The Christian Science Monitor has a great piece that echoes analyses done by yours truly here and by our perceptive co-blogger Michael Stickings here.
The gist of it: Hurricane Katrina has sparked a political polarization that isn’t helpful to anyone. Here’s part of what the Monitor (TMV’s old journalistic alma mater) writes:
In reality, hurricane Katrina has become an anti-9/11 of sorts. Whereas four years ago people dropped their red and blue identities to rally around their leaders, Katrina seems to have exacerbated the extreme polarization of the Bush years. At his first Cabinet meeting since returning from vacation, Mr. Bush declared he would oversee an inquiry into the government response to Katrina, prompting an immediate outcry from Democrats that the government cannot investigate itself.
Republicans in Congress quickly followed by announcing an investigative commission on Katrina, with GOP members to form a majority. Democrats cried foul, arguing that the model of the 9/11 commission – made up of nonlawmakers in a balance of Republicans and Democrats, operating with a goal of consensus – would be preferable. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, widely seen as a leading Democratic hopeful for president in 2008, emerged as a chief critic of the Republicans’ inquiry plan and of the performance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Before Katrina, Senator Clinton had lain low on national issues, focusing instead on reelection to the Senate.
And, of course, Howard Dean had his usual thoughtful comments:
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, also came out with guns blazing this week. “We must … come to terms with the ugly truth that skin color, age, and economics played a deadly role in who survived and who did not,” he told the National Baptist Convention of America on Wednesday.
If you’ve read our posts here, you KNOW that we’ve asked some tough questions and been highly critical of FEMA, the Bush administration’s response, and the administration’s apparent efforts to deflect blame to local and state leaders (“Well, look what THEY did…”) while dismissing criticism of the administration as somehow off limits and part of as a “blame game.”
But, nooooo. Mr. Dean’s remarks do not seem to reflect someone trying to get answers…but someone trying mightily to score points. The problem with Mr. Dean is, once more, that he lays an argument on with a steam shovel when a regular shovel will do. So he continues to preach to the choir rather than frame his remarks in a way that would win over people who might be inclined to agree with him (and, therefore, his party).
The Monitor then quotes one of our favorite bloggers: Marshall Whittmann, aka Bull Moose (who we quote often here):
“Politicization is very dangerous for both sides,” says Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. “If either party is seen as obstructing results, people will blame them. Americans are pragmatic, not ideological or partisan. Clearly, the administration has bungled this, but ultimately the American people want to see a restored New Orleans and these people’s lives put back together.”
After detailing some of the fierce partisan skirmishing, it adds this:
For Republicans, a political danger lies in the fact that they control the White House and both houses of Congress – and the public will look to them for results. “The real danger comes on the administration’s side, where if New Orleans becomes a metaphor for Bush policy in general, they’re in real trouble,” says Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “If it reinforces that the comfortable are safe and do well, while the vulnerable are on their own, it could be a burden for Bush for the rest of his term.”
A Texas Poll released Thursday shows Bush’s approval ratings in Texas, his home state, are 9 points below where they usually are, with 52 percent approving of his performance and 43 percent disapproving. Bush’s job approval in Texas is typically 10 points above his national average.
AND:
The latest US polls show Bush’s job approval among Republicans in the mid-80s and in the low teens among Democrats – a gap of about 70 percentage points. “He’s the most polarizing president we’ve had in the 50-odd years we’ve been polling the question,” says Gary Jacobson, an expert on this issue at the University of California, San Diego.
This phenomenon reflects Bush’s tendency to play to his base supporters, and bring over a few Democrats to his side as needed. During a major challenge, Bush’s strategy of keeping his core of support on his side serves as a political protection, Professor Jacobson says.
“He’s lost the Democrats, period, and the independents are now closer to the Democrats than [to] the Republicans,” Jacobson says. “What’s saved Bush is that his base has stayed with him.”
This echoes what we’ve said here: George Bush has apparently USED UP his political capital …. except among his loyal-no-matter-what base. This limits his room to manuever, makes enacting his agenda far more difficult and leaves him — and the nation — little hope that national unity and consensus will re-emerge soon. Which makes his job (and ours) more difficult as the U.S. most certainly faces future crises.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.