What Katrina Tells Us About Mr. Bush's Philosophy of Government

[Mediocrates]

What Katrina Tells Us About Mr. Bush's Philosophy of Government

By Leonard Steinhorn

Mr. Steinhorn teaches politics and media at American University, and is the author of the forthcoming book, The Greater Generation: In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy, to be published by St. Martin's Press in January 2006. He is a member of the board of directors of HNN.

Years from now, historians will likely see the Bush administration’s initially callous and indifferent response to hurricane Katrina as a parable for the type of conservatism this president and his party currently represent.

Bush conservatism is built on a fundamental cultural narrative that has reemerged since the Reagan Eighties – that success is a sign of virtue, and anything less, particularly poverty, can be explained only through a character flaw.

From the Roosevelt years through the Seventies, we defined the American Dream as a good job, a piece of the rock, and the ability to take care of one’s family. Those who lived paycheck to paycheck earned our respect, because hard work and determination were deemed virtuous. These were the people who built America.

We even understood poverty as a condition brought about by circumstance, often historical circumstance far beyond the control of the poor, and we granted those who struggled to overcome it a semblance of nobility. Sure, there were some who chose to fail, and they never gained our sympathy, but most aspired for something better and as a society we acknowledged it.

Today, however, the conservative movement has redefined success and worth in America. Because some of us succeed, conservatives say, there must be something flawed in those who don’t. The American Dream has been redefined as striking it rich, and falling short just isn’t good enough.

It’s a worldview coded into the Bush and Reagan tax cuts, which showered money on the super wealthy under the assumption that these are the real people who know how to build America. Those with money, in other words, contribute more to our nation’s health than those who merely work. They have wisdom and virtue.

And because those who aren’t successful must be responsible for their lack of success, it’s no business of government to be there for them. Thus the president seeks to privatize Social Security and cut other benefits – he calls it an “ownership society,” but in real life that translates to an “on your own society.” If you don’t properly prepare for your future, you have only yourself to blame – this is America, after all, where anyone can succeed.

In the America defined by Bush conservatism, there is no social contract that recognizes our common humanity and the link between success and the society that makes it possible – a social contract that understands hard knocks not as a character flaw but simply as part of life.

Indeed it’s no surprise that the president would prefer to transfer society’s obligations to the faith-based community, because these are institutions built on the notion of forgiving those who are weak and those who sin. If those who fail do so because of a character flaw, then we should send them to those best equipped to redeem them. The government, according to Bush conservatism, should have no part of it.

It’s sad yet fascinating how conservative pundits seized on the small number of looters during Katrina’s aftermath, turning it into the main storyline of the hurricane, as if it provided confirmation for a worldview that asks “What’s wrong with these people” and “Why didn’t they save themselves” and “Why didn’t they evacuate?”

Unstated but understood among these conservatives is the view that Katrina’s victims, many of them at least, are responsible for their misery. Others got out, so why didn’t they? Doesn’t it reveal the same character flaw that makes them poor?

Thus it’s not government’s duty to help them, and thus the initial impassiveness and unresponsiveness of this conservative administration. Only when politics intervened did the president realize the perils of his indifference.

Perhaps the president has an excuse. After all, his own life story follows this conservative narrative. He was a drinker, an irresponsible husband, and he turned his own life around through faith and redemption. If he could overcome his character flaw, why not everyone else?

What he forgets is that he had a safety net of wealth to protect him. Most of us don’t. And what he assumes is that the poor and near poor suffer from character flaws. Most of them don’t, and in fact most of them work hard for what they have.

Whether Katrina will serve as a cultural turning point is yet to be seen. But the hurricane that hit America is only partly due to nature. It’s also a storm created by a conservative ideology that, consciously or not, leads to contempt and indifference toward those not seen as society’s winners.

[Mil]

Garbage. I am against socialism in every sence of its form. Most of the posters from the former socialist heaven will concur with me.

