Republicans go on and on whining about something called “political correctness.” What is political correctness? It means that you avoid saying certain things, or distort the way you say them, for political reasons, regardless of whether or not those things are true. Political correctness is an insidious form of speech control. By controlling what should be said, one controls what is said. When that happens, you have to take a good, hard look at whose interest is served by concealing the truth.
Problem is, Bush supporters are the biggest perpetrators of political correctness there is. Their latest politically correct schtick? “I can’t believe you’re politicizing this tragedy! It’s disrespectful to exploit the victims of a tragedy for political purposes!”
Aside from an uptight prissiness about propriety and exploitation that’s a tad unbefitting macho cowboys who like to say things like “Bring it on” to Iraqi insurgents, what’s wrong with this politically correct Republican line?
Plain and simple, it is a way of avoiding the truth, and dodging personal responsibility.
Cindy Sheehan tries to hold President Bush accountable for the death of her son in a war he started on false premises. And what do we hear from Bush defenders? Cindy and her supporters are “politicizing tragedy.” And gee, they really shouldn’t. Why not? Well, it just isn’t seemly. It’s insensitive! It’s offensive!
OK everybody. Let’s have a little pity party for all those big tough warmongers. Wooks wike we hurt their widdle feewings! Oh you poor, dear, perpetrators of unfounded wars of aggression! Are you really saying it’s insensitive (oh, dear me!) to exploit war dead for political purposes? Puh-lease! War dead have been exploited for political purposes since the dawn of history. But apparently it’s only politically correct to milk their “heroic sacrifice” for the benefit of the powers that be. Give me a break!
Is Bush personally responsible for Casey Sheehan’s death? “(Gasp!) How dare you ask? You’re politicizing tragedy!” Political correctness trumps personal responsibility, and Bush is off the hook.
In the wake of hurricane Katrina, we’re hearing the same thing. Whenever someone asks whether or not Bush administration policies contributed to the disaster, we get the same pat, politically correct, all-purpose schlock: “You’re politicizing tragedy!” It’s so, you know, insensitive!
Well, just for the moment, let’s leave sensitivity aside and take a cold hard look at Bush’s personal responsibility for contributing to the tragedy. There are at least three ways in which Bush policies can be said to have increased the risk of, or contributed to the magnitude of, the disaster:
1. The levees around New Orleans were overdue for repair, and Bush failed to provide the Army Corps of Engineers with the resources necessary to fix them.
2. There has been rampant looting in New Orleans–apparently the local police are even taking part. Where is the National Guard? Thousands of them are over in Iraq, looking for weapons of mass destruction, or getting attacked by terrorists so we don’t have to, or rounding up those people on that deck of cards, or sending a message to rogue states, or building democracy, or whatever it is we’re doing over there this month.
3. Global warming appears to increase the risk of damage from hurricanes in three ways: First, it heats the ocean to higher temperatures, giving the hurricane more power. Second, it raises sea levels, putting low-lying coastal areas like New Orleans at higher risk. Third, it kills coral reefs, leaving the coast more vulnerable to storm surges. Now, the science on much of this is still in the works, but we’ve known for some time that global CO2 emissions are likely to put the world at increased risk of extreme weather events such as hurricanes. What has Bush done to protect us from this risk? Absolutely nothing! He blew off the Kyoto Protocol, and has taken absolutely no steps to curb CO2 emissions.
So does Bush have at least some degree of personal responsibility for this disaster? “How dare you ask? You’re politicizing tragedy!”
Well, you know what? I’m really really sorry if the question of personal responsibility offends all you poor, sensitive souls who blow off torture as “fraternity hazing,” dismiss the death of the innocent as “collateral damage,” and call the Geneva conventions forbidding torture “quaint.” Not!
Are Bush Republicans big tough warmongering brutes, or little crying politically-correct babies? Apparently, both–depending on what appears politically expedient at the time. They have no bedrock values, no constant nature. They are manipulative, soulless hypocrites.
