There’s little to specifically address in Mayfield’s speech because it’s pretty hazy as a document. The general principle that the people and culture need to be at the center of any decision-making process is a good one, though I’m sure most politicians think they do that (even if they don’t). That general thought presents a different way to think about crime and poverty, and that’s valuable. On the other hand, the belief that a mission statement will change City Hall reflects too many management retreats.

The five-point plan makes a lot of sense, but the implication of it is that culture should be supported because it’s a salable commodity, not because it’s sustaining and life-affirming for those who live here. Lt.-Gov. Mitch Landrieu has defended a similar market-based approach to developing culture as one of speaking the language that politicians understand, and he is likely right, but that doesn’t change the fundamental misunderstanding of culture. It’s an expression of who we are now, created as a form of inter-community communication – one that secondarily has been commodified. If we emphasize the latter, the difference between real Mardi Gras Indians and a few guys with costumes who can show up at a convention for a half-hour is insignificant.

The broader question I was left with is one I’ve had since Katrina: What is the role of government with respect to culture? To a great degree, the culture of New Orleans developed in spite of power, as a response to power, despite the benign neglect of power. Mardi Gras’ origins in New Orleans are tied to money, but people have still found ways to tailor their Mardi Gras celebrations to their own needs and interests without any official sanction. Is it healthy for the government to assist traditions that existed as a form of resistance to governmental authority? That presented a different vision of the city and its inner life than the one that came from City Hall? I’m not so sure.