Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Katrina Lessons, One Year Later

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet. Posted August 9, 2006.


At least for one fleeting moment, we were talking about American poverty.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For one week last September, the unthinkable happened, America's poor suddenly became the rage. The shocking and tormenting sight of thousands of poor blacks fleeing in headlong panic for their lives from Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters jolted the nation and the world. President Bush reeling from the battering he took in the media for his initial comatose response to the Katrina victims scrambled fast and talked tough about assailing poverty. In a televised speech in New Orleans' famed Jackson Square, Bush told the nation "All of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well."

The rhetoric about aiding the poor quickly flew hot and heavy. Congressional leaders vowed to budget millions more for the poor. Business leaders vowed to pump more dollars into job and skills training programs. Private charities vowed to launch new fundraising drives for the poor. Even many hard-bitten, laissez faire conservatives who reflexively oppose massive government spending programs on the poor screamed at Bush to do something about poverty.

In a post Katrina assessment of public opinion on poverty, more Americans agreed that the government should do more to end poverty. Civil rights leaders, the Congressional Black Caucus, and anti-poverty groups even dreamed that Katrina guilt would force Americans to engage in the much needed, and much avoided soul searching dialogue on poverty.

That was a year ago. The national roar about attacking poverty has fizzled to a whimper. Yet, the poor are still as numerous, needy, and thanks to Katrina, even more dispersed nationally. Census figures released weeks before Katrina struck revealed that the number of poor had relentlessly climbed during Bush's White House years. Nearly forty million Americans, 12 million of whom were children, were poor. Census figures in the year after Katrina will likely show little change in the poverty numbers.  Thousands of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast poor are still jobless, and live in FEMA constructed trailers, and subsist on private donations.

Since his Jackson Square speech Bush has mentioned poverty only six times. He made no mention of it in his State of the Union Speech in January and did not utter a word about poverty in his speech to the NAACP convention in July. Not one of his anti-poverty proposals which included bigger tax breaks and grants for minority and small business, a ramp up in job training, and child care subsidies, boosts in transportation funding and an urban homesteading program went anywhere. They fell victim to budget slashes, Congressional inaction or opposition, and public indifference. A minimum wage hike, and increase in funding for public housing, and an expansion of job training programs, and the earned income tax credit, that would help the wage earning poor, died quick deaths in Congress.

Democrats piled blame for the wash down in the post Katrina roar on poverty on Bush and the Republicans. But the Democrats did their part to dampen the talk. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, and former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards flailed away at Bush for his Katrina ineptitude, spoke in vague terms about Two Americas, and made a fleeting plea for a Marshall type plan to fight poverty, a plan doomed from the moment the call was made. While Edwards barnstorms the country crusading for more government initiatives to aid the poor, he holds no official position in the Democratic Party, and is largely a lone voice crying in the wilderness on poverty.

Democratic House and Senate leaders have given no sign that they are willing to fight for the billions that it would take mount a comprehensive program to combat poverty. The Congressional Black Caucus is the sole group among Democrats that still show some zeal for waging a fight on poverty. But the Caucus is nearly totally isolated and marginalized in Congress and has been stymied in its efforts to get any effective legislation passed.

The talk about a fresh assault on poverty was dead in the water from the start. While Katrina momentarily increased empathy for the poor, it didn't fundamentally change public attitudes toward them. A fervent belief in the Protestant ethic of hard work, personal responsibility, and self-initiative are deeply ingrained in American attitudes. Success and merit are intimately connected, and one can't be attained without the other. Poverty is regarded as a perplexing, intractable and insoluble malady that government programs can't or even shouldn't cure.

In a wide-ranging study on American attitudes and beliefs about the poor published in the Journal of Social Issues in 2001, a team of psychologists found that attitudes toward the poor were significantly more negative than attitudes toward the middle class. Respondents were most likely to blame poor people themselves for their poverty.

The poor are too diffuse and amorphous, have only a scattering of anti-poverty focused activist groups, and no full time congressional lobbyists. They can't dump money into Democrat and Republican campaign coffers, and many are non-voters. That makes them even more politically expendable. 

One year after Katrina's shock, the talk about warring on poverty turned out to be just that, talk. There's no reason to think that will change.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author of the forthcoming book The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006), a hard-hitting look at Bush and The GOP's court of black voters.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
New Orleans is a case study in municipal incompetence
Posted by: coldeye on Aug 10, 2006 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New Orleans suffered because its local govt lacked planning, could not implement whatever inane plan it had, and because a few people took advantage of the disaster to prey on others, and the state and local gvts, which have primary responsibilty for law and order in an emergency did not crack down.

Many poor people lived in other parishes of Louisiana and in Mississippi. Poor people of all ethnic backgrounds. There were problems for all. But only New Orleans was dysfunctional. the city barely funtioned in good times. It was a horrid place to live with an educational system that sucked in federal aid to poor schools and spit out illiterates.

Most of the state and local officials involved in New Orleans should be sitting in work camps deep in the Bayous, with videocam monitoring of their suffering broadcast 24 hrs a day on a public service channel.

Pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into New Orleans while these incompent crooks still run the local and state govt is just throwing a big party for a corrupt in crowd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was more than incompetence
Posted by: Jesse on Aug 10, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides the problems that the local administration had, there were other issues -- you can't put all the blame on Ray Nagin.

First, the Federal government abdicated responsibility for many of its own projects some time back under the "Block grant" schemes in the 90s. Republicans were able to push that through under the guise of local responsibility for local projects, forgetting that states can't print money.

Second, FEMA was changed from being the go-to agency to being a co-ordinator, with little real authority and less manpower. So you had this idea that local agencies could handle things with FEMA as a sort of overarching clearinghouse of information. It isn't a bad idea per se, but there was no real action taken to implement it in any real way. That's just begging for a half-assed response.

Third, the guy running FEMA was simply not qualified to do it.

Fourth, the breaking of the levees was not a surprise at any level -- Scientific American published -- in 2001! -- a whole long article on why the whole system needed changes and what would happen in a category 5 storm. Did anyone do a thing? No. And frankly it was many more conservative people who said "We can't listen to you environmentalists about anything, it's all scare talk, the market will take care of everything." Developers hate the idea of any restriction on where they build, or even upgrading the building code.

Fifth, in the southeast there seems to be this idea that hurricanes are a surprise. They are not, and they come every year. So why do we build houses with one story? Why build these bungalow-type structures? In every other part of the world where flooding is a problem people build with two, with the bottom story being expendable (kind of like a garage--in fact it is often used that way). In the Rhine River and Danube valleys it's part of the building code. If the Hungarians can do it, why not us? Developers haven't stepped up, so it's time we started forcing the issue, just like we force people to build with minimal standards in other areas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But...but...but...they're pursuing public WiFi...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 10, 2006 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A city that couldn't be bothered to perform a complicated service such as move its people from low ground to high ground ahead of devastating hurricane...

A city in a state within a nation that couldn't organize to perform a complicated service such as pile up some effective barriers beside large, conspicious, ominous, surge-vulnerable bodies of water...

A city in which every police officer could be justly suspected of being "on the take"...

A city that abjectly fails to perform a complicated service like teaching young people in high school to add and subtract at a fifth-grade level...

....

....

Is in the process of getting into the WiFi business. Looking back (above), we can predict that transmission speed will be disastrously slow, the firewalls will be grossly inadequate, the data will be corrupt, and the end result will be an unintelligent...err, unintelligible product.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's embrace the leaders who have the courage to talk about poverty
Posted by: ZeitgeistRover on Aug 10, 2006 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A finely crafted piece, indeed.

Katrina lifted the mask off of America's poor (a mask that American leaders and citizens alike had plastered upon the least among us).

In the wake of Katrina, however, another mask was ripped apart. The one donned by the "compassionate conservatives" of Bush's following. You had me as long as you were proceeding down the litany of criticism about the petty outlooks, self-absorbed proclamations, unfulfilled promises, and the hollow hopes of our nation's leaders, democrats and republicans alike.

Yet, you lost me as soon you ventured upon grouping John Edwards with the likes of John Kerry on their efforts regarding poverty.

For anyone concerned about poverty, our effort should be to embrace any and every voice that attempts to raise this issue to a national level, rather than dismiss the efforts of those who have now dedicated their lives to a mission to alleviate poverty.

