Friedman, correct as usual

Osama and Katrina By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: September 7, 2005

On the day after 9/11, I was in Jerusalem and was interviewed by Israeli TV. The reporter asked me, “Do you think the Bush administration is up to responding to this attack?” As best I can recall, I answered: “Absolutely. One thing I can assure you about these guys is that they know how to pull the trigger.”

It was just a gut reaction that George Bush and Dick Cheney were the right guys to deal with Osama. I was not alone in that feeling, and as a result, Mr. Bush got a mandate, almost a blank check, to rule from 9/11 that he never really earned at the polls. Unfortunately, he used that mandate not simply to confront the terrorists but to take a radically uncompassionate conservative agenda - on taxes, stem cells, the environment and foreign treaties - that was going nowhere before 9/11, and drive it into a post-9/11 world. In that sense, 9/11 distorted our politics and society.

Well, if 9/11 is one bookend of the Bush administration, Katrina may be the other. If 9/11 put the wind at President Bush’s back, Katrina’s put the wind in his face. If the Bush-Cheney team seemed to be the right guys to deal with Osama, they seem exactly the wrong guys to deal with Katrina - and all the rot and misplaced priorities it’s exposed here at home.

These are people so much better at inflicting pain than feeling it, so much better at taking things apart than putting them together, so much better at defending “intelligent design” as a theology than practicing it as a policy.

For instance, it’s unavoidably obvious that we need a real policy of energy conservation. But President Bush can barely choke out the word “conservation.” And can you imagine Mr. Cheney, who has already denounced conservation as a “personal virtue” irrelevant to national policy, now leading such a campaign or confronting oil companies for price gouging?

And then there are the president’s standard lines: “It’s not the government’s money; it’s your money,” and, “One of the last things that we need to do to this economy is to take money out of your pocket and fuel government.” Maybe Mr. Bush will now also tell us: “It’s not the government’s hurricane - it’s your hurricane.”

An administration whose tax policy has been dominated by the toweringly selfish Grover Norquist - who has been quoted as saying: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub” - doesn’t have the instincts for this moment. Mr. Norquist is the only person about whom I would say this: I hope he owns property around the New Orleans levee that was never properly finished because of a lack of tax dollars. I hope his basement got flooded. And I hope that he was busy drowning government in his bathtub when the levee broke and that he had to wait for a U.S. Army helicopter to get out of town.

The Bush team has engaged in a tax giveaway since 9/11 that has had one underlying assumption: There will never be another rainy day. Just spend money. You knew that sooner or later there would be a rainy day, but Karl Rove has assumed it wouldn’t happen on Mr. Bush’s watch - that someone else would have to clean it up. Well, it did happen on his watch.

Besides ripping away the roofs of New Orleans, Katrina ripped away the argument that we can cut taxes, properly educate our kids, compete with India and China, succeed in Iraq, keep improving the U.S. infrastructure, and take care of a catastrophic emergency - without putting ourselves totally into the debt of Beijing.

So many of the things the Bush team has ignored or distorted under the guise of fighting Osama were exposed by Katrina: its refusal to impose a gasoline tax after 9/11, which would have begun to shift our economy much sooner to more fuel-efficient cars, helped raise money for a rainy day and eased our dependence on the world’s worst regimes for energy; its refusal to develop some form of national health care to cover the 40 million uninsured; and its insistence on cutting more taxes, even when that has contributed to incomplete levees and too small an Army to deal with Katrina, Osama and Saddam at the same time.

As my Democratic entrepreneur friend Joel Hyatt once remarked, the Bush team’s philosophy since 9/11 has been: “We’re at war. Let’s party.”

Well, the party is over. If Mr. Bush learns the lessons of Katrina, he has a chance to replace his 9/11 mandate with something new and relevant. If that happens, Katrina will have destroyed New Orleans, but helped to restore America. If Mr. Bush goes back to his politics as usual, he’ll be thwarted at every turn. Katrina will have destroyed a city and a presidency.

Don’t bet on it.

This is a guy who has not shown once his inability to turn everything he touches into shit. From his college career, to his failed business career, this misadventure in Iraq which has been dotted by simple failures of competence, to his strange blitheness upon his initial visits to the Gulf Coast, he just doesn’t get it. Whereas this was once trumpeted as a virtue by his supporters, this gut judgment tendency, it has now been shown, under tragic circumstances, to be simply inappropriate to running anything.

And I don’t expect it to change. It’s just the way he is. He never admits error, never corrects course. Everything is simply a matter of public relations perception, not fundamental error in judgment or ideology. He lives in this bubble behind Karl Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld, and he doesn’t look independently to evaluate information on his own. This is a man who didn’t do a single campaign stop that wasn’t scripted with an audience that had been pre-screened for loyalty. And when he was forced to think on his feet in the debates, he had his clock cleaned and shown to be a pretender. So I don’t think he will change course - his worldview is constrained by his inability to look outside of himself and his own experiences.

"If Mr. Bush learns the lessons of Katrina, he has a chance to replace his 9/11 mandate with something new and relevant. If that happens, Katrina will have destroyed New Orleans, but helped to restore America."

Don’t count on it. But who cares about Bush. He’s over and done with. He is so jealous of Clinton right now, can’t you sense it? That last thing Bush wants to do is work. It’s no fun when you don’t feel like you are popular anymore. And I think he finally realizes a vast swath of America doesn’t care for him at all. And they don’t trust his peoples’ plans to “protect us.”

Screw the politicians and the bureacrats. The question is can we learn something from all this? From a real energy policy that weans us off foreign oil (and oil in general) to actually ***preparing ***for catastrophe, we can learn. Freidman is right. We can do so much better. I wouldn’t count on any politicians, though. It’s up to us to do it at the grassroots level.

You guys need to quit snorting the nitrous oxide. Tell the truth…you’re all regulars over at good old Democratic Underground, aren’t you?

T.

To what sinking economy do you refer? France or Germany perhaps? Certainly not this one.

You guys really need to decide whether you want high gas prices or not. Friedman’s editorial is attacking Bush for not driving up the price of gas. You are attacking him for allowing the price to go up. Which is it?

I hate op ed pieces like this. It’s one thing to write something about a specific event or policy choice. It’s quite another to make a series of glib, overly simplistic statements about something as complex as our economy and fighting terrorism. This is pseudo-intellectualism at its best (or worst, I should say).

I’m a Democrat and not a Bush fan, but someone please tell me how Bush would have been able to persuade Congress to impose even higher gas taxes after 9/11? Would that have been good policy? The economy was teetering after 9/11; would higher prices on something as key to our economy as gasoline have been good policy? Gee, I think we may need more than a few paragraphs and perhaps some real thinking to answer that one.

Unless he’s a complete idiot, Friedman has to know he’s being glib. I don’t know how he has the stomach to write this inflammatory crap.

I’m a Democrat and not a Bush fan, but someone please tell me how Bush would have been able to persuade Congress to impose even higher gas taxes after 9/11? Would that have been good policy? The economy was teetering after 9/11; would higher prices on something as key to our economy as gasoline have been good policy? Gee, I think we may need more than a few paragraphs and perhaps some real thinking to answer that one.

Pretty simple, I think I could write the speech. He could have given it from ground zero. All he would have had to do was link terrorists to the Saudis (true – they were), mention that oil revenues fund terrorism (true), and that America could never be secure without taking control of its own energy destiny (true). OPEC has had a stranglehold on our economy since the early 1970’s. All it would take is another oil embargo to really muck things up.

The American people respond to a challenge. He could have challenged the American people to conserve, raised the gas tax, promised that the additional tax funds would go to working on energy independence (be it via renewables or increased production – gotta throw the energy companies a bone here). This is what a true leader COULD have done. Instead, he suggested we all go shopping.

Yeah, I’ll probably vote Dem again … you really outed us, Tony … But even if Bush is your personal hero, who could not agree with my second paragraph??? In times of distaster, I’m thinking the Red Cross can get it done if it has the resources … Fema on the other hand …

You guys need to quit snorting the nitrous oxide. Tell the truth…you’re all regulars over at good old Democratic Underground, aren’t you?

Here’s a post from some Democrat who calls herself “barbaraann.” She says “Saddam had rape rooms, Bush has rape stadiums.” Here are some of the other goodies you find from our Democrat brothers and sisters who have posted to Democratic Underground: "Don’t forget bush has mass graves now also, just like Saddam." (RetroLounge) * *“Saddam gassed his own people, Bush let his drown. Who has the higher body count? Shrub by far.” (MidnightWind) * “OMG … how true it is!!! I hate him. I hate this bastard.” (cynatnite)

Keep up the good work libs. More seats to be lost in the next election.

It’s funny how the libs blame everything on the tax cuts, as if they caused the fed to cut every major program in half. But the truth is spending is up and up in a big way, which I don’t like. Nearly all of the big lib fed agencies were fully funded or increased, but they still scream.

And now that federal revenues are up and expected to continue to go up while the federal deficit starts to shrik quicker than expected I wonder what they will say? Tax cuts they work! They worked for Kennedy and they worked for Reagan and now they are working for Bush and they will work every time they are tried.

Art,

You really think things are going in the right direction? New study came out last week: 1 million more people officially classified as “poor” by the U.S. Gov’t in the last year. That swells the roll to something like a 5.5m increase since Bush came into office. Looking at the lower-middle to upper-middle class, their wages have stayed stagnant for the last 5 or so years, they are working more hours for the same take-home pay, and of course their cost of living has gone up by almost 20% during the same time. If that is your definition of progress than I feel sorry for you.

You are also oversimplifying Friedman’s argument. Bush could have put into place a gas tax, but he chose not to. Impact the economy?? HA! What would have been worse: a $.25-50 p/g tax on fuel back then (when fuel was $1.50 or so on average) & a public call for sacrifice + conservation, or the $3.00 per gallon & a black hole that we are facing now?

