There is a really strong editorial in today’s Washington Post talking about the re-building of New Orleans. Parts of it make sense when you step back and look at things in the macro view of history, politics, and life.

If you can put your emotions aside, then maybe a case can be made for not trying to bring the entire town back to life. There are some economic considerations, and the tourist district should find a way to make a rebound, but over the long term what did the city really have to offer the rest of us? An annual reason to get drunk and toss beads at young co-eds? Will we really miss the music and style of food that’s already been homogenized and franchised across the country?

It’s the wrong set of questions to ask, I’ll admit that. Sooner or later someone is going to have to start asking them though. If for no other reason than the budget crunchers are going to begin telling the different levels of government that we aren’t going to be able to afford rebuilding the entire parish. The insurance companies are going to start passing on their losses to the folks of Montana, Ohio, New Mexico, and other places that have no real connections to the Gulf region. Then the screaming will start from those areas that we don’t need the Crescent City all that badly.

And who says that all of the evacuees even want to go back? Barbara Bush may have been partially right. Some of the residents who were trapped in the 26% poverty rate of the Big Easy may decide that Houston, DC, or where ever is a great place to start over. This storm may have really been their ticket out, if they can make use of it. Or they may end up in poverty again, simply at a new address, in a town where they have even less than before the flood.

I don’t have a single answer, but I do know that the questions about what to do next are going to get harder as the days go on.