An Unmentionable Question

A Question That Shouldn’t Be Asked Ever, but Must Be Asked Now:

The political fallout from the Katrina disaster raises some ugly thoughts in my head – thoughts I’m embarrassed to admit to, though I’m going to anyway. Suppose the next humanitarian crisis to hit America – natural disaster or otherwise – happens to land on a predominantly white, middle-class area. Further, suppose a Republican – perhaps even still George W Bush – is in the White House. Question: Is there a possible model of federal response that would not be open to damning criticisms from the opposition? Especially if GWB still has the federal reigns in his hands, it’s a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario. Succeed in drastically improving the swiftness and efficacy of the federal segments of the relief effort, and you’ve shown what a drastic disparity exists between the resource management for poor nonwhites versus well-to-do whites. On the other hand, fail miserably and you’ve shown that the system is “still broken” and that no lessons have been learned.

Granted, there are unmentioned upsides to the fallout from a hypothetical success case, at least inasmuch as there are better possible responses to the inevitable criticisms. But as much as I hate to be thinking this way in a time like this, I think it’s crucial that this question be put to the most vocal critics of the Bush administration now, not later. The question is “if the next disaster happens to hit America in a wealthy or white area, how would you define success for the federal response?”  Without the opposition being overwhelmingly documented as on-record beforehand demanding improvement in such cases, I fear that charges of racism are only likely to increase in volume if the relief efforts are perceived as “better” than those in response to Katrina.