I'm still trying to decide what President Bush's motivation is for his recent pledge to rebuild the "great" (if that's what we want to delude ourselves with) city of New Orleans. Is this what he calls compassionate conservatism? Is it part of a legacy he wants to leave? Is there some sense of guilt going on deep inside of him? Is this some awkward caving-in to political pressure? If it's that last one, I'm not too sure there's much popular or political pressure for a rebuilt New Orleans outside the New Orleans area and perhaps the construction industry. (I'm sure KBR is chomping at the bit, along with every other politically connected construction company.) Besides, Bush doesn’t seem like the cave-in type. He's more the "steer the course" type until far later than most people would have cut their losses at. But hey, maybe that's what the rebuilding effort will be like.
If Bush really wanted to see things through in New Orleans, he'd be finishing the work of the hurricane and advocating scudding the remaining part of the city, not rebuilding, and helping people get jobs elsewhere. (There are jobs in Farmington and it probably smells better than New Orleans too, both past and present.) Then, he'd win over the environmentalists by turning the new reclaimed water area into a nice wetlands for species that can survive the sludge left in the city. Frankly, the city should never be rebuilt and the best thing that can happen now just might be to have Hurricane Rita hit the city. Then maybe, just maybe, people would get it. Get that the city is deeply flawed, topologically speaking, but also in many other ways as the preparation and response to Katrina revealed.
It will hurt a lot for people to leave and it will cost a lot too. But it'll hurt more later on when disaster strikes. Oh wait, it already did.
No comments:
Post a Comment