Scanning the various news sties today I came across this startling piece:
Here's a wake up call for the White House from Public Policy Polling: Louisianans are feeling more and more that President Bush's leadership in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was better than President Obama's on the massive gulf oil spill.
Key finding: 54% think Bush did the superior job of helping the state through a crisis to 33% who pick Obama.
While it would be fun to gloat and say that people didn't appreciate Bush while he was in office, or that Obama is just as inept at dealing with fast moving crises I don't think that really gets to the heart of the issue. What this poll shows is why we need a return to a New Federalism.
Early in our country's history a political group emerged calling themselves Federalist. The Federalist Papers, a compilation of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, strove to make the case for a strong federal government. They felt, rightly, that only a far stronger national government could address the many, and growing, crises facing the young United States. However, as our nation matured the federal government matured with it, and after the Civil War it increased greatly in size and influence, in terms of its influence on everyday life and its size as compared to the state governments. By the late 20th century many felt it had grown out of control. Enter the Regan Revolution and the idea of New Federalism.
New Federalism was characterized by a gradual return of power to the states through the use of such items as block grants, which allowed states to use the federal grants in whatever manner they saw fit as most beneficial to their citizens. The New Federalists understood that many of the issues facing the U.S. could best be handled by those closest to them. Unfortunately, George W Bush largely abandoned this movement instead moving towards a compassionate (read big) conservatism.
What the above stated poll shows is that in large part it does not matter who sits in the oval office, or what party controls congress when it comes to responding to localized crises. The federal government can not really do the job well.As the GOP strives to find an identity amidst pulls towards libertarianism by the Tea Party and pulls to the left by Big Government conservatives perhaps there is room for a discussion around a responsive and reactive government on the state level as opposed to an all-powerful national government.
3 comments:
I'm all for stronger more responsible state govts, but I think there's need for a responsive Federal govt when it comes to disasters like Katrina, that involve a number of states, and especially something like the Gulf spill that happened 50 miles or so off the coast. I lean toward a smaller less paternalistic Federal govt, but I think there is an appropriate role for the Feds in these kinds of disasters. Glad to see Bush getting some props!
I believe block grants to the states was actually a Nixon reform. The man had some issues, but he was, overall, a fairly good president.
I don't think that Katrina comes close to the oil spill. At issue is liability. There was no specific entity responsible for generating a hurricane, while the liability for the oil spill is undisputed.
I think this story is more of one where the tooth being drilled on now seems to hurt worse than that last one that got drilled on a few years back.
People are likely to see things differently looking back than in the heat of the moment.
I wouldn't place too much stock in it.
I tend to think that if they can't handle things like Katrina or the oil spill, do we really want them in charge of our health care? Of course we don't! The thing they usually excel at is national defense, and hey, it's their constitutional duty to protect us, so why not have them do what they are suppose to do, and that they do well and leave the rest to the states or the individual?!
Post a Comment