|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
The New York Times and Bushs New Orleans speech
By Patrick Martin
17 September 2005
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The debased and servile state of the US media was on display
in its response to President Bushs Thursday night speech
in New Orleans. Press reports and commentaries were largely favorable,
depicting Bushs words as a serious effort to grapple with
issues of poverty and inequality that have never before been on
the radar screen of this administration, and his proposals as
a significant pledge of federal aid to the victims of Hurricane
Katrina.
Among the most deplorable commentaries was the lead editorial
of the New York Times, the principal voice of the liberal
establishment in America. The newspaper gushed over Bushs
speech, describing it as principled, disciplined and ambitious.
The Times claimed that Bush forthrightly acknowledged
his responsibility for the egregious mishandling of the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina. He spoke clearly and candidly about race
and poverty. And finally, he was clear about what would be needed
to bring back the Gulf Coast and said the federal government would
have to lead and pay for that effort.
The newspaper compared Bushs performance to his supposedly
exemplary role in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
Once again, he has delivered a speech that will reassure
many Americans that he understands the enormity of the event and
the demands of leadership to come.
The Times did express concern that after 9/11 and the
US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, which the newspaper
supported, Bush turned to the invasion of Iraq, about which the
Times now has doubtsnot so much because of Bushs
lies about a connection between Iraq and 9/11, as because the
US occupation has become bogged down in a protracted guerrilla
war.
The response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster should be more
thought out, the newspaper advised. This time, Mr. Bush
must come up with a more coherent and well-organized follow-through.
Presumably, this was an appeal to Bush not to respond to the drowning
of New Orleans by invading Cuba, or perhaps abolishing Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security.
What criticism the Times made of the White House was
in reference to Bushs dismissive attitude towards the domestic
responsibilities of the federal government. Federal agencies like
FEMA proved incapable, under the leadership of Bush loyalists,
of providing any serious emergency relief. Only a focused
federal effort can accomplish such tasks as housing hundreds
of thousands of now-homeless people and providing for their employment
and the education of their children, the newspaper concluded.
The Times was silent about the social and political
meaning of the actual measures that Bush announced in his speech,
which were later elaborated in press briefings by White House
aides. The centerpiece is the establishment of a Gulf Opportunity
Zone, in which most taxes and federal regulation of business will
be waived in order to encourage entrepreneurship.
The Environmental Protection Agency has already suspended enforcement
of most anti-pollution laws in the zone.
There are also plans to issue tuition vouchers that could fund
private and religious schools, rather than rebuilding the public
school systems in the disaster area, an Urban Homesteading Program
on federal land, and $5,000 Worker Recovery Accounts with federal
money that could be used for job retraining.
All these initiatives are merely a rehash of longstanding policy
proposals from the Bush administration. They are disaster-relief
versions of proposals Bush made during his first term and in his
2004 campaignproposals for urban enterprise zones, home-ownership
subsidies for low-income families and job-training accounts,
according to the Los Angeles Times.
The Washington Post, in its analysis of the Bush speech,
declared that Bushs policies bear the distinctive
stamp of a conservative president, a hallmark of an executive
who has never shrunk from seeking to implement a right-leaning
agenda even in the face of a divided country.
The Post reported earlier in the week that the White
House had contacted the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise
Institute and similar right-wing think tanks, seeking policy proposals
that could be introduced using the Katrina disaster as a pretext.
As liberal columnist Paul Krugman noted, the Heritage Foundation
has already published a manifesto on post-Katrina policy.
It calls for waivers on environmental rules, the elimination of
capital gains taxes and the private ownership of public school
buildings in the disaster areas.
The Bush administration and the congressional Republican leadership
are seizing on the scenes of mass suffering in New Orleans and
the Gulf Coast to push through policy proposals that they have
been unable to enact over the past five years. But the New
York Times presents this cynical maneuver as though it were
the second coming of Roosevelts New Deal.
This says more about the Times, and the liberal sections
of the ruling class and upper middle class for which it speaks,
than all the professions of sympathy for the plight of the victims
of Hurricane Katrina. The Times has no objection when Bush
seeks to use the army of displaced people as guinea pigs for ultra-right
social experimentation. The newspaper is quite happy to stand
reality on its head, and pretend that a government which contributed
so heavily to causing the disasterthrough its deliberate
neglect of basic infrastructure and refusal to confront environmental
problems like global warmingcan suddenly be transformed
into a federal savior.
What brings the leading voice of the liberal media
together with the ultra-right president? Both defend the interests
of the narrow layer of wealthy families at the top of American
society. Both react with fear and trepidation to the exposure
of the vast social gulf that exists in the United States between
this privileged elite and the vast majority of working people.
And if social disorder were to erupt in New York City as it did
in New Orleans after Katrina, the Times would embrace the
same shoot-to-kill policies espoused by Bush and the Democratic
governor of Louisiana.
(It should be pointed out that Louisianas Democratic
governor, Kathleen Blanco, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, and the
whole congressional Democratic leadership had a generally approving
response to Bushs speech. There was no criticism of the
Gulf Opportunity Zone, although it is well understood that its
purpose is to transform the Gulf Coast into a low-wage, high-profit
arena of exploitation for corporate America.)
A survey published Friday gives some indication of the depth
of the social polarization in New Orleans prior to Katrina. The
study of hurricane survivors displaced to Houston, Texas, was
conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Harvard School
of Public Health, and the Washington Post. It showed that
the majority of the evacuees had little or nothing even before
the hurricane struck.
According to the survey, seven out of ten evacuees did not
have a savings or checking account, and a similar number had no
credit cards. Six in ten had family incomes of less than $20,000
a year. Seven in ten had no insurance to cover their losses from
the storm. Half had no health insurance, and four in ten were
disabled or suffered from heart disease, high blood pressure or
diabetes. One in eight was unemployed before the stormnow
all are.
These working-class families were victims of American capitalism
long before they became victims of Hurricane Katrina. This is
the basic reality that the New York Times wants to conceal,
which is why it rallies around the ignorant and discredited figure
of George W. Bush.
See Also:
Recovering New Orleans' dead subordinated
to profit and politics
[16 September 2005]
Profit system, not nature, main obstacle
to rebuilding New Orleans
[15 September 2005]
The exploitation of Hurricane Katrina:
remaking New Orleans for the rich
[14 September 2005]
New Orleans: the specter of military
dictatorship
[10 September 2005]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |