Free Markets, Free People

Frank Rich v. Peggy Noonan – compare and contrast “competent”

Frank Rich has never seen an act by President Obama of which he didn’t approve or, if approval wasn’t really credibly possible, anything for which he couldn’t find an excuse. The oil spill is no exception:

Whatever Obama’s failings, he is infinitely more competent at coping with catastrophe than his predecessor. President Bush’s top disaster managers — the Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, as well as the notorious “Brownie” — professed ignorance of New Orleans’s humanitarian crisis a full day after the nation had started watching it live in real time on television. When Bush finally appeared, he shunned the city entirely and instead made a jocular show of vowing to rebuild the coastal home of his party’s former Senate leader, Trent Lott. He never did take charge.

The Obama administration has been engaged with the oil spill from the start — however haltingly and inarticulately at times. It was way too trusting of BP but was never AWOL. For all the second-guessing, it’s still not clear what else the president might have done to make a definitive, as opposed to cosmetic, difference in plugging the hole: yell louder at BP, send in troops and tankers, or, as James Carville would have it, assume the role of Big Daddy? The spill is not a Tennessee Williams play, its setting notwithstanding, and it’s hard to see what more drama would add, particularly since No Drama Obama’s considerable talents do not include credible play-acting.

It’s not clear what Bush could have done (or would have had to have done) had there been a competent mayor of New Orleans or governor of LA in office. Neither did their job. So the blame fell on Bush.

Obama faces a crisis in federal waters – not state. Those are waters that are his administration’s responsibility. Blame Bush won’t work. And neither will attempts to duck the Katrina comparisons.

Rich speaks of “airbrushing” of the facts surrounding Katrina. I must have missed that. But that is precisely what has already begun in the defense of Obama with this claim that he and his administration were “engaged” from “day one”. Reactions to oil spills which are standard operating procedure regardless of who is in office are not “engagement”. In fact, most wouldn’t consider them to have become really engaged in the spill for a week or two and then, it appeared to be minimally and reluctantly. In fact, it appeared to be a distraction, an annoyance of which the administration would prefer to be relieved.

If there is any “airbrushing” going on, the left has definitely been engaged in that since “day one”.

Rich claims that it was Bush who made the masses doubt the competence of government (with his Katrina performance). He says:

Long before Obama took office, the public was plenty skeptical that government could do anything right. Eight years of epic Bush ineptitude and waste only added to Washington’s odor. Now Obama is stuck between a rock and a Tea Party. His credibility as a champion of reformed, competent government is held hostage by video from the gulf. And this in an election year when the very idea of a viable federal government is under angrier assault than at any time since the Gingrich revolution and militia mobilization of 1994-5 and arguably since the birth of the modern conservative movement in the 1960s.

But why is the “idea of a viable federal government” under assault?

As usual, Rich wants’ to blame it on Bush. It is a tried and true blame shifting device that progressives have been deploying for the 18 months Obama’s been in office. They don’t seem to realize, however, that it lost its cache after about 6 months. This is Obama’s show now, and as Peggy Noonan points out, the problem is competence:

This is what happened with Katrina, and Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn’t like about the Bush administration, everything it didn’t like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush’s incompetence and conservatives’ failure to “believe in government.” But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.

But, as Noonan points out, over these 18 months, more and more Americans have come to the conclusion he’s not. Those are pretty ugly thoughts when it comes to this president to some I suppose, but in fact, he’s demonstrated nothing to persuade most people otherwise.

And it is the image of the deep water oil well gushing oil into the Gulf that Noonan turns into metaphor of the Obama presidency and why his competence is questioned. Think taxpayer and the borrowed money his administration has been responsible for spending, think the proposed trillion dollar budgets as far as the eye can see, think his disconnection with the priorities of the people for favored agenda items.

While this disaster might rightfully shine a light on BP and the oil industry’s lack of planning for such a problem, it also erodes the ability of politicians to sell government as the most competent answer to our problems. Government has a specific role for which it is most suited. Defense, legal and judicial systems, stable currency, and minimal legislation to enable and oversee those systems.

Beyond that, it becomes intrusive, cumbersome, highly bureaucratic, unresponsive and expensive. The oil spill simply points this out fairly graphically. Health care reform, as it comes into play over the years, will reinforce that point even further.

Noonan, who I believe supported the Obama candidacy, is bothered by the effect the spill and Obama’s disconnectedness and inept governing to this point will have on his presidency. It is I think her way of saying, in a nuanced way, that she regrets her choice:

The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration, and that is no cause for joy. It’s not good to have a president in this position—weakened, polarizing and lacking broad public support—less than halfway through his term. That it is his fault is no comfort. It is not good for the stability of the world, or its safety, that the leader of “the indispensable nation” be so weakened. I never until the past 10 years understood the almost moral imperative that an American president maintain a high standing in the eyes of his countrymen.

For the most part, I agree with her point that we and the world are best served by a President who is held in high esteem by his or her citizenry. But that’s something that is earned, not just given. This man sought the presidency after slamming the competence of his predecessor on every occasion possible. And when confronted by a disaster of his own, we get this:

Mr. Obama himself, when running for president, made much of Bush administration distraction and detachment during Katrina. Now the Republican Party will, understandably, go to town on Mr. Obama’s having gone before this week only once to the gulf, and the fund-raiser in San Francisco that seemed to take precedence, and the EPA chief who decided to cancel a New York fund-raiser only after the press reported that she planned to attend.