You don’t get to be a big tough guy about the suffering of others, then turn around and get a little pity party because somebody is so insensitive as to hold you responsible for the outcomes of your policies. Are you actually trying to say you should get a pass on criticism for failed policy, so long as the failure is disastrous enough to be considered a “tragedy?” That’s absurd to the point of being surreal.
The next time you hear some Republican cough up “You’re politicizing tragedy!” Tell him to get a new schtick.
No disrespect intended, but building a major city below sea level in a tornado zone seems like a pretty dumbfuck thing to do in the first place - a mistake that was made long before Bush was in office.
Comment by David Russell — 8/31/2005 @ 3:05 pm
David Russell’s comment makes a statement that is true but which has nothing to do with the post on which it comments. The U.S. has many places that are vulnerable, and nothing short of tragedy or fiat is going to get the people in those places to move. Making those places as safe as possible under the circumstances is simply sound public policy. If the cost of creating a fair degree of safety is too high, then it’s time for fiat, for which, I realize, nobody has the political will.
Bush can by no means take responsibility for the disaster or its full extent. Still, the principle put forth in this post is correct - to use the horror of the tragedy as an excuse to silence those who would assign responsibility is only another way of politicizing tragedy, and in a more dangerous manner, since the result may well be that we leave ourselves vulnerable to repeats of the sad event.
Comment by Max Hansen — 8/31/2005 @ 4:35 pm
“Bush is to blame for the hurricane! Bush was the one that started the stampede that kill 800 in Baghdad today! Bush is the one that raised gas prices! Bush is the one who started the looting! Bush is to blame for anything bad that happens. Because he’s Bush”
Stop beating around the bush.
Comment by ww.snsnewsnow.blogspot.com — 8/31/2005 @ 6:21 pm
Nonsense, snsnewsnow - your shameless plug conveniently glosses over the fact that the Republicans are trying to smash a woman just for daring to ask questions of President Bush. AND today, the Republicans are trying to politicize the hurricane.
Lame lame nasty Republicans.
Comment by Hector — 8/31/2005 @ 8:20 pm
Have you considered having that chip on your shoulder removed? It’s causing you to sound idiotic.
Comment by Trevor — 8/31/2005 @ 9:46 pm
Max, point well taken. I certainly never claimed Bush somehow caused the huricane intentionally, or is 100% to blame. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he is 100% free of any responsibility. Did Bush cause the hurricane? No. Is the Bush administration at least partly responsible for the magnitude of its impact, especially on New Orleans? Possibly, and it’s an appropriate question to ask.
This is a distinction someone like snsnewsnow either can not or will not make. There was an ongoing project to control the risk of flooding in New Orleans, and the Bush administration knowingly bled it dry of funds. That’s different than claiming Bush is single-handedly to blame for the hurricane. Do you honestly not understand the difference, snsnewsnow? Or are you purposefully obfuscating the issue?
Cute trick: Distort what I’m saying, then get all bent out of shape that anybody could possibly say such a thing. Know what? I’ve seen it before. It’s not even amusing. Get a new schtick.
Your response is a perfect example of the kind of oversimplifying misrepresentation Bush and his supporters have been dishing out for years. Nothing like a little disinformation to get Bush off the hook for the consequences of his policy decisions. It’s exactly what I’m talking about.
Trevor, your failure to address any substantial issue whatsoever is causing you to sound like a genius.
Comment by Norman — 8/31/2005 @ 9:54 pm
“1. The levees around New Orleans were overdue for repair, and Bush failed to provide the Army Corps of Engineers with the resources necessary to fix them”
Uh huh.. and the levies were perfectly ok under the Clinton Administration right? BS.. Levies are constantly under strain.. Its not up to the President to divy out funds to individual projects.. He can direct and encourage but your wonderful Congress is the final word on appropriations.. So put the money where the mouth is. Besides… you want to have them take even MORE taxes out of your pocket?
“2. There has been rampant looting in New Orleans–apparently the local police are even taking part. Where is the National Guard? Thousands of them are over in Iraq, looking for weapons of mass destruction, or getting attacked by terrorists so we don’t have to, or rounding up those people on that deck of cards, or sending a message to rogue states, or building democracy, or whatever it is we’re doing over there this month.”
