...and it's time for a change!
You know, originally, I felt a little squeamish after reading diaries for the past week that were dancing on the grave of the GOP. After all, people are still stuck in New Orleans, without adequate supplies or any real plan to get them to safety. It seemed to me like we had more important concerns than whether or not we could turn this tragedy into political gain. Besides, many of the predictions (impeachment, prosecution, Al Gore taking over as president) were downright implausible.
Then I realized two things:
1. This is actually the PERFECT time to be bringing up the failed policies and implementation of Bushco, because, right now, people are MAD AS HELL, and the reason they are mad as hell is precisely because of those failed policies and implementations. Not just liberals, Americans in general. If we grab ahold of the collective imaginations of the people while they are angry, then they will LISTEN. If, instead, we wait for everyone to be evacuated, out of respect, we will have lost our one opportunity to turn this around.
more in extended
After all, in fighting this administration, I, along with many of you, believe that we are fighting for our very survival as a free nation. If that's the case, then we can't get skittish when it comes to the attack. Thousands are dead in New Orleans. If we lose this battle, hundreds of thousands more might join them, and the rest of us will be left asking ourselves how we allowed things to get so bad.
2. I have heard complaints that the liberal blogging against Bush is just navel-gazing, and is of no use. What everyone should be doing right now is focusing our efforts on the victims of this tragedy?
My counterpoint: can't it be both?
Most people can't exactly up and leave to volunteer at the Astrodome or other relief places. Our lives are, unfortunately, too dependent on staying where we are, not leaving to go help those who need it. We have jobs and families to which we are responsible. Furthermore, most don't have the requisite skills to launch a rescue mission, to heal the sick and dying, or to navagate a flooded city in order to bring food to the starving.
So, while we all can't necessarily contribute our bodies, we can contribute our time and money. Despite my meager college-student assets, I managed to donate to the Red Cross, and will again this week. While I am doing that, I can also write this diary. At the same time. That's why Firefox has tabs.
Not to mention the fact that I believe that doing what we are doing right now IS helping. The effect may not lift someone from a rooftop to safety, but it will hopefully prevent the next person from having to wait for help in the first place. If we can change the future for the better by using the tragic of the present, I believe that we have to suck it up, prepare to be criticized, and do what we know to be right.
:::::::
In that vein, I wanted to repost an e-mail I sent out to the College Dems here, in an effort to be one of those trying to affect change.
Well, this is what you get when you appoint a failed lawyer with no emergency management experience as head of FEMA.
This is a basic difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe in the power of the government to enhance people's lives, so when liberals appoint people to leadership positions, they tend to appoint people who have experience, are dedicated, and will do the best job. They believe in the program, so they do everything they can to make sure it succeeds. See: James Lee Witt.
Conservatives, on the other hand, don't believe in the power of the government: they believe that non-competitive bureaucracies are prone to mistakes, mismanagement, and misappropriation (although these are not exactly strangers to the business world). Conservatives put their faith in "free market" solutions, so their trust in governmental programs is minimal, at best. They therefore appoint "managers", business types who are good at accountability and budget, but with very tenuous, if any, connection to the job they are doing This is because they are less concerned that the program follows its mission and more concerned that it is run efficiently (read: cheaply). With no loyalty to the program, there is no desire for success. The problem with this is that, because the person at the top doesn't know what he (very rarely a she) is doing, when the agency needs to respond to something, he is forced to depend upon the very bureaucracy the conservatives hate in order to get anything done. When crises arise, they cannot just act; they have to wait for the analysis from the people who do know what they are talking about. Also, cronyism tends to run rampant. See: Mike Brown. See also: Spencer Abraham.
Now, I have seen a lot of people on liberal sites trumpeting this disaster as "the end of the modern conservative movement". That's not entirely plausible, but there is potential...
Whether you agree with them or not, small government, "free-market" ideas will always draw a certain percent of the population. What this disaster should do is not change the beliefs of conservatives, but change their tack. If they believe that federal programs like FEMA are so inefficient and don't help, then abolish them and let the free market take over. DON'T keep agencies open with minimal operating budgets and inept leaders. DON'T leave people dependent on their services if you don't believe in them yourselves. You want a smaller government? Then stop pussy-footing around. Kill FEMA. Axe Social Security. End Medicare. Streamline the muthafucka, if that's what you really want. Cut the bullshit and get started on your grand vision.
Then see how many votes you get in the next election. SURVEY SAYS: Not a whole lot. People tend to like most of the programs the government puts into place, even if they don't like paying the taxes to fund them. There's a reason why Bush's Social Security plan is going over about as well as New Coke or the XFL.
There has to be a reckoning of the American voter. If they want the federal government to provide things like finding to education, retirement protection, and EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, they are simply going to have to stop voting for people who don't. Oh, wait, I forgot. We have to stop the queers from marrying. My mistake.
I wonder how many people would trade accepting gay marriage for the lives of the people stuck in New Orleans?
We need to force the conservative movement's hand. If they want to follow Grover Norquist's vision of tomorrow, then they'd better get serious and cut what needs to be cut so we aren't left to rely on programs that aren't there to help us. That should certainly seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
If, on the other hand, we can make enough of them see the folly of leaving everything up to the free market, to show some of them that, yes, when disaster strikes, the federal government DOES have a responsibility to its people, that, no, Social Security should NOT be subject to the fluctuations of the stock market, and that, yes, every American has a RIGHT to adequate health care, then we really can change things.
But we have to start NOW. We cannot wait for the fervor to die down, for "the better angels of our nature" to take over. If we wait, then people will try and see both sides, be sympathetic to Bushco, convincing themselves that "they tried their best" and letting them off the hook. Generally, people avoid conflict whenever possible, and once the passion dies down, you can bet that people will run from this fight as far and as fast as possible. Do you really expect Shepard Smith to speal truth to power forever?
No, we have to strike while the fire is hot, and right now, at least inside me, as well as many of you, it is BLAZING!
:::::::
Want to do something? Go to the American Red Cross and donate whatever you can to the relief effort.