TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Mr. Herbert in The New York Times
• Op-ed by Mr. Herbert
• Mr. Herbert's bio

E-mail a friend

Tavis: I'm pleased to welcome 'New York Times' columnist Bob Herbert back to this program. His twice-weekly columns are a must read for regular readers of the 'New York Times,' yours truly included. His latest book is one of my favorites of this year, a terrific collection of his best writings, called "Promises Betrayed: Waking Up From the American Dream.' Bob Herbert joins us tonight from New York. Bob, nice to have you back on the program.

Bob Herbert: Great to be back, Tavis.

Tavis: Before I jump into our conversation, let me just tell our viewers, you don't see all the lights that you usually see that make this program glitter every evening. As you may have heard, there was a major power outage in Los Angeles today. And so we are without the normally lit set that you view every night. But as they say here in Hollywood, the show must go on. And so indeed, the show does go on. Bob, speaking of outages, there was an outage at FEMA today. Michael Brown finally out. What do you make of that story?

Herbert: Well, the first question is, what took so long? The second question, you knew it was inevitable, the second question is, why was he ever appointed in the first place? And I have to tell you, when we see a catastrophe like we've experienced in New Orleans and other parts of the South, from this hurricane, it tells us that these issue that many of us have been harping on for the longest time, have resonance.

That when you address so - what we've seen as so frequently, the incompetence of this Bush administration, that that lack of competence in so many areas has powerful human consequences. And so it's important to address those issues as they're pointed out in advance, rather than waiting for these catastrophes to occur, and then having some kind of an inquiry after the fact, when it's too late.

Tavis: I raised the issue last week as to whether or not the media has been timid to address issues, the dimensions of race and class, that are clearly all over this tragedy. Assess for me, and obviously there have been some courageous voices, yours and others in the "Times." I've seen a few stories here and there. But by and large, I think the media has avoided discussing issues of race and class in a very real way. That's my assessment. What's your assessment of that?

Herbert: I think the media has been timid for the longest time now. Certainly on issues of race and class, but not just on issues of race and class. I think it's been timid in its approach to the Bush administration. I think it's been timid in its coverage of the war in Iraq, which is another disaster. And I have to tell you that it was only over the past week and a half or so, that I've been actually heartened by the performance of the media, because I think the media by and large did a terrific job covering the hurricane and its aftermath.

I mean, not only did it bring the factual information to the American people, to viewers and readers, but we saw many instances where members of the press actually expressed their outrage. They saw the gruesome things that were going on. They saw the terrible response, not just by the federal government, by other levels of government as well. And they brought that to the media in a dramatic, compelling, and timely way. So I think the media did a good job over the past week and a half or so. But for the past few years, has left a lot to be desired.

Tavis: To your point about journalists who have been covering this story on location, you had a chance to travel down there. I saw your piece today in the 'Times.' You had a chance to travel there. I was there for a few days, a week or so ago. I don't want to color this question too much, but as I tried to intimate on this program last week, that as catastrophic as it appears on television, it's so much worse in person. At least it was for me. Tell me what your thoughts were when you actually arrived down South to cover this story in Louisiana.

Herbert: Well, you're confronted by the human dimension immediately. The people are right there in front of you, including very small children, toddlers running around. And they have been left with nothing. I mean, they - only the clothes on their back. They're - they need food and shelter. They've lost contact with other relatives. I talked to so many people who had relatives that were in New Orleans. I was in Baton Rouge and south of there between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. And they had people who they just lost contact with.

So brothers and sisters, parents, children, they don't know whether they're actually living or dying, or if they've been evacuated, they don't know where they've been evacuated to. They might be in Texas, they might be in Mississippi. They might be in Atlanta. You know, so the real human impact hits you immediately when you talk to the people who have been involved in this disaster.

Tavis: When you suggest that President Bush had been incompetent where this hurricane is concerned, what do you base that on?

Herbert: Well, I base it - I've been trying to say it's the incompetence of the administration, because it's sort of broad incompetence. I mean, Michael Brown was a political appointment to a position that we knew was crucial, FEMA, the head of FEMA. And we learned in the aftermath of the September 11th catastrophe, that FEMA should have played, or was supposed to play, an even more important role. I mean, not just responding to natural disasters, but also responding to the possibility of a terrorist attack. And the whole idea of incorporating it in the Department of Homeland Security was so that we could coordinate and respond more quickly in the event of the disaster.

We did exactly the opposite. There was no coordination. - Coordination was a disaster. We did not respond quickly. And lives were lost as a result. I mean, we did not even - we weren't even able to drop food and water to people who were in desperate trouble. We did not get the transportation, whether it was via trucks or buses, or boats or helicopters, to evacuate people who were in danger of dying, and in fact some did die. So, you know, that was an extreme example of incompetence.

And what was different in this case was that it was played out on television screens across the country even as it was occurring. When you have the situation, for example, that we have in Iraq, that's taking place a long way away. The administration can shape the coverage to a great degree, and I think Americans have not seen close up what I think of as the disaster in Iraq in the same way that they've seen this disaster in New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf Coast.

