September 15, 2005
New York and New Orleans Posted by John Steele Gordon at 02:15 PM EST Joshua Zeitz writes that “the suggestion that New Yorkers (or their city officials) handled catastrophe better than their counterparts in New Orleans is patently offensive.” Offensive to whom? The mayor of New Orleans, who (1) holed up during the storm and afterwards on the 27th floor of a luxury hotel without communications and (2), knowing that tens of thousands of his citizens had no means to evacuate, nonetheless failed to utilize more than a thousand city and school buses that could have moved them out of harm’s way if deployed in a timely manner? The governor, who (1) had to be coaxed by President Bush into ordering a mandatory evacuation of the city, and even then allowed the mayor to wait until the next morning to issue the order and (2) failed to deploy the National Guard in a timely manner or allow them the force necessary to prevent looting? The state government, that refused to allow the Red Cross into the Superdome with supplies immediately after the storm, supplies that could have ameliorated conditions that made the Black Hole of Calcutta look like a Club Med? Of course, who it is really offensive to is the mainstream media who have fallen on this story like a starving man on a loaf of bread, and have relentlessly pushed the notion that everything was George Bush’s fault for purely partisan purposes. They are shamelessly perpetuating a bold-faced lie. To give just one example, the New York Times ran a long article laying out this all-Bush’s-fault party line that began with a story of Governor Blanco (well-named) screaming that the federal government hadn’t come up with any buses to evacuate refugees. Did the Times even mention the fact that New Orleans’s 1,000-plus buses had been allowed to be destroyed, or run the picture sent out by the A.P. showing the hundreds of school buses, neatly lined up, windows-deep in flood water? Of course not. The federal response was, to be sure, less than perfect. How could it be otherwise when faced with an unprecedented disaster? But it was, in fact, faster and better handled than the response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992, the closest valid comparison. It is not easy to bring relief to an area the size of England that has had its road, rail, air, and communications networks devastated. An area that had no running water, no electricity, no gasoline or diesel fuel. But, hey! It’s all George Bush’s fault. He writes, ”I’ll happily concede that we have a better tradition of efficient and honest urban government [in New York City] than New Orleans. Simply put, there is no Fiorello La Guardia in recent Louisiana history.” In recent history? New Orleans and Louisiana have richly deserved reputations for having the most feckless and corrupt governments in the country and have had for centuries. But, hey! Let’s blame the federal government anyway. Why should we blame governments with 1,000 buses under their control and in place, when we can blame the federal government, which had no buses in place at all? Was it the federal government’s fault that one third of the New Orleans Police Department deserted their posts when their city needed them most? He writes that ”these two catastrophes [Katrina and 9/11] are not on the same scale.” I never said they were. I was talking about the local government response and example-setting, not the size of the disaster. Rudolph Giuliani, faced with a wholly unpredicted disaster that came without warning, handled it magnificently and led a frightened and traumatized city to swift recovery. Ray Nagin and Governor Blanco, faced with an utterly predictable disaster that came with days of warning, blamed everyone but themselves for what befell New Orleans. If you want something that’s offensive, how about that? He writes, “There are some problems that are beyond the reach, capability, and responsibility of local governments. What happened to New Orleans is a prime example.” So? Is that a good reason to do nothing except whine? Could they not have tried their best instead of not trying at all? He writes, “What’s truly deplorable is the anemic federal response to so massive a regional disaster.” Again, the federal response was not anemic. Mr. Zeitz really should get his information from more sources than a newspaper that allows its editorial pages to be disgraced twice a week by the likes of Paul Krugman, a magazine like The New Yorker, and a television network like CBS. On this story, they care as much for the truth as a pig cares for Mozart. He writes, “Under the Bush administration, the Army Corps of Engineers has seen its project-based budget allocations decimated… and a devolution of authority to cash-strapped state and local authorities.” State and local government, in fact, are doing very well budget-wise these days. And I would bring to Mr. Zeitz’s attention the clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 9) that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” In other words it is Congress that decides finally how much money shall be spent where. It was Congress that decided how much money the Army Corps of Engineers should have and what it should be spent on. Louisiana got more money than almost any other state, but much of it was spent on things other than levees (a revenue-producing casino, for instance). But it’s all George Bush’s fault. He writes, “I hope that New York is never faced with anything on the scale of what just happened in New Orleans. If we are, John Steele Gordon will surely find that even the Big Apple’s leadership has its limits.” Do a thought experiment: You live in an American city. You know that disaster is about to strike and you can choose who you want to run the government in order to handle it. The choice is between Rudy Giuliani and Ray Nagin. Any questions?
|
