What conservative bloggers taught me about flood relief

Bleeding Heartland has been sparring with some Iowa Republican bloggers about the appropriate policy responses to the recent catastrophic flooding (see this post and this follow-up).

Here are some things I have learned.

Convening a special legislative session to address Iowa's flood relief, clean-up and reconstruction needs would be an example of Democrats "politicizing the floods." State officials should wait to see what the federal government does before taking those steps.

But this does not imply that Iowans should "sit on their heinies and wait for the feds to come in and fix everything." We are better than that:

Iowans can fix most things ourselves. It's just a matter of who is going to pay for it all after the fact. This isn't like New Orleans, where (I heard some relief worker on the radio the other day say that) out-of-state volunteers had to wake up residents at 10 a.m. so that the volunteers could get inside the houses where the residents then sat around and watched the volunteers work.

When the legislature does convene, it would be wrong for the state of Iowa to borrow money to invest in reconstruction.

Instead, we should cut fat out of the budget, such as excessive spending on education.

Also, we should cut corporate income taxes to discourage flood-damaged businesses from moving to new communities or out of state.

Any questions?

P.S.--The real lessons I learned were:

1. Conservatives love to trot out their fake fiscal responsibility. In this case, Iowa bloggers make a big deal out of needing to live within our means and not pass on debt to our children and grandchildren. But their response to the floods amounts to, "Let the (deeply-indebted, huge-deficit-running) federal government pay for as much as possible."

2. Republicans will offer corporate tax cuts as a solution to any problem.

3. When the going gets tough, count on right-wing talk radio to make people feel better by reinforcing their racist stereotypes.



Display:


Not New Orleans, eh? (2.00 / 1)

Every time I encounter conservatives "in the wild" -- that is, not mediated by Faux News -- I am struck again at how deeply racism is embedded in the modern conservative mindset.


"If you don't care about everybody, you don't care about anybody." --Ethan Mordden
by prodigal on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 08:31:04 AM EST

Re: Not New Orleans, eh? (2.00 / 2)

and the mis-ability to holtotally conflicting ideas as "principles";

State officials should wait to see what the federal government does before taking those steps.

But this does not imply that Iowans should "sit on their heinies and wait for the feds to come in and fix everything."


by zerosumgame on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What conservative bloggers taught me about flo (none / 0)

You can find all these ideas at NoQuarter, giving lie to the idea that they are even Democrats.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:08:52 AM EST

please provide links (2.00 / 1)

I don't read No Quarter, so I'd appreciate it if you could provide links to show when they argued that Iowans are less lazy than New Orleans residents, that we shouldn't borrow money to invest in flood reconstruction, and so on.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:15:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: please provide links (none / 0)

Sorry but I don't have the time to search their comments to post links.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:13:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good diary. (2.00 / 2)

It explains why I have the same basic argument over and over with my conservative brother.  I think the next time one breaks out I'll send him a version of your list right off the bat and ask him if he has anything to add...just to speed things up...heh.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:13:39 AM EST

Re: What conservative bloggers taught me about flo (2.00 / 1)

Basically, Republican irresponsibility is responsible for disasters like this and Katrina becoming worse than they needed to be. Bush cut funding for repairing the New Orleans levees despite warnings that they would fail. Similarly, despite warnings that America's flood control system needed upgrading, McCain opposed money to Midwest levees, including those that failed, and Bush vetoed the funding when Democrats voted it in. This is a deliberate policy by Republicans to, in their eyes, "drown government in a bathtub," but really it is a "drown America in a bathtub" policy and it is killing and ruining Americans across the country.


by mole333 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:00:03 AM EST

we have changed the way the watershed works (2.00 / 1)

If most of Iowa were still covered by prairie grasses instead of farm fields, the ground would absorb much more water.

And if fewer farm fields had been paved over for roads, strip malls and subdivisions (without adequate planning for handling the stormwater), the flooding wouldn't have been nearly as bad either.

We have made quite a mess for ourselves. It takes a lot less in terms of crazy weather to create a "500-year flood" than it used to.

