MysteriousFaith

The Federal Political Dimension to Katrina

For people who care about good government and who believe that public leadership matters at both an idealistic and a quite pragmatic level, responding to the affects of Katrina’s devastation is not easy. At one hand, as I have written about earlier, is the obvious need to minimize the political dimension and emphasize the personal crisis that is taking place for the people in New Orleans. The difficulty comes not in concentrating our efforts around the need to help those most traumatized by this event – as Americans, as human beings, we can easily see and respond to this need. The difficulty comes in productive dialogue over what needs to be done differently in order to either prevent a disaster of this magnitude from happening again, or to minimize the human toll in the eventuality of such a disaster.

It is essential to reinforce again that President Bush did not cause Katrina. For those like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who wish to argue the case that global warming is causing increasingly violent hurricanes a couple of words of prudence would be helpful: first, Kennedy is right to argue that Bush’s environmental policies are consistent with allowing industry to not be held accountable to the global impact of its production. Second, Kennedy is wrong to pick this time to make that point. Being right is not the same as being correct; Kennedy may very well be right in showing causality between increasingly violent hurricanes, global warming, and the Bush-Republican anti-Kyoto environmental policies; however, this was not the time to make the point. Pragmatically speaking, making any of these points at this time will only serve to further distance Kennedy from his goals of an American political administration more sensitive to the environment. Third, Kennedy has to take a wiser tactical approach when introducing the topic of global warming to the public. Most Americans are unconcerned with global warming if for no other reason that in their minds they look at the early 1900’s Texas hurricane which killed thousands and subconsciously assume what we have seen most recently with Katrina is not without historical parallels and as such, should not be tied to modern causality.

It is equally essential to hold five other groups to an accounting after Katrina: the local (municipal) engineering cores whose levee designs and city layout proved inadequate, the mayoral-level staff whose complicity in the mismanagement of its own disaster preparedness responsibilities should not be overlooked, the state-level FEMA group whose response to Katrina and its aftermath was terrible, the federal-level FEMA management, and the federal government who, in rolling FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security.

If we are to sincerely attempt and answer the question of how to prevent another Katrina disaster in New Orleans we are going to have to make fundamental design changes to the city’s location itself. One expert interviewed on last Sunday’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert stated that the problem in New Orleans is actually not without precedent in other cities – Miami and New York City being among them. My suspicion in listening to him was that this was an over-stretch of his analogy; what he is right about is the increasing sea levels and the settling of the continent. Taken together this is a recipe for new beach-front property where none was desired. Layered within this question is whether or not a perfect storm – which Katrina almost was – can ever be completely designed against. This is ultimately a question of pragmatism and may be the one most important in our wrestling with what to do with New Orleans. The delta of the Mississippi River where New Orleans sits is essential to incoming and outgoing freight within the US. We may, however have to recognize its economic necessity but build a city reflecting this reality coupled with the environmental limitations of a mixed industrial and non-industrial city in an area prone to hurricanes and, by necessity, settled below sea level. This would be a terrible loss to America as the culture of New Orleans would be much missed; however, the economic realities coupled with the loss of life Katrina’s progeny might cost are too high a price to make the city anything less than a river port.

What are we to make of the various local, state level and federal government responses to Katrina? Ultimately, this is a question for the voters within each part of the government they have a voice within. If, as many are suggesting, the local and state-level responses to Katrina were incompetent then those in charge should lose their jobs. If, as many are suggesting, the plans were not in place or were improperly executed, those city and state level managers who handled either should be replaced. For my purposes, what is most troubling is the weakness at the federal level we have seen.

