's and his followers' agenda. As a result, they will cling to any excuse for Bush's ____ ups as long as they get what they want. Logic will never work on these people.

The sick part is Bush's apologists probably actually believe the President bears little or no responsibility for the gawd awful response to Katrina.

To the Bush apologists I say, enjoy your tax cuts, your pro-life judges, your gay marriage bans, your Intelligent Design in science class, your war in Iraq, your 10 commandments in the court house because you have sold your souls for them.

[John Thullen]

Between the detailed, lengthy self-reflection, Hilzoy, and the steady stream of eloquent, perfectly phrased posts, where does a person find the time to get good on the guitar? ;)

I tried self-reflection once, but the image looked too much like Quasimodo, so I screamed and climbed into the bell-tower to spy on the Maureen O'Haras below.

[Ugh]

I'm sure the lesson the administration learned from the Abu Ghraib, torture memos, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, etc., is not that such things are bad, but that they need to be more careful containing the information about them.

People will not believe unless there are pictures, therefore there must be no pictures, therefore the press blackout.

[spk]

Thank you for the mention of goverment as a way to undertake "collective action." It's an important part of acknowledging the concomitant idea of those who choose their governments possessing collective responsibility for the actions taken in their [our] name.

[rilkefan]

Quiddity's simple timeline - plus a map discussed in a recent thread.

[robb]

Why should we believe that GWB and/or his admirers will assign blame to anyone but members of the opposing party? GWB promised to fire whomever leaked the identity of Valerie Plame. We now know who leaked the name. GWB did not fire him. Why should we believe him now?

[cleek]

Why should we believe him now?

never assume he gives a fnck what his opponents think ; he only needs to please his base and disgust the middle.

[Jesurgislac]

I got this via Kevin Drum:

The Republican National Committee sent allies a list of "talking points," including: "It's disappointing that while President Bush has focused his administration's entire efforts towards saving lives and helping the victims of Katrina, there are those who are using this tragedy to score cheap political points." cite

So, well, business as usual. Forget what actually happened: by December 5th, criticizing federal disaster relief for New Orleans will be "scoring cheap political points".

[moosk]

okay, so i'm not much of a tv watcher, but ya'll are saying that there was film footage of an infant dying of thirst?? what (fully-fed, fully-hydrated) human being (with a helicopter, van, whatever) can hold a camera when there is a baby dying in front of him/her? i'm just curious... (and i totally admit to not having watched the actual footage, so please enlighten me if i've missed something here.)

i know this post is about blaming politicians, etc., but i also have to ask what would have happened if the media stopped carrying cameras and started carrying water. my "need" to know does not trump anyone's need to eat.