Politicizing Disaster
As I write this, a story is developing about what appears to be a thwarted attempt at setting off a car bomb in the middle of Times Square. Luckily, no one was hurt, and an NYPD bomb squad seems to have successfully diffused whatever device was in the SUV.
…. And all over my twitter feed, there are people who feel an immediate need, having no facts whatsoever regarding who did this or what their motive was, to blame Obama and his administration for their supposed incompetence when it comes to national security issues.
This type of unfounded, politicized assumption making coming from many on the right is just as unbecoming as what I saw from the left (for example, Fire Dog Lake), regarding the horrible oil rig accident that occurred on April 20th off the Gulf Coast. The unfortunate mishap killed 11 people, and dumped 200,000 gallons of oil into the ocean; and the folks at FDL seem to think it’s perfectly appropriate to use the tragedy as an excuse to throw around anti oil company rhetoric. While it’s quite possible that they have some valid points worth considering about the merits of conservation, why offshore drilling might be a bad thing, or the shady practices of companies like BP, I can’t help but find it cheap, if not insulting, to treat tragedy as a reason to push politics.
The exact same thing can be said of the claims that the right’s foreign policy hawks are making regarding Obama’s national security incompetence. While they might put forth claims worth considering about the President’s weaknesses on the issue, doing so as an immediate reaction to a bomb plot where the motive remains a mystery seems far too blindly ideological; weakening the potential strengths of any argument that could be made in favor of the hawk’s views. (Side-note: I’m also seeing tweets about MSNBC hosts speculating that the bomb plot relates to right-wing home grown terrorism; equally as inappropriate and factually weak as hawkish assumptions that it’s a Muslim jihad).
Why do so many people feel the need to both immediately and irrationally politicize disaster?
It happens all of the time, folks of all political stripes are guilty of doing it – and I hate it. Is it some kind of psychological compulsion? People get up in arms after tragedies – make it political, and more often than not, some kind of shoddy, reactionary type of action is taken by government that really should have been considered more carefully before being enacted. In my opinion, there’s a great danger inherent in reactionary legislation; yet it seems to be the most common kind.
I find it sad that there are people so endlessly caught up in their particular world-view, that instead of thinking critically about what may have caused a tragic event, they immediately attribute it to something that fits within their narrow ideological lens; before, and often in lieu of, considering any actual facts.
Now don’t get me wrong – I’m all for analyzing policy and events within the context of how one personally views things. Everyone has their own way of looking at life – and that’s perfectly fine. It’s nearly impossible to remain entirely objective. However, any kind of honest analysis requires a basic knowledge of the facts surrounding the point at issue. Reactionary statements that assume one’s world-view without any kind of factual backing are always unfalteringly inaccurate , and cannot be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, however, it seems that irrational reactions to tragedy based upon ideological assumptions is the stuff politics is made of.
Corie, what a thoughtful post. I was thinking similar thoughts va federal govt too big to run simple programs can’t possibly know about every whack job with a homemade bomb. I always question obama’s true agenda because it IS Cloward-Piven. Does his agenda find the BP event politically advantageous? Will Obama use it to push his climate agenda? A resounding ‘yes!’ is what I would bet. But the slow response is not indicative of obama’s failings just as Katrina isn’t Bush’s fault. It just shows the ineptitude of big govt to handle any situation when it is inherently ineffective administrationally. It is an indictment of a big overreaching federal all powerful govt.
Oh, I love this post, because I was also a little annoyed by all of the talk about the Obama administration being soft on terror and all that… I just wrote a 60 page thesis paper about the differences in counter terrorism strategy between the Bush and Obama administrations. Conclusion: not many. People always feel the need to blame someone, I guess I understand that. Still, I wish people would respond in a more thoughtful manner, instead of giving immediate emotional responses not based in fact.
Ronnie -
I totally agree with you about the ineffectiveness of the federal government; as I’m sure you could have inferred. The reason the attack in Times Square was thwarted was because a T-Shirt vendor noticed some shady activity, and alerted the NYPD. It was dealt with on a local level effectively. I’ve always thought NYC’s model was pretty awesome; it operates like it’s own nation, lol. (But, a comparatively small nation; hence its effectiveness).
Darian –
You’re 100% correct; there is little to no substantive distinction between Obama’s foreign policy and Bush’s (unfortunately).