1115.org

As I was thinking of possible strategies for the 2006 mid-term elections, it occurred to me that Democrats should try something new: Give ‘Em Enough Rope! No, not a strategy based on The Clash’s underrated album of the same name, but a political course designed to give Republicans everything they want in order to force one of two results: 1) failure, which would bring about the end of conservative ideology as a viable option, leaving Democrats as the sole alternative, or 2) success, which would mean the end of our country’s many problems and the need for Democrats at all.

Sound insane? Maybe. But these examples are facetious. Jacob Weisberg, in his most recent column at Slate, actually advocates the Give ‘Em Enough Rope! strategy (emphasis added):

Liberals, who have failed to muster any kind of social consensus for a major federal assault on poverty since LBJ’s day, should welcome conservatives as converts to the cause. They should hold back on their specific objections - some of which are valid, some of which are not - and let Bush have his way with the reconstruction. Making New Orleans a test site for conservative social policy ideas could shake out any number of ways politically. But all of us have a stake in an experiment that tells us whether conservative anti-poverty ideas, uh, work. If the conservative war on poverty succeeds, even in partial fashion, we will all be better for its success. And if it fails, we will have learned something important about how not to fight poverty.

Anyone so willing to subject the poverty-striken to a set of “solutions” cooked up at the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Bush in a panic-fueled speech designed to save his Presidency obviously doesn’t give a second thought to where his next meal is coming from or where he’ll rest his head tonight. Even a cursory look back at the Bush record shows a frightening series of bad judgement and failed experiments (the aforementioned military preemption, Rumsfeld’s “fast and light” force structure, No Child Left Behind, etc.) While some are arguable, the failure to find any WMD is Iraq is not. Yet even as the whole country, in Weisberg’s words, “learned something important,” the administration merely moved the goal posts and set a new course. The problem with looking for a definitive result from an administration loathe to recognize accountability is as I wrote last week:

Any marginal success (or the plausible claim thereof) will be met with parades and calls to replicate the tactics nationwide. Failure (where not deniable) will be greeted with a round of “blame the victims” and of course “blame the Democrats,” who despite holding no power, will be held responsible for naysaying.

So while some Senate Democrats are adopting Weisberg’s plan with respect to John Roberts‘ nomination (thirty years on the bench should be long enough to find out whether or not Roberts is suitable Supreme Court material), the Bush administration is wasting no time in displaying their brand of reconstruction:

Instead of offering $10,000 vouchers, FEMA is paying an average of $16,000 for each trailer in the new parks it is contemplating. Even many Republicans wonder why the government would want to build trailer parks when many evacuees are now living in communities with plenty of vacant, privately owned apartments.

Hopefully those confused Republicans won’t injure themselves trying to figure out that by paying money for new trailers rather than allowing evacuees to live in proper houses, Bush will control yet another big money contract that will find its way into the hands of a Republican donor, while segregating the displaced poor away from areas where people like his own mother consider it scary. And despite attempts by the National Governors Association to extend Medicaid benefits to evacuees, the administration is actively making it more difficult for them to get even temporary healthcare:

But it appears that the Bush administration, rather than backing this simple and effective measure, is insisting on a slower, more cumbersome approach, requiring each state to negotiate its own waiver from the rules limiting eligibility for Medicaid benefits.

As if those examples of disregard for the best interests of Katrina’s displaced poor weren’t enough foreshadowing, consider the fact that even as Hurricane Rita closed in on some of the same parts of the Gulf Coast affected by Katrina, Karl Rove (the President’s choice to oversee the reconstruction) was on his way to North Dakota for a political fundraiser.

It is abundantly clear what the Bush administration’s goal is in reconstructing the Gulf coast. The only reason that poverty even enters the debate is one passage in the President’s Jackson Square speech as he was under withering pressure from those who considered his response to Katrina unacceptable. By uttering the word poverty just twice, Bush has somehow immunized his reconstruction plan against much of the criticism it deserves. But the plan segregates and forces the affected to battle red tape while at the same time clearing virtually all obstacles in the way of businesses who will profit from the rebuilding. The best case scenario has the poor waiting for that profit to trickle down, a theory discredited countless times. The worst case has them permanently living in cut-rate trailers far away from their old neighborhoods, while they earn minimum wage building upscale communities they will never be able to afford.

Allowing any Bush administration idea to be implemented or nominee to be approved without proper investigation is a dereliction of the Democrats’ duty. Suggesting that the poor be exposed to rigged market forces for their return to stability is to ignore the lessons of crony capitalism on display over the last five years. Give ‘Em Enough Rope! or any other strategy that defers to Republican desires in any way guarantees results contrary to the immediate needs and long-term well-being of those least able to bear the costs. That’s unacceptable, and Weisberg would had to have spent the Bush Presidency with his head up his ass not to realize it.