President Bush’s speech last night from the ghost town that is now New Orleans was everything that the American people should expect from their leader in the face of an utter catastrophe.
The speech was reassuring and uplifting. It boosted public confidence that the government finally had the situation in hand. It made it clear that the immediate needs of the victims were being met, and that the government had evolved at least the broad outlines of a plan for reconstruction.
It’s a pity that Mr. Bush couldn’t have said all that a week ago. Speculation as to why he didn’t has run the gamut from indifference, to general cluelessness, to the fact that Karl Rove, “Bush’s Brain,” was unavailable during the crucial days after the storm due to a painful case of kidney stones.
In listening to Bush’s speech with my speechwriter’s ear, I found the harmonies generally pleasing, but I was struck by a couple of discordant notes.
First, Bush nominally accepted responsibility for the government’s inadequate response to the disaster, but only after he had provided himself with some artificial shrubbery for cover. “It was not a normal hurricane,” he said, “and the normal disaster relief system was not equal to it.”
True enough, but why wasn’t our disaster relief system prepared for the worst? The prospect of a major hurricane hitting New Orleans was no more a chimera than the prospect of a major earthquake hitting San Francisco, and yet local, state and federal governments all appeared to have been taken by surprise.
Second, when Bush was giving examples of American cities that had rebounded from great disasters, he mentioned the Chicago fire and the San Francisco earthquake. But, curiously, since he had been Governor of Texas and was speaking from the Gulf Coast, he made no mention of the hurricane that destroyed the city of Galveston in September of 1900. Much of the city was leveled and 6,000 people died in what is still the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.
Maybe Karl Rove was in too much pain to review the final draft.
Comments (2)
Alternative theory: Galveston wasn't brought up because to call it "recovered" would be a bit of a stretch that they didn't want anyone to point out. Galveston was the jewel of the Gulf Coast in the 1800s, and it's widely acknowledged that it has never been the same since the 1900 storm. Houston holds Galveston's crown now. Perhaps it was a parallel they just didn't want to allow for, preferring the more vibrant and indisputable recoveries of Chicago and San Francisco. It's also possible (though far less likely) that they didn't want to seem insensitive by making the comparison, since some might choose to interpret the massive loss of life in Issac's Storm as minimizing the devastation of Katrina. Better in this case, perhaps, to stick to inspirational stories that can't supply direct comparisons.
Posted by DeAnna B | September 16, 2005 6:27 PM
Posted on September 16, 2005 18:27
Hal, I didn't see the speech, only the sound bites. But didn't you think it a little abrupt and obviously over the top for him to as much as declare a War on Poverty during this address, after not mentioning the word in the last two political campaigns? It struck me as a little desperate. You?
Posted by David Murray | September 19, 2005 3:21 PM
Posted on September 19, 2005 15:21