Ask Auntie Pinko
September 8, 2005
By Auntie Pinko
The biggest disaster to hit the United States in my lifetime
(maybe since the Civil War, even) is not named Katrina, it's called
George W. Bush. I'm sorry I voted for him, but please let me explain:
George Bush and the Republican Party stated clearly what they wanted
to do (lower taxes, less Federal interference in private business
and local affairs, and ending terrorism.) I believe in those things.
I also believe in a lot of other things, including making sure people
already flattened by a natural disaster don't get left to die.
I might have voted for a Democrat if the Democratic Party ever
made a clear, simple case for what they want to do, but it's too
confusing to sort through all the hundreds of things that will benefit
this minority or that sub-group or the other special interest over
there to figure out what the Democrats are going to do for all of
us. But it would be hard to do a worse job than the Bush Administration
with Katrina, so I'm ready to believe the Democrats could do better.
Is there any way to find out how without hearing about evil property
developers draining swamps, and allocating money for college women's
field hockey teams, and ensuring that gay men can be Scout Masters?
Well, the Federal Government may not be small enough to drown
in a bathtub yet, but it's having one heck of a time staying afloat
in Lake Pontchartrain. Do you think Mr. Grover Norquist is happy?
I realize that when you say that you believe in "less Federal
interference in private business and local affairs," you don't mean
that the Federal Government should butt out of disaster recovery.
However, the problem is that the line between what seems like an
annoying and pointless government regulation on an average day might
make a huge difference in how well the government can respond to
situations like Katrina.
And in the case of property developers draining swamps you've
chosen an unfortunate example, since the shrinking of wetlands on
the delta contributed greatly to the impact of the storm. Regardless
of the moral culpability of any individual developer or group of
developers, the combination of scorn for "tree-hugger" concerns,
willingness to ignore scientific data about natural flood patterns,
and desire for quick profit in a booming real estate market had
deadly results for many of our fellow-Americans. And most of those
affected had neither control nor say in the decisions that led to
that development, nor did they make any profit therefrom. They merely
had the misfortune to live near the former wetlands.
However, I will gracefully accept and acknowledge the overall
substance of your complaint: Democrats have done an outstanding
job of misrepresenting ourselves through poor communications. Too
much information, too much detail of too little relevance to too
few people, contradictory information, excessive spin (yes, we're
not immune to that all-pervading political virus), too much detail
and not enough big picture - our Party is guilty as charged. It
confuses and discourages many Democrats, too.
What Auntie Pinko would like to hear the next Democratic candidate
for the Presidency say is something like this:
"My Administration will provide for the safety of Americans
by investing in a strong infrastructure of Federally-coordinated,
funded, and controlled basic disaster preparation and response
services that will work closely with local governments, and fund
local governments to participate and enhance those services as
needed for their unique needs."
I also think it's time for the United States to switch over from
the "Rambo" mode of international problem solving to something more
along the lines of the Kennedy or even Eisenhower model. The next
Democratic candidate for the Presidency could say something along
the lines of:
"My Administration will provide for the security of Americans
by using a vigorous program of diplomacy, economic incentives
and sanctions, and coalition-building to limit the access of terrorists
and governments that abuse human rights to financial and material
resources, and to assist governments struggling to build more
equitable and prosperous nations in achieving their goals."
And finally, given the 'perfect storm' of economic crises that
are building rapidly to a head, I would want that candidate to say
something similar to:
"My Administration will provide for the prosperity of Americans
by providing incentives and sanctions for businesses to keep and
create quality jobs for Americans, and helping businesses meet
the cost of a strong workforce by ensuring the availability of
quality education, health care, housing, and transportation."
This Democratic program to ensure safety, security, and prosperity
will carry a price tag. But compared to the costs of tax cuts for
the wealthy, a futile and deadly military adventure in Iraq, and
the devastation of a major American city, it will be pretty cheap.
Handing out pork piecemeal, tax cuts, nickel-and-diming essential
budget items may appear attractive, but as my own grandmother used
to say, "penny wise, pound foolish!"
The Democratic Party isn't perfect and Auntie doesn't cherish
the illusion that all Democrats agree with me about priorities,
or that all Democratic elected officials would make such choices.
But as you point out yourself, Ron, could it possibly be worse than
what we have now? Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!
View Auntie's Archive
Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?
Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at
a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking
points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those
pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for
Just send e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org,
and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in
the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.