Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans?

As Derek will testify from the frequenecy with which Satchmo appeared in my quiz music rounds, I'm a big fan of Louis Armstrong. My favourite song was always "Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans?", and so, while I never visited 'Nawleans', I've been particularly sad to see the television pictures of the horrors that ahve unfolded in Katrina's wake. I hope some observations from the other side of the Atlantic might be interesting, at this point.

It's difficult to know how to respond to criticism of President Bush's response. On the one hand, I always worry that there really is a secular blame game, in an age where we do not believe natural disasters represent the wrath of God. In a completely different context, the abolition of bad luck is the biggest danger to liberty in Western society. It leaves societies with bizarre litigation, always hoping to find someone responsible because "where there's blame, there's a claim". The simple vagaries of our life are swept away, in a belief that there could be a happy utopia for us, if it wasn't for the incompetence or greed of particular other people. Most importantly, it leads us to adopt responses to dangers that make minimising risk more important than maximising opportunities. Thus, oppressive anti-terrorism legislation, often with negligible actual powers in impeding terrorists, mortgage the very liberties on which Western liberal democracies are based. Equally, here in Britain, children don't almost never go on school trips now, because teachers are at too much risk of litigation if a child is injured.

In those cases, there seems to be a complete blindness to the quality of life being sacrificed in the pursuit of reducing percieved risk, and thus reducing the risk of blame for not doing enough. The number of children injured or killed on school trips was never concerning in comparison to the same trips undertaken with parents, and one wonders if the risks of injury on such trips are much worse than those faced by bored and unstimulated under-18s roaming streets all over Britain.

Now, the disaster in New Orleans is clearly on a much more horrific scale than the case study I just outlined. However, there has to be a dose of reason in any criticism made against Mr. Bush. While it is perfectly reasonable to criticise his actions since assuming the Presidency, I do wonder if it is fair to completely blame him for the long-term poverty of the over-whelmingly black families stranded in New Orleans. There is an extent to which that is a question of balme which stretches way beyond any agency George W. Bush has ever commanded.

And yet, with those words of caution, there do seem to be two profound errors in Bush's conduct. Firstly, it seems clear that New Orleans would have been far better prepared for the disaster if the funding of disaster preparations had not been slashed in favour of anti-terrorist operations. Secondly, the President's slow response to the initial disaster was politically and morally appalling. By immediately visiting Louisiana from Texas, President Bush could have provided vital reassurance and comfort, helping maintain order and the rule of law.

When Jesse Jackson comments on the resemblance of survivors to the cargo in the belly of a slave ship, he makes an important point against the continuing social injustices in communities such as New Orleans. But beyond that, and excluding the fact that this was clearly a natural disaster which would have caused broadly comparable destruction under Presidents Gore or Kerry, Bush almost certainly does deserve censure for his response to the hurricane. It is probably evident that he is aware of this, given growing attempts to shift the blame onto Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

Ultimately, if America really wants to examine the response to Katrina, it needs an inquiry to be headed by someone other than Mr. Bush himself. Bill Clinton's call for a full congressional commission have much more credibility. Until we allow defendents to act as their own judge, Bush's commission will be as hollow and meaningless as justifications for his war in Iraq.