Preempting Disaster

On the fourth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack, New York City hosted the U.S. Tennis Open finals between Roger Federer and Andre Agassi. By the middle of the game Agassi was behind and feeling the pressure, but as he rose to the occasion and began delivering some impressive plays, one observer remarked, “That’s the thing about Agassi: He always does just enough to be competitive against his opponent. That’s why he sometimes even loses to weaker players—he plays to their level, and then doesn’t realize it when their level starts going up.”

Much the same could be said about our government and its approach to protecting the nation. The default mode of the current administration has been to exert only as much effort as is needed to uphold its fragile façade of order and competence. This philosophy might have worked in a world devoid of unpredictable external forces, but it certainly does not work in the world of reality. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks four years ago and Hurricane Katrina today, public grief and outrage catalyzed the reevaluation and eventual reform of malnourished, incompetent national systems of response and protection. Following September 11, increased funds for national security became available, and airport security multiplied in vigilance in a matter of days. Following Katrina, the cronyism and corruption of power that spawned the likes of Michael Brown were exposed, leading to his removal from the leadership of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Congress also expedited the provision of more than $50 billion in federal assistance—an impressive feat, considering that last year the government was unwilling to honor a request for just a sliver of that amount for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans. In both cases, being thrust squarely in the face of disaster seems to have inspired the government to redefine the meaning of “doing its job.”

To a certain extent, this phenomenon of enhanced performance under pressure is inherent to human nature. Physiologically, the body has evolved to switch on a reserved crisis mode, or “fight-or-flight” response, in times of stress. Culturally, it is common to hear of latent potential being uncovered in the wake of challenge and adversity, capabilities not even close to being fully realized until they are tested. In ordinary contexts—taking a difficult exam, for instance, or running in a competitive race—self-discovery is a positive thing. In the context of government performance, however, it is ironic and inappropriate. Lives should not have to be lost before an administration feels inspired to do its best.

To serve this nation is not to compensate handsomely for blunders after the fact, but to preempt such blunders in the first place. This requires a level of imagination and foresight that September 11 exposed as sorely missing from our government, and, as Hurricane Katrina showed, is still missing today. The biggest problems that now face America aren’t of the textbook variety: enemies do not identify themselves with bright red uniforms, nor do natural catastrophes necessarily obey rules of prediction. Until the administration chooses to confront this truth, it condemns itself to the same pattern of complacency, negligence, and rhetorical bandaging that by now has become its signature.

When public officials and citizens alike demanded answers and explanations regarding Katrina’s relief efforts, President Bush said, “One of the things people want us to do here is play the blame game. We got to solve problems. There will be ample time to figure out what went right and what went wrong.”

It’s already been four years since September 11, 2001. How much longer will it be, and how many more tragedies will it take, before we finally realize that when facing the unconventional challenge—whether a Katrina or an Osama—aiming to do just enough to get by never ends up being enough?

Rena Xu ’07, a Crimson editorial editor, is a biochemical sciences concentrator in Eliot House.