Month: September 2005

by hilzoy

I am still feeling more or less flattened by the devastation in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. However, in odd moments, I have begun reading the articles about the background story: the defunding of FEMA, the excuses of various officials, the general cluelessness of the people who were supposedly in charge, and the offers of aid delayed for days by paperwork or even turned down. In anticipation of the time when I can write about this, I want to say this:

Criticizing the administration’s response to this or any other disaster is not ‘politicizing’ it. There are, I think, two ways of politicizing something. One is to drag politics into a discussion where it does not belong. Thus, if I decided to make a big issue out of Laura Bush’s birthday party, that would be ‘politicizing’ it. I can’t imagine in what possible world criticism of the administration’s response to a catastrophe would count as ‘politicizing’ in this sense.

The other way is to use something to score cheap political points. Criticism of the administration’s response to Katrina only counts as ‘politicizing’ if that criticism is motivated by partisanship, rather than by genuine outrage. Criticism of people as ‘politicizing’ the disaster is, fundamentally, a criticism of their character: it means either that they have allowed partisanship to skew their judgment, so that they overstate their criticisms, or that their motives are not grief, outrage, and anger, but a desire to score political points.

This is important. If all criticism of the administration were out of bounds, we would have no way of registering any of its failures. And people who dismiss all criticism as scoring political points prevent themselves from any serious examination of this administration’s record. By conflating people who believe the administration has fallen short because they take every opportunity to slam George Bush with people who hold the same belief because they have examined the evidence and concluded that it is true, they spare themselves the trouble of actually thinking about George Bush’s record, or about the possibility that some of his critics might be right.

Below the fold: one of the things that prompted this.

Read more

by Charles

My memory is muddy what’s this river that I’m in?
New Orleans is sinking man and I don’t wanna swim
—Tragically Hip, 1989

I’ve said it before, I’m saying it now, and I’ll probably say it again when he utters something stupid (and he will):  Dennis Hastert is a Speaker of the House who should not speak in public.

It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that’s seven feet under sea level, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said of federal assistance for hurricane-devastated New Orleans.

Although he later corrected himself, Dennis Hastert is a fool, and George Friedman’s words could not make the foolishness clearer:  New Orleans is a geopolitical prize.  Some excerpts:

Read more

by hilzoy

Glug, glug, glug.

(Sorry; couldn’t resist.)

I have not been thinking about who, if anyone, is responsible for the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Whenever I find myself on a web page that has anything to do with those questions, I save the link and move on. I just can’t begin to think about that yet.

However, I did follow a link in comments to this post by Thomas at RedState. Since he is from Louisiana, I’ll give him a pass on the rhetoric: I don’t get bent out of shape by what people say two days after large chunks of their home state have been destroyed. But it did make me think: maybe now would be a good time to lay out, in general, the kinds of criticisms I think might be in order and the kinds I don’t, precisely because I haven’t read any of the relevant articles and I really don’t know what they contain, other than what one can glean from the headlines. I have no idea at all what the facts are (which is why, at various points in this post, I’ll probably find myself saying: I don’t know if this is true, but suppose it is… — I really don’t know. This is not disingenuous at all.) Because I have no idea which criticisms, if any, I will end up thinking have some merit, I can’t really skew things one way or the other.

First of all, while of course no one should slant their assessment for political purposes, it can’t be inappropriate for anyone ever to criticize the government’s preparedness or response to this catastrophe. The possibility that exactly this sort of catastrophe would strike New Orleans was not exactly unforeseen. I first read about it years ago, and have been hoping against hope that someone, somewhere, was looking out for New Orleans: shoring up the levees, starting to replenish the wetlands, and so forth. And if I, who am not responsible for emergency preparedness, knew about this, surely someone in the federal government knew as well.

If any criticism of government preparedness for a disaster is forever out of bounds once the disaster happens, then we can never figure out what our mistakes are and learn from them. Obviously, this would be awful: the last thing on earth we should do is doom ourself to ignorance on the crucial question: what can we do to minimize the possibility that anything like this will ever happen again? Moreover, it makes no more sense to me to say that our government’s success or failure at preparing for an entirely predictable catastrophe is somehow not an appropriate topic of conversation than it would make sense to rule out discussion of an administration’s foreign policy or environmental record. This is exactly the sort of thing we should think about in assessing an administration’s record. If we were as well prepared as we should have been, obviously whoever is responsible for that deserves credit. And if not, whoever is responsible for that deserves blame, absent some compelling story about other, even more urgent priorities, which, just now, I have a hard time imagining.

On the other hand…

Read more