Katrina's Politics

Mmm, the smell of politics. Like a mix of rotten eggs and stale beer, it gets into your nostrils and you just can’t get it out. It can stink up whole rooms, whole cities at times. And the Katrina aftermath reeks of it.

The overarching question here is, has a heretofore unrecognized weakness been exposed? And if so, is it Bush’s weakness, or is it the country’s weakness? Or is it maybe a little bit of both?


The easy answer, of course, is that it’s Bush’s weakness. And it has been well-hidden. The creation of a new cabinet department, Homeland Security; the strong talk after 9/11; the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the constant talk about keeping America safe; it was these things that helped push Bush over the edge in 2004. Americans, even many Democrats, consistently rated Bush strong on homeland security, regardless of how they felt about him otherwise. It was assumed that whatever else he may have been doing, he was at least keeping the homeland safe.

And then this happens. A major natural disaster, true, not a terrorist strike, but in one sense far easier than a terrorist strike to handle—we could see it coming. And what did our emergency response teams do?
Actually, we’re still waiting for a good accounting of that.

Any way you slice it, this looks bad. Karl Rove and his marketing team will do their best to mitigate the damage to the Bush reputation, using standard tactics. This quote from Political Wire is telling:

"It utilizes the classic Rovian tactic of attacking critics rather than defending against their criticism -- and of throwing up chaff to muddle the issue and throw the press off the scent. It calls for public expressions of outrage over the politicization of the issue and of those who would play the 'blame game.'”

This is precisely why Bush has been called “the most partisan president in modern American history,” by U of Maryland professor William Galston (in today’s Washington Post. Galston, of course, was a Clinton staffer, so we can assume he’d never admit Clinton was plenty divisive in his time. That said, the Political Wire is right: the Bush/Rove public relations machine relies almost exclusively on ad hominem attacks and staged events and committees designed to move pressure away from the president. Typical has been the recent attempts by FEMA to blame their sluggish reaction on poor direction from Louisiana state emergency managers.

This divisiveness is in direct contrast to the post-9/11 world, when Bush had 90% approval and nearly everyone felt like we were “all in this together.” That's why Rove and company have had to go into full blame mode. As long as there's somebody to blame, then blame they shall.

Which brings up the question: can anyone profit from this? Can they do so without seeming to?

I have a gut feeling that the Bushies have pretty well screwed the pooch here. That said, with public attention focused on Louisiana, Iraq has dropped off the radar screen. This means the slide in public approval for the Iraq war has been halted, at least for the time being.

Bush being an inherently polarizing figure (much like Clinton), his support has always had both a floor and a ceiling. It's been brushing the floor lately; this won't help, but probably won't push him much lower, either.
Congress, unlike Bush, has a ceiling but no floor. Nothing about this disaster is likely to improve their numbers.
The Democrats, as a group, are currently ahead in the generic Congress question in polls--but again, I don't see how they can make this into something that raises those numbers. Nor should they try.

In fact, frankly, I don't see any way for anyone to make any political hay out of this tragedy. That doesn't mean they won't try. It just means that stink is going to be around for a while.