And no other voice is clearer or more powerful than that of John Edwards on this issue. He speaks from the heart, with the practicality of his mind and the righteousness of his conscience. John Edwards is considered the second likeliest person to get the democratic nomination in 2008 (after Hillary Clinton) by virtually every leading political analyst, so by dismissing his national leadership on this issue, you turn your eyes away from the man who is bound to bring the change and walk the walk that all of us yearn for.

Anything I can say is far from the eloquence with which Senator Edwards embraces this issue. For anyone, you and I included, who wishes to see our national leaders address the rampant poverty around us, we need not look any further than John Edwards.

I would redirect the author, commentators and readers alike to the following video, where Senator Edwards outlines his plan to eliminate American Poverty within 30 years. The speech takes place before the National Press Club and happens to be both inspirational and aspirational.

Watch John Edwards talk about real solutions to alleviate Poverty:

John Edwards: Poverty, the moral cause of our times

Every cause needs a champion and rather than dismissing John Edwards, the truly concerned should embrace the voice he is lending to the poor by speaking up for their neglected cause.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Absolutely Posted by: philgoblue
» RE: Absolutely not Posted by: chutzpah
Throwing The Baby Out With The Bath Water
Posted by: Marciadee on Aug 10, 2006 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this particular instance I refer to your caustic remarks directed at John Edwards and his work on behalf of the poor.
While I can totally understand your frustration, please do not confuse Senator Edward's diligent labors with the total lack of concern exhibited by Mr. Bush and the Administration.

Senator Edwards has devoted his energies to raise awareness about the plight of the poor for the last four years. And since the horrors of Katrina, he rarely publicly speaks without bringing up those victimized by the storm as an example of the 37 million forgotten poor in this country. He has traveled exhaustively from state to state to help raise the minimum wage and has worked with such men as Senator Kennedy in a joint effort to convince Congress to finally enact legislation to that end. In addition, he has closely worked with various Unions and most recently took on Wal-Mart - a corporation that blatantly exploits workers here and abroad.

To Senator Edwards, his fight is, in his own words "the moral thing to do".

I hope that one day you can sit down and have a conversation with John Edwards. I know he would welcome it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Senator Edwards holds "no official position"
Posted by: NCDem on Aug 10, 2006 8:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps Senator Edwards does not hold an "official position" within the Democratic party at the moment, but he certainly has a strong voice that the people can relate to and are responding to.

As noted in a recent National Journal article, cited in this netizen's diary, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/25/75229/4154:

John Edwards, the Democrats'vice presidential nominee two years ago, might be expected to be among the most visible of the pack. Yet he has all but disappeared from the Washington political tableau--even from the jockeying for staff, support, and money that goes on offstage.

Edwards is doing the opposite of what tradition suggests that he should and yet, somehow, it's working. In early June, the Iowa Poll, a respected measure of public opinion, indicated that voters in the state to hold the first caucus are more inclined to support Edwards than any other Democrat, including Clinton


Working extensively to strengthen unions, rallying to raise the minimum wage, speaking out for Universal health coverage for all, offering programs such as the "College for Everyone" program, and working in NOLA post Katrina, may not be typical of Democrats who hold "official positions" but the above noted efforts Senator Edwards is making to lift up those in poverty and are resonating with voters. He may be somewhat of a "lone voice" but his voice is being heard, by the people.

John Edwards, prospective presidential candidate, is fighting to save the soul of the Democratic party, "official" or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poverty and Big City School Districts
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 11, 2006 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's good to see the news items about the fact that Boston public schools are now a success story. Here in LA, it's gonna take some time before the same might be said. The mayor is making an effort. Between neighborhood poverty, the slapdash of charter schools, and the rah-rah for vouchers, public schools in big cities are the red-headed stepchild of movers and shakers.

Neglect of public education guarantees the perpetuation of the underclass. Our city kids rank right down there with the Third World when it comes to schools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shame shame
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Aug 12, 2006 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I myself am somewhat to blame. I don't give as much as I'd like to "the poor" (a description which fits more and more people every day) but I myself am poor. Having worked for some time in public schools where many of the kids were poor, it breaks your heart to see the dismissal of poverty as even an issue when Monkey Boy and his ilk debate flag-burning and the death tax like they were part of the Constitutional Convention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement