It’s safe to say that if George W Bush was in his first term, he would be heading for defeat. Safe, because we will never know: he’s in his second term and will never face the voters again.
That quirk in the United States system, with its strict two-term rule, makes it hard to read the impact Hurricane Katrina will have on the Bush presidency. Nor is it much easier to tell how the disaster will change the country itself. But both questions matter — especially for a wider world that has come to learn that what happens in the US affects everyone.
Start with Bush himself. Weekend polls suggested 50-50 US has once again split down the middle, with Bush opponents disapproving of his abysmal non-performance last week while Bush supporters stay loyal. That’s heartened Republicans, who were bracing themselves for much worse numbers.
They find further cheer in their belief that Bush bounces back in a crisis. Attacked for his immediate response to 9/11, he turned that calamity into the defining moment of his first term. Privately, conservatives also wonder how much sympathy white, suburban America — the crucial middle ground — will feel for Katrina’s victims. One close-up observer describes what he suspects is a widely-held view of those left behind in New Orleans: ”They lived in a silly place, they didn’t get out when they should, they stole, they shot at each other and they shot at rescue workers.” If that’s the view, then Bush won’t suffer too badly.
Pessimistic Bushites see things differently. They reckon the sight of so many black Americans left destitute or dying while Washington idled will embarrass those same white suburban voters. They also believe Bush and chief strategist Karl Rove can consign to the trash-can their long-term dream of peeling at least some African-American voters away from the Democrats. More directly, the charge of incompetence is deadly when applied to the White House: it could instantly diminish Bush, reducing him to a lame duck nearly two years ahead of schedule.
What of the US itself? Since the country’s founding, it has oscillated between international engagement and isolationism. Sometimes it wants to look outward, sometimes in. The hurricane may well put Americans in the latter mood. As they look at pictures of US troops toiling away in Iraq, many will surely think: what the hell are we doing there, when we have so much work to do right here at home?
Adrian Wooldridge, co-author with John Micklethwait of an excellent study of conservative US, The Right Nation, anticipates just such a sentiment. ”The big losers among Republicans will be the neocons,” he says. ”The hubris of thinking America could reshape the world, creating a democracy in hostile territory, when it can’t even keep order in an American city — that hubris has just been punctured in a big way.” Now it will be images of Katrina which are foremost in the public mind, replacing the four-year-old memories of 9/11. The ”global war on terror” could well lose its place as the all-consuming, number-one priority.
Indeed, all previous assumptions are now up for grabs. Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, conservatives have won the argument for a shrunken state, one that taxes and spends less. That neoliberal model — with its emphasis on privatisation and deregulation — has spread across the world, often imposed on countries that did not want it.
Katrina has reopened that debate in neoliberalism’s motherland. Suddenly progressive Americans detect an opening, a chance to speak up for active government, even for taxing and spending.
Still, it’s not obvious that the progressives will prevail. For one thing, Bush is not quite the no-spend conservative we imagine. The US government has actually expanded more under Bush than it did under Bill Clinton. It’s not just defence and homeland security: Bush has spent billions in traditional areas, including education.
Some of that cash has gone on building projects, usually in the pork-barrel schemes beloved of senators and congressmen keen to show they can bring home the federal bacon. The result, says Micklethwait, is that most of the country’s infrastructural needs have been catered for, if only ”accidentally”. Louisiana may have suffered because its representatives did not have their snouts deep enough into the federal trough.
Hurricanes toss everything into the air; how things settle afterwards is up to the people on the ground. A new political settlement will not come about by a simple act of nature — it has to be fought for and won. And that process is just beginning. — Â