I don't particular understand why Jews are so obsessed with socialism, class equality, and capitalism? Any thoughts?

[Mediocrates]

So the government has little if any responsibilities to mind its own citizens.

[Ephraim]

From what I have heard lately, Bush's response in this hurricane was faster than the federal response in the past 12 or so big hurricanes (even with Clinton in the chair).

I guess we could pre-position all our resources in every major southern city. That which is not destroyed by the hurricane could be shipped off to where its needed. Or it could be stolen by the welfare mentality inner city folks and crooked sourthern politicians.

Heck, we could just Federalize everything and create a socialist utopia. Oh wait, Louisianna is a democrat utopia....free love, gay parades, lots of welfare, government corruption, good jazz, good food; all built upon a very shakey foundation of dikes.

[Mediocrates]

That's disingenuous to say that if we don't agree with you the alternative is P-Town gay parades and anarchy. My question was direct. What do people think is the substantial difference between paving roads and staffing police forces and a Federal response to disasters? Why right now we're having our own Cat 1 hurricane and it will be interesting to see what happens. Why? Because this will be our first hurricane at the peak of the peak of the housing bubble. And where the median price on the shore has gone up 300% in the last 4 years to a median price of $675,000 and where most of them are leveraged to the eves. What do we think the government response will be to an economy that is literally and financially underwater. It's just an example - we have floods all the time and the Federal government tends to believe that tourism and farms and wholesale warehouses are worth rebuilding. At least they have in the past. Maybe that will change and it's every man for himself in the future. All I can suggest to most of Florida, the Mississippi basin, the Red River Basin, San Fran, LA, Seattle, Charleston, Savannah, Tulsa, Kansas City, Southern Ohio that when whatever natural disaster, flood, hurricane, fire, tornado, ice storm, mudslide or volcano hits them, it's been nice knowin ya. I wonder what the Federal response should be to the Avian Flu as in non-terrorist biological disaster as well? Is that socialism or is it just common sense?

[Ephraim]

That's disingenuous to say that if we don't agree with you the alternative is P-Town gay parades and anarchy. My question was direct. What do people think is the substantial difference between paving roads and staffing police forces and a Federal response to disasters? Why right now we're having our own Cat 1 hurricane and it will be interesting to see what happens. Why? Because this will be our first hurricane at the peak of the peak of the housing bubble. And where the median price on the shore has gone up 300% in the last 4 years to a median price of $675,000 and where most of them are leveraged to the eves. What do we think the government response will be to an economy that is literally and financially underwater. It's just an example - we have floods all the time and the Federal government tends to believe that tourism and farms and wholesale warehouses are worth rebuilding. At least they have in the past. Maybe that will change and it's every man for himself in the future. All I can suggest to most of Florida, the Mississippi basin, the Red River Basin, San Fran, LA, Seattle, Charleston, Savannah, Tulsa, Kansas City, Southern Ohio that when whatever natural disaster, flood, hurricane, fire, tornado, ice storm, mudslide or volcano hits them, it's been nice knowin ya. I wonder what the Federal response should be to the Avian Flu as in non-terrorist biological disaster as well? Is that socialism or is it just common sense?

In a Federalist society the chain of command is local, State and then Federal....except in time of war I would add. Thus, the reaction to 9/11 should be different than another SF earthquake.

The city should have a plan coordinated with the State. The State should have a plan coordinated with the Feds.

The law is that the State calls up the State National Guard. The Feds are not supposed to federalize the guard (posse comitus). The fact that part of the New Orleans Guard was in Iraq was not good, and I am totally against the Guard being part of a non-Total war.

So, to answer your question.

The role of the Fed should be to assist the State if needed (except in time of war). The Governer of the LA should have determined what her needs were and then asked the Feds to supply those needs not met by the State. That requires a real Governer, not a political hack like some States have.

If I were Governer of LA, I would have:

1. A clear emergency hurricane plan with each city. Each city should have a plan A,B,C as far as the severity expected of the hurricane. N.O. should have had a separate dike busting plan.
2. called the mayor when it looked like the hurricane was going to hit. Initiate A, B or C.
3. If in the plan: call up the guard. If in the plan; start evac using the planned busing scheme. Notify the Feds (FEMA) that the plan was being set in motion. Start the FEMA plan rolling.

Much of the above was not done. You can't blame Bush for that.

Now the dikes. Tons of money has been sent down to N.O. to fix the dikes. Much has been lost through corruption. Most of the effort was to keep the Mississippi from overflowing. No one considered the Lake going over the dikes. The lakes went over the dikes.

If the LA Guard was in Iraq then the Gov. should have had other States/Fed on standby. Didn't happen.

No one expected the stupid N.O. left-behinds to start shooting at rescuers. No one. No way to fix that except send in the 101st to shoot everyone. Obviously that wouldn't fly.

Red Cross had food/water. Fema had food/water. The local authority told them to hold off because they didn't want people going to the Dome. Can't blame Bush for that.

Bush didn't bite his lower lip and cry on TV...many blame him for that.

No one expected animals to rape and murder in the Dome. Can't plan for animals raping, murdering and shooting at rescuers.

To me it sounds like lazy and unprofessional local government, along with unprofessional State government. FEMA cannot "take over" and federalize the whole State...I certainly wouldn't want that.

A nuclear attack would be different of course as you probably would have instant martial law and federalizing of much of America...but that is a war footing.

If I were the media; I would be asking the mayors of the big cities what their disaster plan is. SF, LA, NY, etc.

[Leon]

So the government has little if any responsibilities to mind its own citizens.

When you say "government" do ya say mean Federal government? Bad ol conservative Bush?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05262/573959.stm

Reporter Dean Reynolds found a dozen people—all African-Americans—who’d been evacuated from the flooded streets of New Orleans, sat with them outside the Houston Astrodome and interviewed them as soon as the president’s speech ended.

Reynolds’ first question was to a woman named Connie London: “You heard the president say you are not alone . . . Do you believe him?"

“Yes," she said, “because here in Texas they’ve been truly good to us."

"Did you harbor any anger toward the president because of the slow federal response?"

"No, none whatsoever,” London replied, “because I feel our city and state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs."

"And they weren’t?” Reynolds asked.

"No, no, no, no, Lord, they weren’t,” she stated. “They had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses that were just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."

Reynolds asked a woman named Mary if she gleaned hope from the president’s words.

“Yes," she replied.

“Why?" he asked.

"Because I really believe what he said."

He turned to Brenda Marshall and asked, “What did you think of what the president said tonight?"

"I think the speech was wonderful."

"Was there anything you found hard to believe? You know, that’s nice rhetoric but the proof is in the pudding?"

"No, I didn’t,” she answered, with an apologetic shrug.

"Well ... good,” Reynolds fumbled. “Very little skepticism here."

[Leon]

oh shucks minus, did you really have to beat me to it

[Leon]

"No, no, no, no, Lord, they weren’t,” she stated. “They had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses that were just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."

damn old racist conservative Mayor Nagin (who really is only a puppet for Dubya Bush) -- he only got all dem white people out in dah buses and left the rest of the population (along with the remainder of the Buses) to fight off a racist hurricane.

[Roland]

Garbage. I am against socialism in every sence of its form. Most of the posters from the former socialist heaven will concur with me.

I have always thought, that a democratic governement is oblieged to care for it's people. I'd never call that socialism.
I'm not sure where that former socialist heaven was.

[Mediocrates]

Cracks

You expect to hear Democratic criticism of the Karl Rove-George W. Bush production in Louisiana, and it came quickly last night: A few minutes after the president's speech ended, John Kerry said that Americans need "leadership that keeps them safe, not speeches in the aftermath to explain away the inexcusable."

What you don't expect to hear -- or at least you didn't until Bush's poll numbers began to make him look like a political liability -- is Republicans speaking out critically about the president's response to Katrina and his plan for rebuilding the Gulf Coast. But open your newspaper this morning, and that's exactly what you're going to see.

