Sunday, September 04, 2005

Spinaction in Action

Today's Washington Post has an article that explains why FEMA has been trying to spin news to cover it's inaction (spinaction = spin + inaction). Here's a telling quote:

The roots of last week's failures will be examined for weeks and months to come, but early assessments point to a troubled Department of Homeland Security that is still in the midst of a bureaucratic transition, a "work in progress," as Mencer put it. Some current and former officials argued that as it worked to focus on counterterrorism, the department has diminished the government's ability to respond in a nuts-and-bolts way to disasters in general, and failed to focus enough on threats posed by hurricanes and other natural disasters in particular. From an independent Cabinet-level agency, FEMA has become an underfunded, isolated piece of the vast DHS, yet it is still charged with leading the government's response to disaster.

"It's such an irony I hate to say it, but we have less capability today than we did on September 11," said a veteran FEMA official involved in the hurricane response. "We are so much less than what we were in 2000," added another senior FEMA official. "We've lost a lot of what we were able to do then."

Note the spinaction in Allbaugh's response below:

New leaders such as Allbaugh were critical of FEMA's natural disaster focus and lectured senior managers about the need to adjust to the post-9/11 fear of terrorism. So did his friend Michael D. Brown, a lawyer with no previous disaster management experience whom Allbaugh brought in as his deputy and who now has the top FEMA post. "Allbaugh's quote was 'You don't get it,' " recalled the senior FEMA official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "If you brought up natural disasters, you were accused of being a pre-9/11 thinker." The result, the official said, was that "FEMA was being taxed by the department, having money and slots taken. Because we didn't conform with the mission of the agency."

"I'm guilty of saying, 'you don't get it,' " Allbaugh said. "Absolutely." The former FEMA chief said he had encountered bureaucratic resistance to thinking about a "monumental" disaster, such as Katrina or 9/11, rather than the more standard diet of "tornadoes and rising waters."

"But Experts in emergency response inside and outside the government sounded warnings about the changes at FEMA. Peacock said FEMA's traditional emphasis on emergency response "all went up in smoke" after 9/11, creating a "blind spot" as a result of a "police-action, militaristic view" of homeland security. When it came to natural disasters, "It was not only forgetting about it, it was not funding it."

Frankly, the Washington Post puts it mildly when it says that the hurricane exposed the "disarray" at the top of this administration. This administration is filled with neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives are social darwinists. In their eyes, it is each man or woman for themselves. Survival of the fittest. They've been working to dismantle what they call the "nanny state" -- a state that takes responsibility for the health and welfare of its populace -- for more than thirty years.

The hurricane merely exposed the harsh truth about the ideology that has been driving this administration's dismantling of FDR's "new deal."

Technorati Tags ,

2 comments:

grandma1 said...

The poor people of New Orlean, Mississippi, and Alabama are made to suffer because of political ideas. Ideas that are 50 years behind times. When are people going to wait up to what this adminstration is doing or should I say not doing.

P M Prescott said...

Idealism either right wing or left wing always gets strong support when things are running smoothly. Unfortunately after a series of elections and which ever group starts trying to put their ideas into practice they run up against the brick wall of reality, by then the damage is done. That's why the United States works better with moderates. Reagan started the polarization and just maybe this is the Thermidorian Reaction I've been waiting for. I've read a number of blogs calling for Bush's impeachment, but you can't impeach the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and President Pro-Tem at the same time. So what good would it do?