Skip to main content

Was it deliberate malevolence or just criminal incompetence?

i began this blog a while ago, hoping to find something constructive to do with the anger, frustration and sense of helplessness i felt during and after katrina. i had some ideas and thoughts that i wanted to write out in long form, but due to events in my life i laid it all down for a while. i've been wanting to begin again but with the torrent of criminal behavior from this administration and its allies it's been difficult to decide where exactly to begin. then i saw a clip of historian doug brinkley on msnbc's scarborough country talking about bush's failure in leadership in leaving the gulf coast essentially a wasteland. people are expressing surprise at this apparent failure instead of realizing that failure is the man's middle name (the w is silent).

the title of this entry comes from a chris floyd post about the federal declaration of emergency in louisiana prior to the hurricane and how it failed to cover the coastal counties (illustrated here). the basic question has been bouncing around the left for a while: is he evil or just stupid? a blogger today said it's time to stop asking that. i can't remember who wrote that but i completely agree, because the obvious answer is yes. the underlying thread for every bad decision, every inaction, the far-reaching corruption is ideology. i can't really explain this thing called the neo-con ideology, i don't fully understand it. it makes no practical sense to me. it is essentially to put in place a set of governing beliefs that assert america's will through the commander in chief's imperialistic strength, you know, the military, if threats are not enough. it is predicated on doing whatever is necessary to protect america's security. because of their financial and social standings for most of the neo-cons protecting america's security means protecting the security of its corporations, thus the boom in corporate wealth and stagnation in wages. there are those who i know who would give me shit for this oversimplification, if they were to actually read this far, but the actions of the administration support it. the reason i began writing about the katrina aftermath is because it is a very stark and difficult to spin snapshot of who this administration is.

there is an obvious question that i have not seen asked. while the president was able to find it in his heart to end his vacation early to come back to dc to sign legislation to "save the life" of a single brain-dead woman, how could he possibly be so completely unaware of the thousands needing their lives saved during his next vacation? how is it possible that it took that long to end his vacation, and still so much longer for aid to reach all of the people in need? it is impossible to be that incompetent. i don't know why people are so afraid to call it deliberate. put simply, a competent govt. response would have been anathema to the neo-con philosophy of a smaller government; a government, to paraphrase grover norquist, small enough to drown in a bathtub or a backyard in the ninth ward. this presidency is built on the idea of the people helping the people, because government is too ineffective to depend on, unless it's for corporate welfare.

so that's it: the gulf coast lies in ruin because of ideology. ask yourself why they would depend on cruise ships, motel vouchers, and tent cities when they could have used the much more effective section 8 program to house people quicker and at lower costs; or why instead of worrying about the collapsing levees on august 29th, as pointed out in the chris floyd post, bush was worried about illegal aliens. this of course comes from the white house transcript of his arizona speech that day. there is no faith-based group that can repair new orleans and there is no market based solution. throwing money at halliburton certainly won't work. the only thing that will work is effective federal leadership from an administration that doesn't believe in anything except the federal power, or rather the presidential power to make war. that being the case why is anyone actually surprised that the gulf coast still lies in ruin?

lastly, i read someone earlier this week, can't remember who, explaining why kanye was wrong about bush not liking black people. i'd have to say i agree, but not because of his convoluted logic (which amounted to saying just because bush doesn't care about the black vote doesn't mean he doesn't like black people). i don't think kanye went far enough, bush doesn't like the vast majority of americans, doesn't care about our rights, our needs, or our constitution.

Conspiracy theory bonus question:

In light of what we now know about the FBI's illegal spying , the president's illegal NSA wiretapping, and general assertions of executive power, and the controversy surrounding voting machine manufacturer diebold, whose recently resigned ceo had promised to deliver ohio to bush in the last election; do you believe these people ever intend to lose the presidency again?


Popular posts from this blog

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

The Stories That Break Us, The Stories That Bind

Remember the mass shooter who planned and executed an attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando possibly because of his own unreconciled sexuality? It never happened. The mass shooting at The Pulse nightclub definitely happened, but the narrative around it was wrong from the start. I'm a poor consumer of mainstream news and still I was left with the erroneous impression that the sexual orientation of the victims was central to the event. It's understandable that even without consuming media one would conclude that this was an anti-gay hate crime. The victims were gay it happened in a gay nightclub. The story , like most of reality, is more complicated than the narratives we use to contain it. This illustrates the problem with a media more concerned with getting out the first just-so story that confirms our impressions and prejudices. It's worth pondering the ways in which this damages us. In the wake of the shooting, the media and public focused on certain details, many of which