|
September 5, 2005
Killed by Contempt
By
PAUL KRUGMAN
Each day since Katrina brings more evidence of the
lethal ineptitude of federal officials. I'm not letting
state and local officials off the hook, but federal
officials had access to resources that could have made
all the difference, but were never mobilized.
Here's one of many examples: The Chicago Tribune
reports that the U.S.S. Bataan, equipped with six
operating rooms, hundreds of hospital beds and the
ability to produce 100,000 gallons of fresh water a day,
has been sitting off the Gulf Coast since last Monday -
without patients.
Experts say that the first 72 hours after a natural
disaster are the crucial window during which prompt
action can save many lives. Yet action after Katrina was
anything but prompt. Newsweek reports that a "strange
paralysis" set in among Bush administration officials,
who debated lines of authority while thousands died.
What caused that paralysis? President Bush certainly
failed his test. After 9/11, all the country really
needed from him was a speech. This time it needed action
- and he didn't deliver.
But the federal government's lethal ineptitude wasn't
just a consequence of Mr. Bush's personal inadequacy; it
was a consequence of ideological hostility to the very
idea of using government to serve the public good. For
25 years the right has been denigrating the public
sector, telling us that government is always the
problem, not the solution. Why should we be surprised
that when we needed a government solution, it wasn't
forthcoming?
Does anyone remember the fight over federalizing
airport security? Even after 9/11, the administration
and conservative members of Congress tried to keep
airport security in the hands of private companies. They
were more worried about adding federal employees than
about closing a deadly hole in national security.
Of course, the attempt to keep airport security
private wasn't just about philosophy; it was also an
attempt to protect private interests. But that's not
really a contradiction. Ideological cynicism about
government easily morphs into a readiness to treat
government spending as a way to reward your friends.
After all, if you don't believe government can do any
good, why not?
Which brings us to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. In my last column, I asked whether the Bush
administration had destroyed FEMA's effectiveness. Now
we know the answer.
Several recent news analyses on FEMA's sorry state
have attributed the agency's decline to its inclusion in
the Department of Homeland Security, whose prime concern
is terrorism, not natural disasters. But that supposed
change in focus misses a crucial part of the story.
For one thing, the undermining of FEMA began as soon
as President Bush took office. Instead of choosing a
professional with expertise in responses to disaster to
head the agency, Mr. Bush appointed Joseph Allbaugh, a
close political confidant. Mr. Allbaugh quickly began
trying to scale back some of FEMA's preparedness
programs.
You might have expected the administration to
reconsider its hostility to emergency preparedness after
9/11 - after all, emergency management is as important
in the aftermath of a terrorist attack as it is
following a natural disaster. As many people have
noticed, the failed response to Katrina shows that we
are less ready to cope with a terrorist attack today
than we were four years ago.
But the downgrading of FEMA continued, with the
appointment of Michael Brown as Mr. Allbaugh's
successor.
Mr. Brown had no obvious qualifications, other than
having been Mr. Allbaugh's college roommate. But Mr.
Brown was made deputy director of FEMA; The Boston
Herald reports that he was forced out of his previous
job, overseeing horse shows. And when Mr. Allbaugh left,
Mr. Brown became the agency's director. The raw cronyism
of that appointment showed the contempt the
administration felt for the agency; one can only imagine
the effects on staff morale.
That contempt, as I've said, reflects a general
hostility to the role of government as a force for good.
And Americans living along the Gulf Coast have now
reaped the consequences of that hostility.
The administration has always tried to treat 9/11
purely as a lesson about good versus evil. But disasters
must be coped with, even if they aren't caused by
evildoers. Now we have another deadly lesson in why we
need an effective government, and why dedicated public
servants deserve our respect. Will we listen?
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com |