Lets see..two Army Blackhawk helecopters (Active Duty birds by the way) took groundfire from New Orleans while airlifting wounded downtown. The Very people you want the National Guard or militray to help are shooting at the servicemen. The streets are so full of water that the troops are having just as much trouble getting to the problem as the police.
“3. Global warming appears to increase the risk of damage from hurricanes in three ways: First, it heats the ocean to higher temperatures, giving the hurricane more power. Second, it raises sea levels, putting low-lying coastal areas like New Orleans at higher risk. Third, it kills coral reefs, leaving the coast more vulnerable to storm surges. Now, the science on much of this is still in the works, but we’ve known for some time that global CO2 emissions are likely to put the world at increased risk of extreme weather events such as hurricanes. What has Bush done to protect us from this risk? Absolutely nothing! He blew off the Kyoto Protocol, and has taken absolutely no steps to curb CO2 emissions.”
Oh Horsesh.. Well you know.. Kyoto Protcol would have reduced the CO2 problem by 1% by 2026. So Even if Bush had sign the #$@#$@# thing it would not have had a effect yet on the global warming problem.
If ANYONE is Polticizing the disater.. its you. Now excuse me.. I am active duty military and I have to go help load food, water onto some planes that are being sent down to MS to help those people.
Comment by Kitanis — 9/1/2005 @ 8:18 am
1. it was the army corps of engineers that is directly responsible for the disaster in new orleans. nevermind the fact it was built below see level. french migrants, anyone?
2. people are responsible for policing themselves; it’s NOT up to the president to do it. ESPECIALLY in times like this. that’s what guns and weapons are for you idiot.
3. not one country on the planet has more ‘green-friendly’ laws that combat pollution than the united states. global warming problems come from asia and russia, not the usa. dipshit.
Comment by shane — 9/1/2005 @ 12:38 pm
Kitanis,
First, let me sincerely thank you for your service to the nation. What you’re doing is honorable, and I want to acknowledge that, despite whatever political disagreements we may have. That said, I do disagree with you on a number of points.
1. Funny you should mention the Clinton administration. As a matter of fact, they began a massive project to reinforce the levees surrounding New Orleans in 1995. The project was bled dry of funding under Bush in 2003, with much needed work yet to be finished. Some of the money went, ironically enough, to “homeland security,” although much of it went to pay Bush’s tax cuts.
For more information on this, I refer you here:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313
You’re absolutely right about Congress. They bear a great deal of responsibility as well.
2. I have also heard reports of rescue workers coming under fire. I can’t possibly figure out what someone’s motivation for shooting at a rescue craft may be. But it’s unfairly painting all the victims with the same brush to say “the very people you want the National Guard or militray to help are shooting at the servicemen.” Surely there are people left in New Orleans who are not shooting at rescue workers. I respect the sacrifices made by our military to courageously save the innocent, even at risk to themselves. I am profoundly grateful, but I expect no less of our men and women in uniform. I know they’re up to the task.
3. You’re right about Kyoto. It wouldn’t have gone nearly far enough to address the global warming problem. There’s no way to know whether it would have prevented this particular hurricane, and its overall impact on weather patterns by now, had it been approved, would have been very minor.
But this does not absolve Bush from his utter failure to do anything at all to protect Americans from the growing risks associated with global warming. Kyoto was arguably insufficient, but it might have been a good first step. Instead, Bush has decided to no nothing at all. Are you saying he bears no responsibility for this stance?
Comment by Norman — 9/1/2005 @ 1:41 pm
Norman,
I addressed the comments here at my own blog. And there’s still a chip on your shoulder in regards to Bush. I have the same type of chip on my shoulder when it comes to Hitlary Clinton.
It isn’t Bush’s job to protect me from every problem I might encounter in life. Expecting one man to handle that job for 300 million people, most of whom are perfectly capable of protecting themselves if they want too, is silly. I don’t want government solving all my problems, most of them or even a lot of them. Government is the least efficient and least palatable way of getting things done in my life. I know because I work in government.
