An Epic Failure of Presidential Staffing

As a former staffer in the White Office of Media Affairs, my sympathy goes out to the current White House staffers for their recent epic failure to recognize that hurricane Katrina presented their principal, POTUS, an opportunity to demonstrate strong Presidential leadership - an opportunity which, unfortunately, may become more frequent.

Consider how differently things might have turned out if they had had the imagination and innovative drive to have President Bush address the nation on Sunday, the day before Katrina began her devastation of New Orleans. A national address could have reassured the nation that the Federal government was working closely with the governors and mayors in the storm path to minimize casualties and insure prompt and efficient relief for victims. The President might even have cited the excellent storm disaster recovery results that had been achieved by his administration within the recent past in Florida.

Such a proactive approach would have set the stage for one magnificent Presidential photo-op after another, day after day. The media would have been the President’s cheer leaders. His leadership in the Katrina recovery efforts would have offset the criticisms of his leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But such good fortune was not to be. And the mistake was compounded when the staff allowed the President to make the blatantly false statement that nobody anticipated a disaster of such a magnitude. And compounded yet again when the President praised the head of FEMA for the job he was doing, when it was clear from on the ground reporting that Brown’s lackadaisical leadership was increasing Katrina’s death toll due to FEMA’s late and under-resourced response.

The questions are: why did this epic failure of presidential staffing occur? How was such a terrific opportunity for burnishing the tarnished image of their principal allowed to pass unrecognized?

The answer may well be in both their hardened and dogmatic mindset that government is THE problem, an unnecessary adjunct to unbridled market mechanisms, and their rejection of the model that government is an essential facilitator of the public good. This rejection of modern mixed market economics, the fundamental innovation that brought the world out of the Great Depression of the 1930s, may have made it impossible for them to see a positive role for government in the Katrina disaster. If government could have no positive role, then how could there be an opportunity for President Bush to turn a natural disaster to his political advantage?

For example, as Harold Myerson wrote recently in the Washington post:

Consider the congressional testimony of Joe Allbaugh, George W. Bush's 2000 campaign manager, who assumed the top position at FEMA in 2001. He characterized the organization as "an oversized entitlement program," and counseled states and cities to rely instead on "faith-based organizations . . . like the Salvation Army and the Mennonite Disaster Service."

This does not sound like something anyone who viewed government as a facilitator of the public good would ever say. It is, however, exactly what someone who viewed government as the problem would, and in fact did, say.

It goes without saying that faith-based organizations have roles to play in disasters, but they do not have the required manpower, equipment and supplies to match the scale of most disasters. Nor do they, much less the private sector with its 90 day profit requirements, have the staying power for a recovery process that will be measured in years, if not decades. A government that understands its role as a facilitator and guardian of the public good, however, does.

The question remains as to what other failures the Bush view of government has or will engender.

The challenge facing those who are critics of the Bush administration is to act and sound like responsible adults, not carping and hyperventilating partisan harpies. All of us who are critics of the Bush administration, and their rejection of the role of government as a facilitator the common good, would be well advised to review the Watergate hearings to study the calm and professional manner of Sam Irving, the committee chairman, as well as Barry Goldwater, Sam Dash, Archibald Cox, Barbara Jordan, Howard Baker, judge Sirica - amongst others.

Posted by Jock Gill at September 8, 2005 11:04 AM | TrackBack