The media unwittingly promoted this voluntarist line, telling the New Orleans story almost exclusively through the melodramatic frames of individual heroism and natural disaster. Largely absent from this coverage was an analysis of how Bush and his predecessors’ attempts to repeal the (old) New Deal directly contributed to the un-natural disaster that was Katrina. Katrina was a necessary cause for New Orleans, but it was not sufficient. By relentlessly trimming the “fat” of FDR’s legacy from the federal budget — including income supports, transportation, and public works such as levee repair — the Bush administration has left behind a skeleton security state unable to withstand any significant threat.
In the wake of the hurricane, Bush promised support for minority-owned small businesses but failed to specify how education, public health, and other key resources would be permanently secured for vulnerable citizens. On the contrary, he and some Republicans argued that 
reconstruction could be financed by trimming more "fat" (part of the plan to promote freedom and prosperity for all). Additional cuts only aggravate the insecurity of poor Americans. Besides, why reconstruct if only to abandon citizens to insecurity again?
George W. Bush staked his reputation on security and has said repeatedly that his number one duty is to protect U.S. citizens. But security has many meanings and demands. The deep floodwaters of New Orleans revealed just how shallow Bush's understanding of security really was. A year later, the president and the media have made little effort to face the deep responsibilities of national security.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
One of the greatest leaders in the history of democracy, the Athenian Pericles
Pericles? The great democrat who ruled without elections for more than 20 years, exiled his political opponents and critics, and launched 9 wars to maintain a constant state of threat and keep himself in power? That Pericles?
Sounds a bit like some peoples characterization of George W. Bush.
Dave
2 - jayson
Dave, I think your lack of context is misleading. A common tactic in today's low quality political discourse is attacking small details while ignoring the larger argument. I hope that's not what's going on here. What exactly do you disagree with in the larger argument or about the characterization of George Bush?
I'll say that Pericles, as far as I know, attacked his opponents who were opponents of popular democracy (what some people would call fascists). His reforms are incontestable, though I am not saying he was without flaws. The point is that he is widely acknowledged as an icon of the democratic tradition.
For example: "The great Athenian leader of this age, Pericles, was swept into power in a popular democratic movement. A member of a noble and venerable family, Pericles led the Athenians against Cimon for harboring autocratic intentions. Pericles had been the leader of the democratic faction of Athenian politics since 462 BC.
Ephialtes was the Athenian leader who had finally divested the Areopagus of all its power; Athens was now solely governed by the council and the democratic Assembly. Pericles quickly brought forward legislation that let anyone serve as the archon (one of the nine central leaders of the country) despite birth or wealth.
The Assembly became the central power of the state. Consisting of all the free-born (no freed slaves) male citizens of Athens, the Assembly was given sole approval or veto power over every state decision. The Assembly was not a representative government, but instead consisted of every male citizen. In terms of numbers, this still was not a democratic state: women weren't included, nor were foreigners, slaves, or freed slaves.
Pericles also changed the rules of citizenship: before the ascendancy of Pericles, anyone born of a single Athenian parent was an Athenian citizen; Pericles instituted laws which demanded that both parents be Athenian citizens. So, in reality, the great democracy of Periclean Athens was in reality only a very small minority of the people living in Athens. It was, however, the closest human culture has come to an unadulterated democracy. [...] And still there remains the figure of Pericles himself.
There is no question that the democratic reforms of the Age of Pericles owe their existence to the energy of this political figure. He was a man of immense persuasiveness and an orator of great power. Although he was eventually ostracized by the Athenians (he later returned), he dominated the democratic government of Athens with his formidable capacity to speak and to persuade. He had two central policies: democratic reform and the maintenance of the empire. wsu.edu
The criticism of Ancient empire, war, and slavery continues to be discussed and argued. The question that Pericles contributed to the legacy of Democratic politics is not. Again, why not discuss the main points about security in the present and the attempt to reduce it to a military definition?