Two prescient problems exist in the federal government’s handling of Katrina. First, I am stunned that in a post-9/11 world the head of FEMA would be a man with as little experience as Michael Brown. Time Magazine has written a report on Brown that essentially captures a key appointment by President Bush as a man with unacceptable qualifications for FEMA. It is essential to make of this realization not only Brown’s inappropriate placement in a critical agency like FEMA, but to make the point that Brown’s appointment cuts directly against what Bush is supposedly known for – his ability to pick his team and manage them. Going into his first presidential election much was made of Bush’s inexperience; the response to this on the part of his supporters was to tacitly admit this, but to make the point that Bush was much like Reagan and would appoint an especially strong team around him. Brown is not the first frivolous political appointment Bush or any other president has made; but to allow such an unqualified man to sit in a crucial seat in a world that, by Bush’s own words, is beset by the daily realization of possible terrorist threats and our need to be ready to respond to them, is unacceptable.

Bush would have us believe that what he lacks in intelligence, acuity, insight, experience and wisdom is made up for by those he surrounds himself with. How interesting to be proven so badly wrong in an emergency, precisely the situation his handlers and supporters would have had the American people believe Bush was best suited for. What Washington insiders have known for some time about this President is two-fold: first, while charming personally, he is admittedly unaware, disinterested, and imprecise in his understanding of the policies and details of his own administration. Second, that those who surround him on his cabinet are either protective cronies like Rice and Gonzalez, or are the powers that actually guide the policy details Bush can not be troubled over (Cheney and Rumsfeld). Bush represents the political achievement of the 90’s era infatuation with personality and intangible “leadership” over substance and execution. Bush is to politics what “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap at Sunbeam was to business. The difference between Bush and Dunlap when contrasted to FDR and Welch is the difference of execution, of attention to details. While a President has multiple issues presenting themselves every day, he has no excuse from his personal responsibility over the staff he selects to surround himself with.

What has not been covered in sufficient detail by the media is what impact FEMA’s federal and state level response suffered by its position being demoted from a cabinet level function to a position within the behemoth Department of Homeland Security. We should not forget that this was a decision by the Bush Administration. It is immaterial that Katrina was a natural disaster; it could as easily have been a conventional or non-conventional terrorist attack. The means matter less than the results where FEMA is concerned. Was what we have seen in the aftermath of Katrina the best we can do? Is the lesson here that the government, with the billions being invested in Homeland Security, can do no better? FEMA being rolled into the Department of Homeland Security was designed to make us more secure and our response to natural disasters better. It did neither. Why? Because in order to make this increasingly efficient inter-department communication and disaster recovery planning take place it takes attention to detail, something this President can not be bothered by.

Seeing the aftermath of Katrina is angering for most of us. For me, nothing has been more angering than the reminder of the President’s frivolous attitude. I have never been a fan of President Bush primarily because I believe him to be a man wholly lacking the substance necessary to handle the responsibilities of the job of President. His post-9/11 policies, the invasion of Iraq, his abdication of any semblance of conservative principles towards government expenditures, they all surface most frustratingly for me when he is caught on video camera playing. Support neo-conservative ideology as to reshaping the Middle East if you will; believe his economic policies really make sense in terms of the mid-term economic imbalances in America, but get a new leader who does not, in the midst of a national crisis, refer to the head of FEMA by his pet name. Bush’s inability to appreciate the seriousness of the moment is indicative of deeper problems in his management style, a frivolity that costs American GI’s their lives every day in Iraq, and has cost too many American lives in New Orleans because of improperly placed trust in “Brownie.” I will close with a quote from BullMoose.Com about President Bush:

“We have a man-child as President of the United States. That may seem an unfair characterization, but consider the President’s performance last Friday when he ventured to the storm ravaged Gulf Coast. In a revealing moment, he referred to the FEMA Director as “Brownie” and joked about his past good times in New Orleans.

It was inappropriate behavior that one would expect from an adolescent and not the adult leader of the free world. It largely went unnoticed.”

It is time to notice. It is time to demand more from our leaders, even from those leaders whose policies we might disagree with. The modern world is sufficiently complex as to require of our leaders more than image, polish and political handlers. The complexities of modernity demand leadership that can understand and handle complexity. To require anything less is to invite disasters of Katrina-like proportions yet again.

previous post: Katrina
next post: Katrina & Poverty

• Posted in Politics
• no comments
• Trackback
• September 9, 2005

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website