I can already see your response as we’ve heard it on talk radio the past two weeks: (whiny voice) “but its a free market…the market will always correct itself…supply & demand set the price, not Bush” Blather (though I agree on the supply & demand & China has more $$ + a huge demand).

Listen, I’m against drilling in ANWaR, but if Bush had simply laid it out; EVERYONE Sacrifices, Conserve, Alternative Energy Sources, Reliance on Domestic Resources, OPEC=Terrorism, Detroit=Required higher MPG Vehicles, Cleaner Fuels, and unfortunately we have to open ANWaR people would have gone for it–yeah, the nutso left would have cried, as would have Detroit’s Lobbyists + the Coal/Oil Lobbyists, but that is what compromise/sacrifice is all about. Instead he put into place tax cuts for SUVs over 6k GVW and relaxed emission standards for Oil/Coal companies + opened up the CA/AZ border with Mexico for Mexico based trucks; all of which encouraged fossil fuel consumption & worse environmental conditions. Of course nobody trusts him/this administration on ANWaR–he hasn’t made the correct decision once when it came to us of fossil fuels or alternative energy sources.

I can’t hit on all of your points. I asked a simple question about gasoline prices. It is tough to justify complaints that the price is too high and that not enough taxes have been placed on gasoline. If you think both, say so. I grant that it was not you that seemed to think both, but rather a different poster.

Explain to me how Bush could put a gas tax into effect. Last I check, my copy of the Constitution said that taxes had to be passed by Congress. So far as I can see there is just about zero popular or legislative support for such a tax. I haven’t heard any candidate for any office campaign on such a platform.

As it happens, by the way, I actually support such a tax and have for many years.

Deflecting again Art. Bush had pretty much carte-blanche to put into effect any agenda he wanted after 9/11. Would have been easy to wrap national security & oil independence together. He chose not to.

As for gas prices: they just fit into my theory on the whole “tax cut” theory of the right: sure, federal taxes are down quite a bit for those of us in the upper bracket, but for the middle class, what was the savings? $300? $1000 per year. That has been eaten up by higher fuel prices (which impact EVERY aspect of the economy–all of my truckers + shipping lines are putting 20% fuel surcharges on their invoices–that gets passed down to the consumer), higher local & state taxes, higher COL overall.

You can’t have your cake & eat it too–this administration is trying to do both & is wrecking the country’s long-term security & financial stability in doing so.

Sure, he is all powerful and could do whatever he wanted. Just look at the great SS program he passed. The great immigration program he passed. The judges he got confirmed.

He is just one man. He barely passed CAFTA.

So you, me and Friedman would support high gas taxes. That makes three, which is probably three more supporters than you could find in Congress.

In terms of endangering the nation’s long term finances, I agree. He is trying to solve the SS problem, though it looks like he will fail. On the other hand, he did create the train wreck of prescription drug plan which will do more damage than all the highway bills during my entire lifetime.

“Nearly all of the big lib fed agencies were fully funded or increased, but they still scream.”

Not my favorites: The forest service, national parks and NOAA. These have been pared down a lot over the years. And it was under Clinton that welfare was cut a great deal. There were more AFDC recipients under Reagan than now, I’m pretty sure.

You are kind of forgetting that little incident we are currently involved with over in Iraq. He could have got it done if he had promoted it as a matter of national security as he did the war.

“Nearly all of the big lib fed agencies were fully funded or increased, but they still scream.”

Not my favorites: The forest service, national parks and NOAA. These have been pared down a lot over the years. And it was under Clinton that welfare was cut a great deal. There were more AFDC recipients under Reagan than now, I’m pretty sure.
Thats good news isn’t it.

USFS, NOAA, Nat’l Parks: I say double the funding. I’ll pay those few more dollars in taxes, or we could take it from the more bloated programs. The USFS & NOAA budgets all pale in comparison to many other agencies anyway … As for AFDC what Clinton helped do was good for the most part.

… As for AFDC what Clinton helped do was good for the most part.

and

And it was under Clinton that welfare was cut a great deal.

Sorry wrong, Clinton was forced into signing welfare reform, he resisted every step of the way by vetoing the bill twice. Nice try, but give credit where credit is due. If you don’t know the correct answer click Here and look at item #6. I am sure you’ll love to read it. I’ll be waiting for you to correct your statements with the proper answer

He wasn’t forced into signing the welfare reform bill in 1996. The plan he proposed in 1994 limited welfare recipients to two years of aid. The republicans, who gained a majority in 1994 wanted more drastic reform including putting state governments in charge of welfare policy, while imposing work requirements coupled with lifetime limits on cash benefits. And, Republicans proposed ending welfare for all immigrants, legal or illegal.

Clinton vetoed the republican’s plan twice and the differences were worked out. He always wanted reform just not the Republican bill which included changes to the Medicaid system. When they presented him with a clean bill he signed it.