... Reclaiming Public Responsibility

In After Katrina ..., I suggested that in the wake of that recent hurricane, American politics may have started to tip in a different direction. What direction might this be?

An answer to the question can be extracted from an op-ed piece in today's Baltimore Sun. "A steady withdrawal from responsibility", by Goucher College assistant professor of anthropology George Baca, indicts a "make-the-federal-government-weaker philosophy" for the longstanding abdication of public social responsibility which Katrina has now exposed.

Katrina, says Baca, "washed away the gloss that decades of civil rights reforms have put over the American public's contempt for poor African-Americans, leaving their isolation and poverty for the world to see."

Weakening the government in Washington, D.C., by reducing spending on programs — "except, of course," Baca points out, those expenditures focused "on law enforcement and jails" — has been called by conservatives "starving the beast." What Baca shows is that so doing, even when it zeroes out supposedly race-neutral initiatives like government spending on infrastructure — levees are infrastructure — has hurt poor and working-class blacks disproportionately.

Those below the middle class rely on the fruits of public spending more than, say, the newly successful black middle class does. Katrina has made that clear. When the levees crumbled in New Orleans, post-hurricane, middle-class folks were long gone. It was the impecunious who could not find transportation, most of whom were black, that suffered.

So the conservative ploy of adverting to how many blacks have "made it" since the civil rights revolution of the 1960s has just masked how many more blacks have not made it, in an ideological atmosphere where private markets have trumped public initiatives.

Until Katrina, that is.

Katrina is now Exhibit Number One in the case that "the privatization of public goods," as Baca summarizes the thrust of American politics since President Reagan, was what left New Orleans and the two-thirds of its population who are poor, most of whom are African American, singularly exposed to the threat of a Category 4 hurricane.

So the direction in which I hope American politics has begun tip is one in which, the next time a political candidate extols anything like "starving the beast" or "the privatization of public goods," sensible voters will say, "But ... what about Katrina?"

After Katrina ...

oldstyleliberal is surely not the only one wondering if Hurricane Katrina has turned the tide of American politics. Can it have taken us past a tipping point such that the erstwhile hegemony of the right, as represented by President Bush, turns into a resurgence of the left?

Consider columnist Trudy Rubin's op-ed piece in today's papers, "Katrina debacle flattens America's image abroad". This analyst of America's foreign policy, particularly that vis-à-vis the Middle east, has never been a Bush booster ... but that's not what's important now. What's important is that, like so many other of her fellow anti-conservative pundits today, she clearly smells presidential blood.

Rubin tells of a plenitude of voices abroad, both friendly and antagonistic to the U.S., who fear America has lost its mojo. Why? Because we couldn't step in quickly enough and strongly enough in our own homeland to keep Katrina's body blows from morphing into chaos. Then she adverts to all the U.S. troops that couldn't be sent to New Orleans because they were trying (with questionable success) to quell chaos in Baghdad. Finally, she wraps her indictment up in a pretty bow of indignation at the Bush tax cuts which have so "shrunk his [Bush's] monetary options" that a choice between alternative military deployments became inevitable.

It's a tri-cornered charge of gross incompetence, stone-faced insensitivity, and ideological stubbornness ... and, for once, it all sticks.

Before Katrina came along to complete the triangle, the anti-Bush types could rail against the Iraq war and its faux justifications. Or they could lambaste Bush for his tax cuts and other compassionless domestic policies. But until now, they couldn't tie the two modes of complaint together into one overarching indictment that made ineluctable good sense.

That was then, this is now.


The images of devastation on our TV screens for the last couple of weeks guarantee that America has experienced one of those "I'll never forget" moments ... the JFK assassination, the Challenger disaster, and 9/11 being others. This time, unlike most of the others, we can blame Washington — not for the natural disaster, clearly, but for the lack of preparation and the tardy response that surely caused hundreds of unnecessary deaths.

This time, unlike most of the others, the situation just happened to be one in which average white folks sitting aghast in their living rooms could identify with poor, black, inner-city residents waiting vainly for rescue on rooftops above a stinking, toxic flood.

This time, unlike most of the others, there was linkage. Try as conspiracy theorists might, they could prove no linkage of the JFK assassination to anything beyond the paranoid fantasies of one Lee Harvey Oswald. Challenger was the fault of bureaucratic stupidity in NASA and its contractors, but the blame ended there. This time, we can paint New Orleans after Katrina into a portrait of American haplessness which includes Iraq, al-Qaeda, record gasoline prices, and the massive budget deficit caused by the huge Bush tax cuts.

This is one woeful president that we have. Or at least, so it inevitably seems, after Katrina. (More to come on this topic in ... Reclaiming Public Responsibility.)