In the New York Times, Mickey Edwards, a former GOP congressman from Oklahoma, said Bush's speech missed the mark: "He was giving a speech as if the nation were disheartened and worried and had lost its spirit, but that's not what people were thinking. They were thinking, 'Why did the government screw up?'"

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn -- last seen working a crossroad puzzle during the confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts -- bristled at Bush's plan for a $200 billion reconstruction effort. "I don't believe that everything that should happen in Louisiana should be paid for by the rest of the country," Coburn told the Times. "I believe there are certain responsibilities that are due the people of Louisiana." South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint chimed in that "throwing more and more money without accountability . . . is not going to solve the problem."

As Jonathan Chait notes in the Los Angeles Times, Tom DeLay is complaining that there's no way to pay for a massive rebuilding effort along the Gulf Coast because there's not enough pork to be cut to cover the cost. "After 11 years of Republican majority," DeLay says, "we've pared [the budget] down pretty good." That doesn't sit well with Republicans who are still dreaming of a federal government so small that it could be drowned in a bathtub, and the intra-party fighting has begun.

Why are Republicans, who have spent the better part of five years marching in lockstep with their president, suddenly going sideways on him? Part of it is the president's unpopularity, and part of it is that Bush is -- relatively speaking -- a short-timer. He needs to put on a big show of helping the Gulf Coast to recover from his stumbling performance in the early days of the disaster, but he'll be enjoying his retirement on Trent Lott's new porch by the time the bill comes due. Members of Congress will have to deal with the financial ramifications down the line -- especially if they ignore them now -- and they aren't necessarily happy about picking up the tab then to get Bush out of a jam now. As one senior House Republican official tells the Times, "We are not sure he knows what he is getting into."

[Mediocrates]

Government collapses, Americans come through

[minusthejihad]

Government collapses, Americans come through

The same England you chastized in the other threat in regards to their treatment of Israelis? Funny, I had no idead they would also be blaming Bush, go figure.

OTH, I just saw a poll on CNN in which the majority of Americans blame the local and state levels (Nagin, Blanco) above the Feds first. Not that Bush isn't to blame. He is. I'm just interested why your microscope has been turned on him more than the other goons who lived and worked on behalf of the people there, and how they failed them miserably.

[NewsGuy]

Today, however, the conservative movement has redefined success and worth in America. Because some of us succeed, conservatives say, there must be something flawed in those who don’t. The American Dream has been redefined as striking it rich, and falling short just isn’t good enough.

Not really.

Most conservatives would define success as being productive to society and caring for one's family.

And it's not that most people "strike it rich" miraculously. Instead, it seems that most wealthy people in America have become that way as a result of their hard work, discipline, and sacrifice -- not as a result of dragging around their sense of entitlement to the fruits of other people's labor.

What we saw with the Katrina disaster is a big dose of human tragedy accompanied by a despicable display of looting, raping, murder and arson. We saw what the underclass is capable of once the thin veneer of law and order is removed for a few days.

Sure, some ultra-liberals can blame "society" for everything they don't like. But until individuals are held accountable for their own actions, the problems that plague our society won't be solved.

[Mediocrates]

I'm not sure that 'holding them responsible' for a whole population is a meaningful thing. Mississippi wrote new laws and ennacted special provisions so that the Gulf coast casinos and resort areas could be profitable and so that the state could share in the loot. Is it rational to then turn around and say caveat emptor? Or are we merely limiting our discussion to private citizens and homeowners?

In your own state, every year people are burned out of their homes in wildfires and every year they rebuild in the same place. One would think that in your own view of things not only would we not help them rebuild in any way, we would flat out not even rush to put out the fires. See the peril of radical social Darwinism is that you devolve to tribalism. And you are perilously close to jumping from "that which is good for me is good" to saying "that which is bad for anyone else is good for me".