Tavis: How do you respond to folk who say that it is a stretch on your part, it is intellectually dishonest, it is a quantum leap for you - on any level and in any way to weave Iraq and Hurricane Katrina in the same sentence?

Herbert: Well, I would say that anybody who says it's a stretch are wrong. What we have to do is - this is not a partisan issue. It's not left or right, or Democrats or Republicans. I was opposed to the war. But once you get into a war, you need to win the war and you need to conduct it in a professional, effective way. When you have a disaster like you have in New Orleans, it's not a matter of whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you have to respond quickly and attempt to save lives.

And it has been my contention that from the beginning we've had example after example of the administration not being able to conduct its affairs in a competent way. One quick example that much of the country knows about finally, is the difficulty that the administration had getting the armor for both the vehicles and the body armor for the troops fighting in Iraq. And it was these roadside bombs that the body armor and the vehicle armor are supposed to protect the troops against, that has caused the majority of the casualties in Iraq. That is a question of competence. It's not a question of ideology or a question of politics. It's a question of fighting a war in the best way that you know how.

Tavis: I was in a meeting, Bob, the other day with a number of African American leaders, and the conversation at one point revolved around the best way strategically to keep the pressure on, to keep the focus on what has been lost in these Southern states. And how best to get the kind of relief, monetarily and otherwise, that these evacuees and these survivors now need down South. And somebody made the point in this conversation that the best way to keep focus on this square, is to keep making comparisons to 9/11.

Since 9/11 was a tragedy that everyone in the country understand and/or felt in some way, that we have got to keep in all of our, staying on message, weaving 9/11 along with Hurricane Katrina. I raise that with you because you happen to live in New York, you were there in New York for 9/11. You've been to the site and seen the damage Hurricane Katrina caused. What make you of that particular suggestion?

Herbert: Well, I think that suggestion is a good one. Because, you know, it's becoming clear that these are very fine distinctions when you're talking about the kind of catastrophe that happened in New Orleans and the kind of catastrophe that happened in New York and at the Pentagon on September 11th, four years ago. You have to be able to respond quickly, and in a coordinated way effectively to these kinds of tragedies. You're going through this again in Los Angeles. We don't know the extent of what's going on there. And we hope that it's not a tragedy.

But you've got a blackout there in a major American city and that is always potentially very dangerous. You need to be able to respond to these things. You need to be prepared beforehand. We had a blackout in the Northeast a few years ago. And so that was supposed to be the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, that we would get up to speed on these things so that we could respond when they happened immediately. That's what we have not been able to do so far. And that's what we need to focus on now.

And we can start by trying to coordinate the effort to relieve the suffering of the people who were affected by this - by this terrible storm down South. We, if we do that now, and try to learn the lessons from the mistakes of this as well as the lessons that should have been learned in the aftermath of September 11th, maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to address the next catastrophe in a more effective way.

Tavis: Finally, I just saw a piece in your paper, I guess today, that talked about the politics of this. You made a point earlier that this is not a partisan issue. Our government failed miserably in its first test of national preparedness since 9/11, the point you made earlier. That said, you and I both know, because we ain't stupid, that there are gonna be some politics that come out of this. How do you think the Democrats will or maybe even should use this failure of this administration in the next round of national elections?

Herbert: Well, the immediate issue, as I said, is to get relief to the people who are suffering. After the fact, when we look at this more closely and find out what went wrong and when and why, then it's perfectly legitimate for the Democrats to address this issue and show the failures of the administration. But I have to tell you very frankly, that if you look at the track record of the Democrats over the past several years, they've had many opportunities to effectively challenge this administration, and they've failed just one after another.

I mean, the party needs to get its act together if we're really going have the loyal opposition that you're supposed to have in the kind of democracy that we have. Essentially what we have now at the national level is one party rule. And in addition to the incompetence that I've talked about, we're also reaping the benefits, negative, when you have one party rule in this country. One party rule has not been great, whether it's Democrats holding most of the cards, or whether it's the Republicans holding most of the cards. So we need to address that too. The Democrats are supposed to do it. But they have not been very effective at it.

Tavis: One quick question before I let you go. The hearings for John Roberts are under way. I'm not sure there's a question here. Your thoughts?

Herbert: Well, I think that he's gonna be confirmed. I think he's gonna become the Chief Justice. I don't think the Democrats have been able to make the case that they claimed to have wanted to make against his appointment. So I think that the President is going to get his man. The question becomes, who fills the next vacancy? And that should be a real donnybrook. Because the Democrats will probably gear up in a, I would say a more powerful fashion against the next appointment, no matter who he or she might be, than they've been able do in this case.

Tavis: I think his columns represent the conscience of the 'New York Times.' And I enjoy reading them, as I'm sure you do, twice weekly in the 'New York Times.' Columnist Bob Herbert. Bob, nice to have you on the program.

Herbert: Thanks, Tavis. It's great to be here again, as usual.

Tavis: Thank you, sir. Up next on this program, from HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm," actor Jeff Garlin. Stay with us.