But I agree with the points you raise as well.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:28:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we have changed the way the watershed works (none / 0)

Agreed. Similarly, the Gulf Coast is paying the price for the devastation of the coastal wetlands. Add to that the increased storminess that is predicted (and seemingly happening) from global warming, you have a bad situation made worse by neglecting our infrastructure. Funny how environmentalists have been so right for so long on so many issues. Not all, mind you, and I find some environmentalists to be a bit crazy. But overall the movement has been right on most issues most of the time.


by mole333 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:55:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The personal is political? (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, I remember some of this crap in North Dakota in 1997. You see North Dakotan's were the best flood victems ever. We didn't take more help than we needed and individuals even gave money back to FEMA and the Red Cross. North Dakotan's were hard working, DESERVING, needy people.

Now I am not trying to diminish some of the pride I felt in my community during and after the flood, but there was this underlying sense that we were somehow better than people from other parts of the world. This then translated into a greater sense of entitlement to state and Federal disaster relief funds.

I think Michael Moore wrote something in his book "Stupid White Men" about wishing that conservatives would suffer some afflictions, because so many on the right seem to be unable to care about issues like stem cell research or gay rights, until it impacts them personally. While this is a bit silly, there is some merit to his assertions.

I have seen the most conservative people be so kind and generous to needy people they know personally, but then turn into Ghengis Khan on everyone outside their sphere. I will also say that there are a few liberals and progressives that love humanity but seem to hate humans. Just to be fair and balanced I guess.


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:12:27 AM EST

Charles Rangel and the Draft (2.00 / 2)

A similar way of thinking was behind NYC Congressman Rangel's advocating a draft. His constituents, many of whom are poor and black, are serving in Iraq far beyond their demographic numbers. Rangle argues, semi-seriously, that a draft would bring the war home to many who are currently sheltered from it and make it even more unpopular. I am not sure I agree with him, but I also don't think he is completely wrong.

It is easy to blame the victim when you aren't affected by the problem.


by mole333 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:58:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Charles Rangel and the Draft (2.00 / 1)

Yes, exactly. I actually agree with Rangel for this very reason. We have people who got us into these wars who are essentially 'draft dodgers'. I love having conservatives try to explain Bush's Viet Nam experience or Limbaugh, Cheny, and Rumsfield's deferments to me.


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:09:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Charles Rangel and the Draft (none / 0)

I don't necessarily agree with Randel, but I do love how so many chickenhawks panic at what he advocates.


by mole333 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The personal is political? (none / 0)

Maybe I am more conservative then I relize, becuase I do believe in personal responsibilities and my priorities are like your "sphere" comment.

1. Take care of your self

  1. Take care of your family
  2. Take care of your friends and extended family
  3. Take care of your neighbors
  4. Take care of people in your church
  5. Take care of people in your city
  6. Larger and larger circles

I do not believe in centralized power and strongly believe it is a mistake to strengthen FEMA. Treating issues from the Federal Government down will limit freedoms.  Almost by definition.


by Classical Liberal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The personal is political? (none / 0)

Yeah, I kind of struggle with this the older I get. I have seen personally that just throwing money at something is not the answer. However, I think it is one of the great myths of our time that we do not have enough money to have similar kinds of social safety nets, health care and education as some of our European cousins have.


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The personal is political? (none / 0)

My problem with FEMA is the same problem I have many Federal Programs. The best people suited to deal with any disasters are the local governments.  They have the people in place who understand the problem best.  These people also have the proper motivation in place because they and their families are directly affected by what ever disaster they are facing.  


by Classical Liberal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What conservative bloggers (2.00 / 2)

It seems like the conservatives you describe see natural disasters as a conversion opportunity rather than as a problem that needs to be solved on its own merits.  They create the problem, then propose a solution that brings society more in line with their own twisted thinking.  Disaster as opportunity.


by rfahey22 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST

Re: What conservative bloggers (2.00 / 1)

It was very odd after the 1997 flood in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Almost everything in ND is moderately to extremely conservative. Now there was always (and still is) a bunch of radical lefty's (like me) in Grand Forks and even Fargo, but we were (are) a minority.

The thing was that our newspaper, the Grand Forks Herald, did not lose one day of print even though their building first flooded then burned. Also one local radio station and one local TV station stayed up through the whole crisis. The two stations became a community focal point for those of us going through this catastrophe. Everyone listened to the radio all of the time; we would get messages to friends and family, we would get good information about recovery efforts, and we would connect with services through them.

