What's Missing From This Strib Editorial?

The Stingy U.S./An Appalling Performance is the Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper's assessment of the response of the United States to the disaster in the Far East. And just to be sure there is no confusion, they add:

As the Bush administration is wont to say, actions speak louder than words, and America's actions in recent days have painted the United States as a rich, self-absorbed and uncaring nation that had to be shamed into anything approaching appropriate concern about this catastrophe. The Bush administration's handling of this crisis has been inept beyond belief.

And what was the evil Shrub doing?

From the very first hours it was apparent this was going to be an almost unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Yet Bush remained at his Texas ranch where, aides said, he spent time cutting brush and bicycle riding. He uttered not a single public word about what had happened in Asia.

This, of course, has raised some criticism:

The criticism began almost immediately, and it did not come only from a U.N. official. Comparisons were drawn, for example, to the additional $80 billion that Bush has requested for the war in Iraq and the $30 million to $40 million that his January inauguration will cost.

(One might be tempted to ask if these critics can spell non sequitur, but that would smack of the ad hominem.) Some other choice quotes:

At every step of the way, however, the official U.S. response to this disaster has been seen as grudging. That's not good, especially at a time when much of the world reviles the United States for its unilateral actions in Iraq that have taken such a horrific toll on civilians.

By its niggling contributions and by Bush's silence, the United States has strongly suggested to the world that it doesn't care all that much.

The editors do recognize that "there are practical limits to the amount of aid the relief pipeline can handle" and that "managing the release of U.S. funds into that pipeline is important, to ensure the money isn't wasted." This is followed by "what should have happened immediately:"

Dressed in a somber black suit and subdued tie, President Bush should have called an impromptu news conference in Crawford Sunday afternoon. He should have reported to the American people and to the world that the United States stood with the suffering people of Asia and would do everything in its power to help them. To that end, he should have said, he has directed that $1 billion be pledged to the relief effort, to be released as needs are identified. Further, he should have said he has been in touch with leaders of the affected countries and offered whatever U.S. military capabilities might be helpful in meeting both the short-term relief needs and the longer-term reconstruction challenges.

This pledge of $1 billion, he should have said, is but the first American assistance in what will be a very long and difficult recovery for the affected region. He should have ended by saying that the American people send their heartfelt condolences to all those who lost loved ones -- and especially to the thousands of parents whose children were lost. We embrace you in your loss, he should have said, and while we cannot make that loss disappear, we will be with you every step of the way as you recover from this disaster.

(The wardrobe advice is a nice touch, as if that barely house-broken steer herder Shrub doesn't own a Brooks Brothers suit.) Now let us return to the original question: what's missing from this Strib editorial? We could grant all the arguments in this editorial and there still would be one very glaring omission in their article. This is "what should have happened immediately:"

As American private citizens have normally been the primary source of charitable giving; we, the editorial board of the Star Tribune newspaper, pledge a donation of $1000 each to any one of the fine charities listed here (hat tip to Muzzy) or to the disaster relief fund at our church or synagogue. We have also begun a fundraising campaign among Star Tribune employees seeking a suggested donation of $50 each which will be matched $.50 on the dollar by the Star Tribune Corporation and by the parent company, McClatchy Company. We have called on the President to lead by example and feel it would be hypocritical to not practice what we preach. Therefore, we encourage all our readers to follow our example and contribute generously to disaster relief for the victims of the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, and to not forget those effected by other recent disaster such as the hurricanes in the Caribbean.

Furthermore, the Star Tribune newspapers will establish an ongoing disaster relief fund by dedicating 1% of our gross profits annually to this purpose and by establishing a voluntary employee payroll deduction. The Editorial Board will contribute $1000 each over the next year to help fund this project. We know some local churches, synagogues, and other organizations already have such funds and would encourage many more to establish them.

Above all else, we would encourage everyone to dedicate part of their personal budget to personal charity. It does not matter if the need is down the street or across the ocean, help when help is needed. Personal charity brings with it the necessary element of personal responsibility for all parties involved. The possibility of a scandal of the magnitude of the UN "Oil For Food" Fraud is unlikely if we all monitor how our contributions are used.

We must also remember that we cannot expect gratitude in return for our contribution. France and Germany, for their own reasons, will always say too little, too late. To much of the Muslim world, which will be the primary beneficiaries of much of this aid, we will continue to be "The Great Satan". No, we must do this because it is right, because we must "love our neighbor as ourselves."

I would hope that this announcement would be published soon, followed by a press meeting with all parties involved dressed in a somber black suit and subdued tie, but I won't hold my breath. Why advocate for free action when it is easier to advocate for charity at gunpoint. (If you don not think that description is accurate, try not paying your taxes.) Perhaps it is the Star Tribune's estimation of its Blue State readership that it cannot expect a positive response to the above appeal.