Do not confuse the White House with the location where decisions are made affecting the lives of the American people.
Do not confuse the White House with the location where decisions are made affecting the lives of the American people.
Why is this administration so inept managing real human crises such as the recent natural disasters but is so adept at striking the threat to society gong? Specifically, when a real and present threat to the citizens of the United States exists (energy crises, natural disasters, government officials compromising national security) the administration is not just flat-footed but down-right hostile to taking a leadership position. But, when a theoretical/possible threat exists (unsubstantiated subway attacks, bird flu, tort-reform, bankrupcy abuse) the administration comes through with leadership and strong action. What is going on here?
The difference between the two is corporate interests. It is essential to understand that this administration does not just cater to corporate interests, it is compirsed of corporate interests. These stakeholders provide more than just the issue-based backbone to this administration, they provide the rudder and guiding force to many of the major domestic policies that have arose in the last six years. In essence, an inept govenment is still able to perform when very substantial corporate interests dictate policy and approach to an otherwise weak and spineless administration (for a political metaphor, picture something akin to "Weekend at Bernie's").
An example, now that the media spotlight has shifted from Louisiana and Bush has no political exegency to actual show some leadership in the repair of the country, the state of Louisiana finds itself loaded with the awesome burden of reconstructing itself. Can you imagine that scale of human tragedy with so little political fallout and response? Istead of putting people to work through Federal reconstruction or job assistance programs, leveraging existing Federal Entitlement Programs to help stricken citizens, increasing health and disability benefits at the Federal level, Bush, in his divine wisdom, has decided that effort is best left to "people on the ground". No federal dollars, leadership or legislation to help the country recover from the human and economic costs of a devestating natural disaster. The answer, leave it to the ravaged tax-payers and state beauracracy in Louisiana. Who does this impact? Louisiana.
Contrast this with Bush's response to Avian bird flu. Link Though the United States has not had one reported case of human contact with the virus (indeed, nor has there been any bird to human cross-over anywhere in the first world), Bush has sagely proposed the United States' tax-payers shell out 7.1 Billion Dollars in emergency spending to the pharmaceutical industry. Who does this impact? A company that Dick Cheney owns a stake valued between 5 and 25 million dollars (a parallel economic boon also falls to other corporate cronies such as Halliburton who has moved from the fifth largest Defense Contractor to the largest in history since the beginning of the Iraq war). Similar interest in government is, of course, apparent in Bill Frist's role in medical legislation.
The result in these cases is the same, the sheparding of the media towards this or that corporate-dictated social issue as the needs of real people are ignored and thwarted (in time, forgotten). When reporters cover the future of the United States, they should provide themselves the backdrop of corporate seals, not the White House.