The Levee Will
Break
By Jonathan Freedland
07 September, 2005
The
Guardian
It's
safe to say that if George W Bush was in his first term, he would now
be heading for defeat. Safe, because we will never know: he's in his
second term and will never face the voters again.
That quirk in the
US system, with its strict two-term rule, makes it hard to read the
impact Hurricane Katrina will have on the Bush presidency. Nor is it
much easier to tell how the disaster that drowned one of America's best-loved
cities will change the country itself. But both questions matter - especially
for a wider world that has come to learn that what happens in the US
affects everyone.
Start with Bush
himself. Weekend polls suggested 50-50 America has once again split
down the middle, with Bush opponents disapproving of his abysmal non-performance
last week while Bush-supporters stay loyal. That's heartened Republicans
who were bracing themselves for much worse numbers.
They find further
cheer in their belief that Bush bounces back in a crisis. Attacked for
his immediate response to 9/11, he turned that calamity into the defining
moment of his first term. Privately, conservatives also wonder how much
sympathy white, suburban America - the crucial middle ground all politicians
covet - will feel for Katrina's victims. One close-up observer describes
what he suspects is a widely-held - if rarely articulated - view of
those left behind in New Orleans: "They lived in a silly place,
they didn't get out when they should, they stole, they shot at each
other and they shot at rescue workers." If that's the view, then
Bush won't suffer too badly.
Pessimistic Bushites
see things differently. They reckon the sight of so many black Americans
left destitute or dying while Washington idled will embarrass those
same white suburban voters who, they say, feel uncomfortable at even
a hint of racism. They also believe Bush and chief strategist Karl Rove
can consign to the trash-can their long-term dream of peeling at least
some African-American voters away from the Democrats. Bush had scored
some small successes in that direction: now he can forget it.
More directly, the
charge of incompetence is deadly when applied to the White House: it
could instantly diminish Bush, reducing him to a lame duck nearly two
years ahead of schedule. The most immediate test will be in his nominations
for what are now two vacancies on the supreme court. He has made one
choice already; if he feels obliged to nominate a liberal or centrist
as his second, rather than the red-meat conservative he would have preferred,
that will be proof that Katrina has hobbled him.
What of America
itself? Since the country's founding, the US has oscillated between
international engagement and isolationism. Sometimes it wants to look
outward, sometimes in. The hurricane may well put Americans in the latter
mood. As they look at pictures of US troops toiling away in Iraq, many
will surely think: what the hell are we doing there, when we have so
much work to do right here at home?
Adrian Wooldridge,
co-author with John Micklethwait of an excellent study of conservative
America, The Right Nation, anticipates just such a sentiment. "The
big losers among Republicans will be the neocons," he says. "The
hubris of thinking America could reshape the world, creating a democracy
in hostile territory, when it can't even keep order in an American city
- that hubris has just been punctured in a big way." Now it will
be images of Katrina which are foremost in the public mind, replacing
the four-year-old memories of 9/11. The "global war on terror"
could well lose its place as the all-consuming, number-one priority.
Indeed, all previous
assumptions are now up for grabs. Since Ronald Reagan's election in
1980, conservatives have won the argument for a shrunken state, one
that taxes and spends less. That neoliberal model - with its emphasis
on privatisation and deregulation - has spread across the world, often
imposed on countries that did not want it. It continues to split the
European Union, with France and others insisting that their own social
model is superior.
Katrina has reopened
that debate in neoliberalism's motherland. Suddenly progressive Americans
detect an opening, a chance to speak up for active government, even
for taxing and spending. The hurricane has made their case immediate
and simple: you can only neglect the public realm for so long. Do so
for a generation and the levees will break - and an entire city will
be washed away.
Still, it's not
obvious that the progressives will prevail. For one thing, Bush is not
quite the no-spend conservative we imagine. The US government has actually
expanded more under Bush than it did under Bill Clinton. It's not just
defence and homeland security: Bush has spent billions in traditional
areas, including education - much to the ire of hardcore Reaganites.
Some of that cash
has gone on building projects, usually in the pork-barrel schemes beloved
of senators and congressmen keen to show they can bring home the federal
bacon. The result, says Micklethwait, is that most of the country's
infrastructural needs have been catered for, if only "accidentally".
Louisiana may have suffered because its representatives did not have
their snouts deep enough into the federal trough.
Advocates of government
action have other problems. After 9/11, Democrats made a similar demand
and won the new Department for Homeland Security as a result. That is
the department now blamed for handling Katrina so badly. The only success
story of the last week has been the characteristic American outpouring
of generosity from individuals, churches and others keen to help the
needy. That has enabled the right to argue that it's these voluntary
"armies of compassion" that get the job done, not central
government.
The left has another
impediment, one that has dogged its opposition to the Iraq war: a lack
of leadership. There are few Democrats bold enough to step forward and
make the post-Katrina case for an active, caring government. That's
partly tactical - Democrats reckon it's smarter to let Bush hang himself
- and partly because the party remains split, divided into modernising
and traditionalist camps.
The most likely
result is that America won't rethink the size of the state so much as
its efficiency. Simple competence could become the key political virtue.
Step forward Rudy Giuliani, whose post 9/11 record contrasts so starkly
with Bush's errors last week. His chances of winning the Republican
presidential nomination for 2008 look better than ever.
There could also
be a change in tone, with conservatives obliged to cool down the anti-government,
low-tax rhetoric of old. Yesterday the Senate was due to debate a cut
in inheritance tax that would have delighted the super-wealthy: mindful
of the new mood, the Republicans quietly put it on ice.
Hurricanes toss
everything into the air; how things settle afterwards is up to the people
on the ground. A new political settlement will not come about by a simple
act of nature - it has to be fought for and won. And that process is
just beginning.
Guardian Unlimited
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005