Now the odd thing was that the radio station was one of those really conservative talk radio stations, the kind that featured Rush Limbaugh and lambasted Clinton all of the time, changed with the flood. I think one of them was 'Big' Ed Schultz. I was astonished to hear him on Air America, as I remembered him as a Limbaugh wanna be in the 90's. But when the disaster occurred, I remember him discussing President Clinton with respect and almost reverence. When the President visited us shortly after the start of the flood, Big Ed was talking about all of the Federal Disaster Assistance we were getting , like a true blue liberal. Hearing him made me laugh so hard, I almost drove into a pole. Now don't get me wrong, I am glad that Ed is on our side, but I think it illustrates my point. To bastardize C Wright Mills, perhaps the personal is political.


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What conservative bloggers taught me (2.00 / 1)

You hit it. The Republican solution to every problem in the universe is to cut taxes. If you cut taxes, the invisible hand will make floods disappear.


Dizzy Zzyzzy
by Zzyzzy on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:33:54 AM EST

Re: What conservative bloggers taught me about flo (2.00 / 1)

Absolutely, the state needs to call a special legislative session - if only to begin sorting out priorities and give direction to rebuilding.  I can't even believe that this would be compared to politicizing the floods.

Now, Iowa being near and dear to my heart, I even thought about coming to stay with friends in Cedar Rapids to help with relief efforts.  Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to do that, but I know some that have.  God bless them.  That's kind of the attitude I have seen everywhere I have ever lived and had New Orleans been able to host volunteers without considerable expense, I'm sure volunteers would have been coming in flocks to assist in relief.  It's so exceptionally bizarre to claim Katrina and Iowa can be compared to me - they're nothing alike.

Now what the Republicans seem to be missing here is that, at least in Cedar Rapids, a lot of those businesses that were flooded were not Rockwell Collins but small businesses like those in the Czech Village.  All the tax cuts in the world aren't going to do any good when the actual original and sole business is gone.

The way to make sure excessive federal aid is not awarded is to judge what Iowa's public and private sectors can fully handle itself (including deficit) and then secure minimal federal aid.  Small business loan appropriations should be awarded to businesses that were destroyed by the flood to help them rebuild.  Additionally, tons of culturally significant things were destroyed in Linn and Johnson counties - a certain appropriation from the state should be given to help rebuild the Czech-Slovak and African-American Museums, Sutliff Bridge and other culturally and locally prominent landmarks.  This doesn't even touch yet the infrastructure of tons of cities.

As to help individuals who lost their homes (and I know a few) - I don't even know how to best address their individual needs.  But Iowans are resourceful and I hope at least some aid will be all that's needed to get them back on their feet.


by ejintx on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST

Re: What conservative bloggers taught me about flo (none / 0)


They're just geniuses.

This sort of thing always reminds me that real Republicans are somehow never really at home anywhere in the country or among any group of people.  They may live in one place all their lives, amid all kinds of kin, and bray endlessly about what superior Americans they are.  But the only thing they really love are their selfinterests, themselves, and their money.  They're always somehow aliens colonizing among us.


by killjoy on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:48:54 AM EST

Re: What conservative bloggers taught me about flo (2.00 / 1)

I have been convinced for some time that Conservative thought is a form of mental disease.

It leaves one prone to hallucination, as when they swear that Ronald Reagan actually IMPROVED America's Economy and standing in the world.

When you remind them that our deficits and National Debt balloooned out of control under Reagan, and that Saint Ronnie had to go in front of the world and admit that people under his command had sold illegal drugs on the world markets and had sold black-market and US weapons to Iran to pay for subversion and terrorist acts against lawful governments in Central America, they look at you like YOU'RE the one who is crazy.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST

Re: What conservative bloggers taught me about flo (none / 0)

You do know that this is almost completely contrived, right? Reagan was not popular when he left office. His polls were very low and IMHO     Bush Sr only won because of Lee Atwater and his dirty, dirty campaign against Dukacus. At this time in 1988 Dukacu was a shoe in, his polls were so high. Then the ad with Dukacus in the tank, the Willie Horton ad, and the lousy debate performance right before the election gave Bush the win.

Then came Bush Sr and then came Newt Gringrich and all of the other opposition to Clinton. IMHO the Gingrich 'revolution', 'contract with America' allowed the Republican to rewrite history. And the American people and the media bought it hook, line and sinker. Even Democrats give Reagan the dip and bow.

Now Reagan was extremely charismatic, likable, and had the good fortune to be president during the fall of the Soviet Union. He got to say, "Mr Gorbachav, tear down this wall". IMHO Reagan's very best role was as president. I just wish we had given him an Oscar instead.


