Having recently stumbled upon a recent editorial which essayed upon the "psychology" behind the Evil Karl Rove's "Katrina Strategy" (or should we say, 'Strategery'), I was dumbfounded by the essayist's complete and utter failure to comprehend the passages which formed the basis of the argument: That Karl Rove's media strategy in the aftermath of the Katrina catastrophe is "blame the victims and move on."

The author of the piece, Van Jones, offered the following quotes from Dr. Judith Lewis Herman's Trauma and Recovery.

"When the events are natural disasters or "acts of God," those who bear witness sympathize readily with the victim. But when the traumatic events are of human design, those who bear witness are caught in the conflict between victim and perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering."

"In order to escape the accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his power to promote forgetting. Secrecy and silence are the perpetrators first line of defense. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure that no one listens. To this end he marshals an impressive array of arguments, from the most blatant denial to the most sophisticated and elegant rationalization. After every atrocity one can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened; the victim lies; the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it upon her [him] self; and in any case it is time to forget the past and move on. The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater is his prerogative to name and define reality, and the more completely his arguments prevail."

"In the absence of strong political movements for human rights, the active process of bearing witness inevitably gives way to the active process of forgetting."

I will now break down what Dr. Herman is saying...

When the events are natural disasters or "acts of God," ...for instance: an earthquake, flood, tornado, tidal wave, HURRICANE, etc... those who bear witness... like, in the case of Katrina, anyone with a television or access to the radio, newspapers, or magazines - i.e. everyone INCLUDING those in the government, those in power, those without power, those who are rich, and those who are poor... sympathize readily with the victim. Which would explain the outpouring of support from the government, the outpouring of donations to the red cross, and the opening of homes and schools around the country to accommodate those displaced by this natural disaster.

But when the traumatic events are of human design, This is where Van Jones fails to make the distinction between natural disasters and events of human design. Events of human design which lead to trauma include anything from the severe: molestation, rape, witnessing murder, participating in war... to the benign: being the victim of taunting and teasing, dealing with an embarrassing situation, etc. Rape is an event of human design because there is a human perpetrator and a human victim. A hurricane cannot have a humane perpetrator because no human, not even Karl Rove, can create and direct a hurricane to wipe out a city. This sort of event is not in the hands of Man and is therefore qualified as an Act of God. those who bear witness are caught in the conflict between victim and perpetrator. Once again, this does not apply in the Katrina Situation. Van Jones inclusion of this passage illustrates the failure to comprehend what Dr. Herman is writing. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering."


"In order to escape the accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his power to promote forgetting. Van Jones believes that this is Roves Strategy. 'blame the victims and move on' Unfortunately this is because Jones either believes Rove is responsible for the hurricane and that Katrina not an Act of God (natural disaster). Secrecy and silence are the perpetrators first line of defense. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure that no one listens. To this end he marshals an impressive array of arguments, from the most blatant denial to the most sophisticated and elegant rationalization. After every atrocity one can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened; the victim lies; the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it upon her [him] self; and in any case it is time to forget the past and move on. The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater is his prerogative to name and define reality, and the more completely his arguments prevail."

Dr. Herman is quite clearly a proficient observer of human nature and therefore a most adequate psychologist. Her words very clearly describe the actions of the aggressor/perpetrator of a traumatic event. I find nothing wrong with what the Dr. is saying; however, Van Jones clearly does not understand what the good Dr. has written.

In an attempt to seem well read and scholarly, Van Camp has fallen into the trap of not reading closely the passages which were fundamental to the argument. The essay/article reads like a poorly researched term paper... one where the quotes and sources actually work against the thesis to the point of rendering the conclusion absurd.

Van Jones - If your understanding of politics is as profound as your understanding of the passages upon which you based your argument, then you really do belong in the party of the ass.