Comment by Trevor — 9/3/2005 @ 10:17 am
You say it isn’t Bush’s job to protect the American people. OK, then I have some questions for you:
Bush has repeatedly identified protecting the American people as his primary responsibility. Is he right? If not, why do you support him?
What exactly is the role of the Department of Defense, if not to protect the American people? Should it be disbanded?
What exactly is the role of the Department of Homeland Security, if not to protect the American people? Should it be disbanded?
The point about hurricanes and global warming is this: Global warming is putting the entire world more and more at risk of extreme weather events including hurricanes. The science on this is sound. Now, if you’re arguing that one particular hurricane can not be traced to one politician, of course you’re right–in the same way that one particular case of lung cancer can not be traced to one cigarette. But it doesn’t follow that Bush’s policy of neglect on global warming puts us at no risk, any more than smoking puts one at no risk for lung cancer. The key word here is “risk.”
Unfortunately, your refutation on the global warming point only consists of calling it “garbage” and telling me I have nothing useful to contribute to society. I therefore have no idea what your argument might be. Are you denying the science, or avoiding the issue of risk? If you want to deny the science, be my guest. Dumping on science is all the rage these days. After all, it’s just a “theory,” like evolution, gravity, or a heliocentric solar system…
Comment by Norman — 9/4/2005 @ 3:31 am
You know, I looked at The Daily Kos the day after the hurricane and found exactly what I knew I would see. Liberals were discussing “strategy” =their word- as to how they can blame Bush for the hurricane. They weren’t concerned about the victims - just how to politically profit from the disaster.
Get a new schtick, indeed!
Comment by Keith Eubanks — 9/4/2005 @ 6:55 am
Well, same old schtick then, Keith. Keep at it.
Comment by Norman — 9/5/2005 @ 12:13 am
I do not know who you are, what you do for a living or what you look like, but know this: I respect you so much for what you do. Bush is the world’s leading terrorist, and you realize that, thank you SO MUCH for spreading the truth, you are a wonderful person for what you do. Keep up the excellent work. And oh yeah, the “Snsnewsnow” person is a biased, neo-con, “Christian” republican. Make the scary republican go away!
Comment by www.get-bush-out.blogspot.com — 7/9/2006 @ 11:07 am
Texas christmas card gas.
Prepaid gas card. Fuel man gas card.
Trackback by Exxon gas card. — 8/18/2008 @ 3:31 am
Bad credit personal loans of 1000.
Bad credit personal loans. Personal loans for bad credit people. Personal high interest rate loans with bad credit. Bad credit personal loans for free. Free bad credit personal loans.
Trackback by Sub lenders for bad credit personal loans. — 8/28/2008 @ 10:45 pm
Personal loans for people with bad credit.
Personal loans for bad credit people. Personal loans for people with bad credit.
Trackback by Personal loans for people with bad credit. — 9/5/2008 @ 11:42 am
Fast private student loans.
Fast private student loans. Poor credit private student loans. Acs private student loans. Refinance student loans 2b private sector. Private student loans.
Trackback by Private student loans. — 9/14/2008 @ 11:41 am
Cheap air line tickets.
Cheap air tickets. Cheap red wing tickets. Cheap tickets.
Trackback by Cheap tickets. — 9/17/2008 @ 7:51 pm
Car loans.
Special student car loans. Cheap car loans. Reliance car loans agencies for different location. Bad credit car loans. Car title loans kingsland georgia.
Trackback by Car title loans are they bogus. — 9/18/2008 @ 8:18 am
Countrywide home loans.
Interest only home loans. Bad credit home loans. Home loans bad credit. First horizon home loans. Manufactured home loans. Home equity loans. Home loans.
Trackback by Countrywide home loans. — 9/19/2008 @ 12:59 pm
Scary contact lens.
Contact lens. Understanding contact lens prescriptions. Proclear contact lens. Boulder contact lens. Colored contact lens. Contact lens cleaners gas permeables.
Trackback by Discount contact lens. — 9/25/2008 @ 4:39 pm
Bad credit personal loans.
Bad credit personal loans.
Trackback by Bad credit personal loans. — 9/26/2008 @ 2:43 am