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What conservative bloggers taught me about flo (2.00 / 3)

Dunno where you got your facts.

Ronald Reagan's exit numbers were almost as high as Bill Clinton's, upper 60's.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/0 7/opinion/polls/main621632.shtml

This despite the fact that the last two years in the White House he was a babbling, drooling shell devastated by Alzheimer's; with Nancy Reagan consulting horoscopes and astrologers to run the country.  

Conservatives STILL deify this guy, you just have to remember his 2004 funeral for God's sake.  The whole nation came to standstil while I scratched my head and wondered what the Hell the whole spectacle was supposed to be about.

The Reagan Presidency was filled with mediocrity, stupidity, incredible graft and corruption, and outright baldfaced lying and violation of the Congress and the Constitution.

Kinda like the Bush Presidency today!

Ronald Reagan used to take pride in saying that Government WAS the problem, and he devoted his life to sabotaging, disabling, and dismantling it.

His followers have sworn to honor his legay, and make damn sure Government NEVER works.  The Bushies succeeded beyond their own expectations.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From his last year in office (none / 0)

During his last year in office Reagan never got higher polls than 57%. Kinda low. Better than Bush but not better than Clinton in his final year. You can't really judge his last year by one poll in January of 1989.

Reagan's Ratings
`Great Communicator's' Appeal Is Greater in Retrospect

Analysis
By Gary Langer
June 7, 2004-- Ronald Reagan is misremembered as one of the most popular presidents, an assessment based more on his skills as a communicator and effectiveness as a campaigner than on public views of his accomplishments while in office.  
His job approval ratings, in fact, were mid-tier. Across his tenure an average of 57 percent of Americans approved of Reagan's work as president, tied with Bill Clinton and within a point of Lyndon Johnson. Among postwar presidents, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush all ran better averages, and George W. Bush has averaged better to date, despite his current slump.

Reagan has done far better in retrospect, as can happen as ex-presidents recede from the fray of day-to-day politics. Asked to think back to when he served, 66 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll in 2001 approved of his work, as did still more, 73 percent, in a 2002 Gallup poll. (Jimmy Carter's retrospective rating did the same thing, rising 20 points in the two decades after he left office.)

Reagan's personal ratings also have improved with time. During his presidency an average of 61 percent of Americans reported an overall favorable impression of him, about the same as the career favorable rating for his successor, the first President Bush (63 percent). By 2001, though, more -- 69 percent -- viewed Reagan favorably.

Events
Reagan's ratings while in office rose and fell sharply with events. Approval peaked at 73 percent after he was wounded in a March 1981 assassination attempt, but tumbled to 42 percent in the early '80s recessions (unemployment hit a 40-year high in 1982). It recovered to 70 percent in early 1986 as the economy improved, but then dived by 26 points in nine months during the Iran-Contra scandal.

While Reagan presided over what was characterized as a go-go economy in the second half of the 1980s, consumer confidence from that period pales compared to its level in the late 1990s -- one reason he was not insulated from Iran-Contra the way Clinton was protected (in terms of public opinion) from the Lewinsky scandal. Positive ratings of the economy never exceeded 50 percent (reached once) from December 1985 until the end of Reagan's term. In contrast, 71 percent rated the economy favorably, on average, during the Lewinsky days.

Like many presidents, Reagan inspired substantial polarization. The gender gap became evident in his presidency; he did seven or eight points better among men than among women in the 1980 and 1984 elections alike. And his ratings were sharply divided along political lines: At times ABC News polls found a 50-point gap between Republicans and Democrats in their ratings of Reagan's job performance, compared with a 30- or 35-point gap for his successor.

In an example of that polarization, in a poll in the late '90s, Reagan tied for first as "the best president in your lifetime," cited by 23 percent. But he also tied for second, behind Richard Nixon, as the worst president, chosen by 17 percent.

Best President In Your Lifetime: 9/15/98     Best             Worst  
Reagan       23  Nixon  23  
Clinton      22  Reagan  17
Kennedy      14  Clinton  16

Reagan's reputation for popularity probably rests in part on his landslide victories, boosted by the "Reagan Democrats" who rallied to his side -- in ABC News exit polls, he won a quarter of Democratic voters in 1980 and 1984 alike. In addition to his legendary campaigning skills, it helped that the two least-popular periods of his presidency -- the recession and the Iran-Contra scandal -- didn't coincide with either election. (Running during the hangover from the 1990-91 recession didn't work for the first President Bush, despite his comparatively high average approval rating.)

