« The Financial Times' op-ed wingnut on Katrina | eddiegeorge's Blog | The Rovian Strategy on Katrina - Divide and Rule »
Has David Brooks seen the light?
Point 1 - Brooks compares 9/11 with Katrina.
The similarities begin and end with the fact thousands of Americans lost their lives. Beyond the body-count, comparisons are wholly irrelevant.
Of course Giuliani took control - of the ghost town that was downtown Manhattan. Unlike 9/11, after Katrina, people were trapped in NO, and taking control of a city with barely a police force to speak of and all communications cut was all but impossible.
On 9/11, there were two types of people - those who could escape, and those who could not and were killed. In NO, there were three types of people - those who could escape, those who could not and were killed, and those who could not and became trapped. It is of course the third category of people in NO that make this tragedy so completely different.
The similarities begin and end with the fact thousands of Americans lost their lives. Beyond the body-count, comparisons are wholly irrelevant.
Of course Giuliani took control - of the ghost town that was downtown Manhattan. Unlike 9/11, after Katrina, people were trapped in NO, and taking control of a city with barely a police force to speak of and all communications cut was all but impossible.
On 9/11, there were two types of people - those who could escape, and those who could not and were killed. In NO, there were three types of people - those who could escape, those who could not and were killed, and those who could not and became trapped. It is of course the third category of people in NO that make this tragedy so completely different.
Point 2 - Confidence in civic institutions.
Brooksie starts off okay. The abandonment of the most vulnerable was dreadful, and no questions that it has shaken our confidence in local, state and federal government.
But then he starts lumping in other recent "institutional failures" as if they are relevant comparisons.
Intelligence failures: 9/11 and WMD. On the former, that was a failure to READ and RESPOND to intelligence reports. The latter we can argue till the cows come home, but frankly the main consequence of the WMD malarky was Colin Powell making a tit of himself and America before the UN.
Incompetent Postwar Planning: That was a Neocon failure. Period. They fought the war, they hadn't a clue how to bring the peace. No need to lump the rest of America with this failure.
Enron and Wall St Scandals: Firstly, how are these failures of civic institutions? Sure the SEC hasn't covered itself in glory, but in the end, it WAS a public figure (Eliot Spitzer) who took the fight to big business. Now I'm in no way excusing the crap that went on in Tyco etc, but honestly, the idea that a handful of corrupt businesses constitute civic institution failure is silly.
Scandals at Newspapers and Magazines: See above. Failures of civic institutions? Please.
Steroids in baseball: Ditto
Abu Ghraib: I thought that was the failure of a few bad apples in the military? No, seriously, I would put Abu Ghraib in the Neocon postwar planning failure. So again, on the Pentagon civvies (aka Neocon) doorstep.
Is there anyone who sees a failure of civic institutions in any of these above examples? (Katrina is different. There the FEMA infrastructure undoubtedly failed.)
Point 3 - Elemental violence in human nature
Brooksie waffles through a coach trip of atrocities that he believes will define this decade, ending at the thoroughly predictable Manichean conclusion that good and evil are in conflict and the former is struggling.
I got to deal with one fundamental, typical conservative inconsistency. If there is as Brooks said, an elemental violence in human nature, then we are all evil. Conservatives should pack up any pretension otherwise. You see, as human beings, we are not fundamentally good, evil, violent, peaceful, greedy or generous. We are all of the above. And the problem is not our elemental violent tendencies - it is a shortfall in generosity. That is what is currently wracking America's conscience.
Point 4 - Moral Culture
Trust a conservative to bring this up. For anyone who's made it this far, Brooks has just lamented the elemental evilness of human beings and the fact the poor and vulnerable are being left behind. So for him to then to argue that the moral culture is "strong" is just cheap talk. Katrina has surely taught us that our moral culture has some profound problems, and Brooks is just in a state of denial.
As per usual, Brooks weaves in some halfbaked economic point, in this case, that the economy is also strong. Well, no, and certainly not by historical standards when improving productivity and real wages were measures of strength. The economy is growing, but that on its own is no measure of strength.
Point 5 - Crystal Gazing
No problem with Brooks speculating where the next political leadership will be coming from. What he omits is the fact that the current political class, dominated by plutocrats, is what's on thin ice.
Perhaps Brooks' problem is that as an insider in this political class, he just can't see beyond the bubble he's in.
Intelligence failures: 9/11 and WMD. On the former, that was a failure to READ and RESPOND to intelligence reports. The latter we can argue till the cows come home, but frankly the main consequence of the WMD malarky was Colin Powell making a tit of himself and America before the UN.
Incompetent Postwar Planning: That was a Neocon failure. Period. They fought the war, they hadn't a clue how to bring the peace. No need to lump the rest of America with this failure.
Enron and Wall St Scandals: Firstly, how are these failures of civic institutions? Sure the SEC hasn't covered itself in glory, but in the end, it WAS a public figure (Eliot Spitzer) who took the fight to big business. Now I'm in no way excusing the crap that went on in Tyco etc, but honestly, the idea that a handful of corrupt businesses constitute civic institution failure is silly.
Scandals at Newspapers and Magazines: See above. Failures of civic institutions? Please.
Steroids in baseball: Ditto
Abu Ghraib: I thought that was the failure of a few bad apples in the military? No, seriously, I would put Abu Ghraib in the Neocon postwar planning failure. So again, on the Pentagon civvies (aka Neocon) doorstep.
Is there anyone who sees a failure of civic institutions in any of these above examples? (Katrina is different. There the FEMA infrastructure undoubtedly failed.)
Point 3 - Elemental violence in human nature
Brooksie waffles through a coach trip of atrocities that he believes will define this decade, ending at the thoroughly predictable Manichean conclusion that good and evil are in conflict and the former is struggling.
I got to deal with one fundamental, typical conservative inconsistency. If there is as Brooks said, an elemental violence in human nature, then we are all evil. Conservatives should pack up any pretension otherwise. You see, as human beings, we are not fundamentally good, evil, violent, peaceful, greedy or generous. We are all of the above. And the problem is not our elemental violent tendencies - it is a shortfall in generosity. That is what is currently wracking America's conscience.
Point 4 - Moral Culture
Trust a conservative to bring this up. For anyone who's made it this far, Brooks has just lamented the elemental evilness of human beings and the fact the poor and vulnerable are being left behind. So for him to then to argue that the moral culture is "strong" is just cheap talk. Katrina has surely taught us that our moral culture has some profound problems, and Brooks is just in a state of denial.
As per usual, Brooks weaves in some halfbaked economic point, in this case, that the economy is also strong. Well, no, and certainly not by historical standards when improving productivity and real wages were measures of strength. The economy is growing, but that on its own is no measure of strength.
Point 5 - Crystal Gazing
No problem with Brooks speculating where the next political leadership will be coming from. What he omits is the fact that the current political class, dominated by plutocrats, is what's on thin ice.
Perhaps Brooks' problem is that as an insider in this political class, he just can't see beyond the bubble he's in.
Advertisement
Leave a comment