The Difference
By Charles Bird Posted in User Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The list of differences between post-9/11 New York City and post-Katrina New Orleans is a long one. One was an atrocity, the other a tragedy, for example. One struck a relatively small area, the other struck pretty much an entire city. One was evil, the other a force of nature. And so on and so forth. But the difference that floats to the top of my list is leadership. New York City had it and New Orleans does not. New Orleans does not have its own version of Rudy Giuliani. New York State has a Pataki and Louisiana does not. Exacerbating the situation further, George W. Bush was a better leader after 9/11 than after Katrina.
When the terrorists struck, Giuliani understood immediately the nature of the attacks and what needed to be done. He put himself in charge, front and center, and he used all resources available to help the city recover, including his own bully pulpit. Unlike the Occasional Communicator, Giuliani was out in front at least daily, assuring the people, letting them know that New Yorkers were taking action, letting New Yorkers and the world know that the city will come back and be stronger than ever.
In New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin was overwhelmed soon after the levees broke and he never recovered. The St. Petersburg Times put it succinctly:
No one is in charge at the local level either, where you expect responsiveness and accountability. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin haplessly issued a "desperate SOS," then blamed federal officials who "don't have a clue what's going on down here." How about you, Mr. Mayor? As the top official of a city that is shaped like a bathtub surrounded by water, Nagin had to know what to expect. Yet when too many people showed up at the Superdome, they were turned away. At the city's convention center, 20,000 people or more are desperate for food, water and medical care. The dead lie on the ground or are propped up in wheelchairs, yet city vehicles pass by without even slowing.
The test was put before the mayor and he failed, but he's not the only one because the failure was up the chain as well. New York City turned out be lucky, having the right leader at the right time. New Orleans, with its long history of corruption and incompetence, could not muster the same. As I wrote here, I believe the best course is to rebuild and that the federal government should play no small part. However, this reconstruction should not be overseen by the same pathetic politicians who wilted so quickly after the hurricane passed. Leadership counts, more than money and assistance.
...Mayor Nagin having his own disaster plan and failing to use it. It's not like he didn't have advance warning. The plans and tools were there for him to maintain order and evacuate residents. He failed, in no small part because he didn't lead.
I think what Charles is trying to say here is that, whereas Giuliani was above average in demonstrating leadership after his city was struck by disaster, Nagin's performance has been below average.
To be fair, New Orleans has always been in far more dire straits than New York even on the brightest, sunniest days. But were Mayor Nagin (or anyone else in the New Orleans/Louisiana political establishment) capable of providing even average leadership, the situation might not have deteriorated so horrifically.
Mayor Nagin didn't have to be Mayor Giuliani, but then New Orleans didn't have to be such a cesspool of corruption and incompetence, either.
Nagin. Like most of us in the blogosphere, I'm not in much of a position to make a knowledgeable judgment at this stage.
I'm merely pointing out that this diary analogy is a long stretch. It's not apples to oranges but more like apples to cheese comparison. N.O. lost all of the infrastructure used by crisis managers to respond to and manage a crisis. This simply didn't happen in NYC (and I was working in Harborside, NJ just across the river that morning) These are not analagous disasters and the responses are hard to directly compare. It looks like the Red Cross, at least, is lauding some of Nagin's efforts.
To the extent that he is being heavily questioned or criticized, it's happening mostly on blogs. That instantly (just like DKos criticisms of the President) calls motivations into question.
I have no serious doubts that mistaks have been made by many, throughout the various levels of government and agencies involved in this disaster. At this point, I don't have enough information to make sound judgments related to blame and it seems like a premature exercise at this juncture.
Jmaier's comments.
Truth be told I think that it was pretty impressive that SO MANY people evacuated prior to the hurricane.
We have people that are RIGHT NOW unwilling to leave the city and yet the mayor was supposed to get them out.
What else can we reasonably expect the mayor of a city do? Nagin isn't providing any sort of leadership to the people in New Orleans right now because there is no elictricity in New Orleans much less TV.
This was a MASSIVE infractructure breakdown. We should all be thankful that so many people heeded the warnings and left the city.
Giuliani had to coordinate activities in a smaller area not immersed in flood waters and not as inundated with impoverished folks. He had all of the first responder resources from the 5 boroughs and nearby states on call and their operations weren't hampered by the same logistical barriers. Sadly, rescue operations weren't as necessary and he had nearby hospitals up and running to tend to casualties.
He had working communications and a whole host of resources that weren't avaible in NO. I'm not particularly defending Nagin but to criticize him for not being a Giuliani is ridiculous.