He also left office on a fairly high economic note, with 42 percent of Americans saying they were better off than when he began. But there were sharp differences in views of which groups benefited: Seventy-two percent said he'd made wealthy Americans better off, but just 26 percent said he'd benefited the middle class financially, and a majority of Americans said the poor had gotten worse off.

His valedictory approval rating was a high 64 percent, a point shy of Clinton's. And 63 percent said they expected history to remember Reagan as an "above average" or "outstanding" president. But such assessments seem to have been informed more by his personal charisma rather than by specific accomplishments. While optimism rose during his presidency as the economy improved, across his two terms an average of just 44 percent of Americans described themselves as satisfied with the country's direction -- no more than the long-term average (45 percent) in Gallup polls from 1979 to present.

In a poll by The Associated Press in November 1988, majorities rated Reagan positively for handling just three of 11 issues tested -- relations with the Soviet Union, defense and other foreign affairs. There was an even split on the economy, plurality disapproval on his appointment of judges, and majority disapproval of his work on civil rights, education, ethics, housing, welfare, and the deficit (peaking at 82 percent disapproval on the latter).

More personally, in a 1987 survey half of Americans saw Reagan as "out of touch with what is going on in the government." And in the end-of-career AP poll his strongest ratings were for charisma (77 percent positive), his ability to communicate (74 percent) and leadership (60 percent). Only 45 percent rated Reagan positively for his "judgment as president."

Presidents: Average Job Approval  
           Approve  Disapprove
Kennedy     70 percent 17 percent
Eisenhower  65 percent 21 percent
G.W. Bush   65 percent 32 percent (to date)
G.H.W. Bush 63 percent 33 percent
Reagan      57 percent 39 percent
Clinton     57 percent 39 percent  
Johnson     56 percent 31 percent  
Nixon       49 percent 38 percent  
Ford        49 percent 38 percent  
Truman      47 percent 39 percent  
Carter      46 percent 39 percent  

(Pre-Reagan polls by Gallup)

But fundamentally, public assessments of Reagan seem to have been informed more by his personal charisma than by specific accomplishments. Optimism rose during his presidency as the economy improved. Still, across his two terms an average of 44 percent of Americans described themselves as satisfied with the country's direction -- no more than the long-term average (45 percent) in Gallup polls from 1979 to present.

In a 1987 survey, half of Americans saw Reagan as "out of touch with what is going on in the government." And in an end-of-career poll by The Associated Press, his strongest ratings were for charisma (77 percent positive), his ability to communicate (74 percent) and leadership (60 percent). Only 45 percent rated Reagan positively for his "judgment as president."

Reagan: Annual Job Approval  
 Average High Low  
1981  62  73 52  
1982  49  52 46
1983  53  63 42
1984  57  59 54
1985  63  68 54
1986  63  70 49
1987  51  58 44
1988  55  57 50


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:21:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From his last year in office (none / 0)

I suck. I still can't figure out how to make a link.


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What conservative bloggers taught me about flo (none / 0)

But I do agree with the rest of your comment, mostly.


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:26:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What I learned from huricane survivors? (none / 0)

Hugs to folks who are surviving the floods. Is there a post here for places where you can volunteer or donate?  


by 12 dogs and a blog on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:23:35 PM EST

Re: What conservative bloggers taught me about flo (none / 0)

How eye-opening.  It is just amazing how nuts some of these people are.  it's like they are from an alternative universe.


John McCain Opposed Expanded GI Bill
by hilltopper on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 08:22:42 PM EST

What we could learn from Egypt (2.00 / 1)

For thousands of years the Egyptians used the Nile's floods to fertilize their fields.

We spend billions to build levees to fight Mother Nature and hem in Old Man River.  Then we spend billions more on petroleum based fertilizers to grow our crops.  We spend billions on crop insurance.  And then we spend billions on disaster cleans up.  Repeat cycle.

Seems we have a lot to learn.  Not trying to disparage Iowa.  ND, LA, IL, MS among others all need to learn the lesson WI learned two weeks ago...don't build in flood plains.


by angry liberaltarian on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:11:49 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.