Scenario 1: A massive tragedy strikes, centered on the world's most populous Muslim nation, but with effects felt in many other countries. The U.S. immediately and decisively pledges a substantial amount of assistance. The following day, as the full scope of the disaster is revealed, that pledge is increased tenfold and the American president publicly informs his counterparts in the afflicted countries that he is willing to offer "whatever we can."
Scenario 2: A massive tragedy strikes, centered on the world's most populous Muslim nation, but with effects felt in many other countries. The U.S. initially offers a token amount of assistance, which is increased only incrementally as the full scope of the disaster is revealed. The American president does not publicly address the disaster until after two days of bicycling and clearing brush. After a week, the U.S. pledge is increased tenfold. Comments from American officials seem to indicate that this is more a response to criticism of American "stinginess" than a response to the disaster itself.
The difference between these two scenarios is important. Pointing out this difference brings howls of protest from uncritical Bush-backers that you are "politicizing" this aid (see for example the Poor Man's discussion of John Podhoretz's feigned outrage).
But you can't "politicize" what is already political. And, yes, while this aid is the Right Thing To Do for basic human and humanitarian reasons, it is also politically significant.
We are in the midst of a global struggle against terrorists. Much of this struggle — the part that we're not very good at — is a battle for public opinion. It is as important in this struggle for America to be loved as it is to be feared. (If "loved" seems too strong a word, try "not despised.") America's response to tragedies like this — particularly when they center on Muslim nations like Indonesia — is therefore politically important. It provides an opportunity to demonstrate the reality of our ideals and our good will, and to refute the terrorists' message that America is simply a self-interested, imperialist, evil nation.
The Bush administration badly fumbled this opportunity. Apparently they wanted to avoid the appearance of Clintonian empathy, or perhaps to save some money, or maybe they were waiting for U.S. opinion polls to confirm that Americans wanted to see more aid, or … well, it's hard to know why exactly they handled this so poorly.
Eventually and happily, they came around. The U.S. is now pledging $350 million in assistance and indicating that more may be provided down the road. But the way they arrived at this point managed to undermine any potential benefit such a pledge might have provided in the struggle for global opinion. The humanitarian result is the same — $350 million in aid.* But the political result is very different.
As individuals, of course, we're all free to give as much as we can without the taint of any such political considerations. Here's a good list of aid agencies seeking donations.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
* And let's hope this money represents something more real than, say, the $15 billion "pledged" to combat AIDS in Africa.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In