Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (David Brooks Edition)

Busy, Busy, Busy writes:

Shorter David Brooks: The Bursting Point: We are witnessing a disastrous failure to perform by America's governing institutions, most of which are administered by a leader, party and philosophy whose names elude me at the moment.

It's twue! It's twue! David Brooks manages to write his entire column on September 4 about Katrina and other "governance failures" without mentioning the name of a single politician or government official other than Rudi Giuliani:

Last week in New Orleans, by contrast, nobody took control. Authority was diffuse and action was ineffective. The rich escaped while the poor were abandoned. Leaders spun while looters rampaged. Partisans squabbled while the nation was ashamed. The first rule of the social fabric - that in times of crisis you protect the vulnerable - was trampled. Leaving the poor in New Orleans was the moral equivalent of leaving the injured on the battlefield. No wonder confidence in civic institutions is plummeting.

And the key fact to understanding why this is such a huge cultural moment is this: Last week's national humiliation comes at the end of a string of confidence-shaking institutional failures that have cumulatively changed the nation's psyche. Over the past few years, we have seen intelligence failures in the inability to prevent Sept. 11 and find W.M.D.'s in Iraq. We have seen incompetent postwar planning. We have seen the collapse of Enron and corruption scandals on Wall Street. We have seen scandals at our leading magazines and newspapers, steroids in baseball, the horror of Abu Ghraib.

Public confidence has been shaken too by the steady rain of suicide bombings, the grisly horror of Beslan and the world's inability to do anything about rising oil prices. Each institutional failure and sign of helplessness is another blow to national morale. The sour mood builds on itself, the outraged and defensive reaction to one event serving as the emotional groundwork for the next...

Comments

[JR]

One irony is that despite the evisceration of FEMA, it still had the institutional capability to deal with Katrina's aftermath. FEMA performed well last year before Hurricane Frances, mostly becuase the president was spurring the operation. The focus on "federal failure" or "institutional failure" diverts attention from the simple reality that President Bush failed to lead.

[Derrick]

It seems that the point of his argument is not that specific politicians failed us, but that government--as a whole--has failed us. Blaming specific people was not the point of the article. In any case, I'm still waiting for Howard Beale to get the whole country on their balconies screaming in anger.

[pgl]

Karl Rove's next client must be Rudi G. Yes, Rove see a political opportunity in the suffering of many - even if the failure of leadership from his current client lays at the heat of much of this sufferring. Only Karl Rove could be such an evil genius. Only in America could so many fall for this. Alas.

[Tad Brennan]

I think Brooks has a finger to the wind:

"The first rule of the social fabric - that in times of crisis you protect the vulnerable - was trampled."

You see, this is a change from the position he supported all those months when he was helping Bush to destroy Social Security. He is trying to switch his ideological positioning; he isn't turning on Bush by name, yet, but if the slide continues he will.

Really, it is a sign of ideological progress (or at least cynical fear that the gravy train may be grinding to a halt). Most conservatives of Brooks' ilk never used to think our country had *any* obligation to protect the vulnerable--setting aside the precious blastocysts, of course.

[whiffle]

Just wondering if the families of the dead in New Orleans will receive payments like those made by the federal government after 9-11. The 9-11 payments were based on earning power and were very pricey for the high number of investment bankers and other high earners. So how much would the government pay for an old lady who died of dehydration in her wheel chair.

Oh, I forgot, such people are not this government's concern. Don't expect anything.

[ciao!ciuck]

David Brooks: What a Loser.

[John Emerson]

"It seems that the point of his argument is not that specific politicians failed us, but that government--as a whole--has failed us. Blaming specific people was not the point of the article."

Yes, absolutely. There must be no individual accountability. Only abstract organizational principles can possibly be to blame, and as we conservatives know, government always fails at everything. It's as simple as that. Geroge W Bush has been trying to tell us that, and hasn't he proved it just now?

[Matt]

Well.. Of course, it's always possible that Brooks is as cynical as the rest of them, but it's not his stock in trade. I think what we're seeing here is that old favorite, 'cognitive dissonance'. Believe 'a', but when it turns out that 'a' implies 'b'-- something peculiar happens. Individuals disappear, arguments become abstract, responsibility becomes theoretical.

[Anna Haynes]

Brad - and others -

I want to get these contorted columnists (another being Kathleen Parker - today's at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-parker0405sep04,0,3587531.column ) on record saying who pays them (directly or indirectly) and what they consider to be their job description. (and maybe further questions?)

It's occurred to me that offering to make a large donation to the Red Cross or elsewhere (to a university that's taking in Tulane students/faculty?), contingent on getting answers, might be the way to make it happen.

I'm willing to put up $1000 for this project, if others will join in with money and with questions.

What would be the best way to go about doing this?

[C.J.Colucci]

That "inability to FIND WMDs" (emphasis added) should not pass without comment. We didn't fail to "find" WMDs. Such a complaint would imply that they were there to be found and we learned of their existence the hard way, by having our soldiers killed by them. We, or, more accurately, they, insisted without good reason that they were there and sent us to war to meet the nonexistent threat. That's a very different type of failure.

[Anna Haynes]

clarification re my above comment - I know they're supposed to be "conservative columnists", but if they are indeed White House um, ladies of the night, rather than persons of a conservative bent who are free to speak their minds without checking them against the Republican talking points of the day, I want to hear them come out and say it.

[dragan]

"I'm still waiting for Howard Beale to get the whole country on their balconies screaming in anger."

Keith Olbermann came close tonight on MSNBC

[Uncle Jeffy]

Actually, watching the transformation (limited though it was) of Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks on Chris Matthews' show Sunday was like watching the apostle Paul getting hit between the eyes by a two-by-four on the way to Damascus. Sullivan, though he still managed to say at least one silly thing, was particularly fun to watch - at one point I thought he was going to bite Brooks' head off for soft-pedaling the responsibility of Bush and his crew of doofuses for the fine messes they've gotten us into.

[derrida derider]

"the world's inability to do anything about rising oil prices."

What arrogance! The world does not exist to support US SUV sales. If you're a poor Venezualan, f'rinstance, I don't think you'll be seeing rising oil prices as a failure of any kind.

[poster]

Yeah, steroids in baseball is up there with the rest.

[malcolm]

I read Brooks with utter horror on Sunday. He writes about a "grueling...Hobbesian decade" without ever having the guts to call it the Bush decade.

[Derrick]

"Yes, absolutely. There must be no individual accountability. Only abstract organizational principles can possibly be to blame, and as we conservatives know, government always fails at everything. It's as simple as that. Geroge W Bush has been trying to tell us that, and hasn't he proved it just now?"

Of course Bush deserves plenty of criticism, but I think the point Brooks was trying to make (maybe even in these words...it's been a few days since I saw the newshour clip) is that Bush is only a symptom of a greater failure. Naming specific people only serves to limit his argument to just the Karl Roves and just the George Bushes (literally and figuratively, I suppose :-).

I certainly hope public outrage over this leads to bigger changes in our politcal system than simply electing members of the opposite party. It's too bad that is likely all that will happen. Afterall (though maybe it's been a while since I've seen the film) doesn't Beale succumb to the Network in the end?

[dragan]

"point Brooks was trying to make {...} is that Bush is only a symptom of a greater failure"

Nonsense. Let's not give credit where no credit is due. DB is just a craven coward who wanted to look brave. I will bet anyone that before the dead are fully counted DB will redouble sucking up to KR/GWB.