You reap what you sow. When you slam the opposition and their leader as incompetent (I recall that word used often by sitting Democratic leadership) you imply that if you’re elected, you won’t be incompetent.  It’s his standard and right now he’s hoist on his own petard.

Most impartial observers haven’t seen much competence displayed in the past 18 months. Not only has the administration seemingly not been up to the job, they’ve attempted to continue the blame-shifting that worked for the first 6 months of their existence, apparently still not realizing who is now President of the United States.

This is all yours, Mr. Obama.

Lead or go find something else to do.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

12 Responses to Frank Rich v. Peggy Noonan – compare and contrast “competent”

  • How low they’ve fallen.  Bush was supposed the worlds biggest dope in their eyes, now the best they can say about Obama is “at least he’s better than Bush”  lol

    They don’t even realize how they damn him with faint praise.

    Obama took ownership of the leak. So Mr. Obama- “plug the damn hole” now.  

  • The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush’s incompetence and conservatives’ failure to “believe in government.”

    I believe it to be an immutable law of organizational behavior (or human nature) that bureaucracies always attempt to consolidate more power, while also expending huge resources in hiding errors and never allowing themselves to be held accountable without a blood-struggle.  This is one reason markets work so amazingly well, as compared to everything else.

    It is also one example of the brilliance of Federalism, whose design was to keep central government to a very few essential functions, while allowing state and local governments a much freer hand…and their constituents a much shorter shot to kill the bureaucracy.

    One thing about a free people that I think you can say; they do not default to supplication.  Slaves, peons, and serfs do.  A patron is part of the dynamic.  New Orleans is an example of a social order built on dependants/patrons, and Katrina was just a sample of what happens when nature asserts a ripple in the relationship.  Other disasters came and went since.  No big deal.  People in Texas and the mid-west are not vassals…yet.

    Great point about the state/city responsibility in Katrina v. the unique and totally Constitutional federal responsibility (that people like Rich can’t get) in the Gulf.

  • Well, there was immediate and substantial airbrushing of the facts with Katrina. “Brownie” had met with both MS and LA  to coordinate hurricane preparedness, and FEMA was delivering supplies days ahead of schedule after landfall. The fact that MS had much less of a crisis, despite much more severe damage speaks well not just of the leadership and people of Mississippi, but of the plan Brownie helped finalize and execute.

    The airbrushing comment is really very similar to Holder’s claim that American’s aren’t honest about the topic of race. Both are true, and both were critical to the Democrats winning the last election.

  • The fact that MS had much less of a crisis, despite much more severe damage speaks well not just of the leadership and people of Mississippi, but of the plan Brownie helped finalize and execute.

    It also is telling that the Louisiana/New Orleans Plans had been finalized in approximatley the same time frame as the Mississippi Plan.  The difference was in the implementation – Mississippi executed their plan while Louisiana tried to wing it.

  • From Wikipedia’s entry on the Minerals Management Service….
    Gifts and gratuities
    See also: Department of the Interior Controversies
    In September 2008, reports by the Inspector General of the Interior Department, Earl E. Devaney, were released that implicated over a dozen officials of the MMS of unethical and criminal conduct in the performance of their duties. The investigation found MMS employees had taken drugs and had sex with energy company representatives. MMS staff had also accepted gifts and free holidays amid “a culture of ethical failure”, according to the investigation.[25] The New York Times’s summary states the investigation revealed “a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch.”[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]
    ——Note, how very clearly the blame is laid on Bush and that the problems were visible and reported in 2008 by the NYT. Now check out the rest of the entry…notice how nothing changes (except for some prosecutions that undoubtedly started under Bush and the IG keeps catching problems) but all of a sudden there is no mention of who is President.
    A May 2010 inspector general investigation revealed that MMS regulators in the Gulf region had allowed industry officials to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil and then turned them over to the regulators, who traced over them in pen before submitting the reports to the agency. MMS staff had routinely accepted meals, tickets to sporting events, and gifts from oil companies.[34] Staffers also used government computers to view pornography.[35] In 2009 the regional supervisor of the Gulf region for MMS pled guilty and was sentenced to a year’s probation in federal court for lying about receiving gifts from an offshore drilling contractor. “This deeply disturbing report is further evidence of the cozy relationship between MMS and the oil and gas industry,” Salazar said.[36][37]
    Now, my problem is this. The small government types believe regulation is not a panacea, precisely because people make errors, are greedy etc. no matter if they are in private enterprise or government. But the progressives keep telling me this an issue of competence and “if we only had the right people.” Well, they knew about all of these problems since 2008 (I assume they read their NYT) – so where was the competence?

    p.s. I have to figure this has been edited this way so that the average person would simply blame Bush for the problems. Or am I just paranoid now?

    • It’s a darn good thing that we now have the most ethical and transparent government in history … and even that wasn’t enough

  • Does this story about Rahm Emanuel and Stanley Greenberg, a principal of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, explain the delayed federal action ?

    • Did you hear anyone mentions that BP is a “progressive company” …

      We [Greenberg Quinlan Rosner] have advised CEOs and other top corporate leaders for some of the world’s most successful and progressive companies, including BP, Boeing, Monsanto, General Motors, British Airways, Coca-Cola, and Sainsbury’s.

  • The next time we go to the polls to elect a president, we need to look for a leader.

    My military definition of leading is giving your subordinates everything they need to accomplish the mission – support, resources, persuasion, information, direction, reward, punishment, encouragement and loyalty. Their failures are your responsibility.

    Obama’s skill set does not include leadership and that is the problem.