Survey: What should we expect from executive leaders in times of disaster?

Survey: What should we expect from executive leaders in times of disaster? This is an essay-type survey, not a poll.

Floods, hurricanes, fires, tornadoes, earthquakes, mass shootings, terror attacks, and so on. How soon (or long) after a large natural disaster occurs should an executive (President and/or Governor) visit the scene? When/if they do visit, what should the purpose be and what should they physically do?

- Should they go immediately?

- Should they wait a week?

- Should they not go at all and direct from behind the lines?

- Should they actively get involved, or just provide moral support?

Please elaborate in your response. Noting any differences in your "standard" reply and an out-of-ordinary situation will be most helpful.

Please note that this is generic in nature and applies to the Office of President and/or Governor. Individual personalities are wholly irrelevant. Barring extremely unusual circumstances, one's answer should be the same regardless which person and/or party holds the office.

There is nothing wrong with them expressing concern and support but they should not act until the State has gone through the proper channels in requesting aid.

When it boss shows up it means he is paying attention, and sending a subtle signal to his subordinates that "This is important".

Some call it leadership, some call it statesmanship, but the people who's job it is to be involved in these things get the message: "You are being evaluated".

radcen said:

Survey: What should we expect from executive leaders in times of disaster? This is an essay-type survey, not a poll.

Floods, hurricanes, fires, tornadoes, earthquakes, mass shootings, terror attacks, and so on. How soon (or long) after a large natural disaster occurs should an executive (President and/or Governor) visit the scene? When/if they do visit, what should the purpose be and what should they physically do?

- Should they go immediately?

- Should they wait a week?

- Should they not go at all and direct from behind the lines?

- Should they actively get involved, or just provide moral support?

Please elaborate in your response. Noting any differences in your "standard" reply and an out-of-ordinary situation will be most helpful.

Please note that this is generic in nature and applies to the Office of President and/or Governor. Individual personalities are wholly irrelevant. Barring extremely unusual circumstances, one's answer should be the same regardless which person and/or party holds the office.

Click to expand...

It depends. Knowing what is best in a given situation is the mark of a true leader.

Typically ignoring the problem while finishing your vacation is not the best response.

I don’t think there should be an expectation for them to turn up at all. It’s become expected because some politicians have used such events as propaganda or a photo-op, playing a line of how important and relevant their presence is when in truth I think it’s rarely a benefit and often a distraction.

Certainly in the immediate aftermath of a disaster or incident, when there are still ongoing efforts to deal with the consequences, politicians turning up, with all their entourages, press and security, can only get in the way and take up resources greatly needed elsewhere. Of course, if they just turn up in their scruffs to help lug sandbags, clear rubble, search for survivors etc., it’d be a different case. I can’t remember seeing that from any politicians on a regional or national stage though.

One time some political (and thus media) attention could be of benefit would be in months and years following disasters, when individuals and communities are often still dealing with the consequences long after all the immediate support has left them to it. By then there’s nothing like as much political kudos in just visiting though.

radcen said:

Survey: What should we expect from executive leaders in times of disaster? This is an essay-type survey, not a poll.

Floods, hurricanes, fires, tornadoes, earthquakes, mass shootings, terror attacks, and so on. How soon (or long) after a large natural disaster occurs should an executive (President and/or Governor) visit the scene? When/if they do visit, what should the purpose be and what should they physically do?

- Should they go immediately?

- Should they wait a week?

- Should they not go at all and direct from behind the lines?

- Should they actively get involved, or just provide moral support?

Please elaborate in your response. Noting any differences in your "standard" reply and an out-of-ordinary situation will be most helpful.

Please note that this is generic in nature and applies to the Office of President and/or Governor. Individual personalities are wholly irrelevant. Barring extremely unusual circumstances, one's answer should be the same regardless which person and/or party holds the office.

Click to expand...

Of course the immediate rescue and mitigation of damage must be the first and immediate priority, and FEMA should be ready to move to assist with that when the governor requests it. Unless the disaster is on federally controlled land or water, FEMA should not be involved until the governor requests assistance. The governor should of course be immediately informed of any large scale disaster and should be very public and visible in his concern as should the President. And when it will not interfere with rescue and mitigation efforts, the governor and President should make an appearance or at least be shown surveying the situation and having concern for it. That gives the people hope and encouragement and assurance that they are not alone in times of great difficulty.

If we are talking about this President, he has stuck his nose in very quickly into racial situations so to let more than a week pass before showing any interest in this disaster doesn't look good for him.

It also looks bad that he took time from his vacation to go to a fund raiser for Hillary but used the vacation as an excuse as to why he didn't go to LA.

radcen said:

Survey: What should we expect from executive leaders in times of disaster?

Click to expand...

"Executive leaders" is vague. So is "disaster," as a mass shooting is different than an earthquake.

But for the most part:

Governors are generally supposed to run the show, with local officials (mayors, county execs) also having a great deal of responsibility. They're supposed to prepare, declare emergencies, order assistance, deal with federal agencies, and much more.

The President really shouldn't have much of a role. His or her job is pretty much "hire the right people in the first place," provide high-level interface with governors, and provide very high-level oversight for the involved federal agencies. Things have to be really bad for a disaster to be federalized.

We've gotten into the habit of insisting that Presidents show up, even though doing so is often counter-productive. The President isn't the one in charge in these situations, it's the governors who are the primary point people. A President can't usually spontaneously show up somewhere even when nothing has gone wrong, for security reasons; it's worse when doing so will pull critical resources from rescue efforts.

This is part of the contradiction of American politics. We don't want the President to have too much power, until we do. We make sure the President is shackled by Congress and the Judiciary and the laws, but then blame him or her when things go wrong that are beyond the powers we've delegated to the President. And of course, most people don't know the various chains of command or differentiations of responsibilities when they're sitting on their roofs, desperate for rescue.

Separately, thanks to partisanship, we find flimsy excuses to attack a President ("why didn't he land his plane?") when the demanded course of action can have disastrous results.

And thanks to human nature, we take it for granted when things work as they should, and pay far more attention to when they don't. This sets up everyone involved, mostly the federal Executive, to be the fall guy when something all-but-inevitably goes wrong in a massive disaster.


Something like a terrorist attack is likely to be different, as that will likely involve federal law enforcement agencies and perhaps the NSA. The chain of command may be very different, depending on the nature of the incident.

chuckiechan said:

When it boss shows up it means he is paying attention, and sending a subtle signal to his subordinates that "This is important".

Some call it leadership, some call it statesmanship, but the people who's job it is to be involved in these things get the message: "You are being evaluated".

Click to expand...

Meaning what, a President is going to give the head of FEMA a performance review in the middle of an earthquake?

Do you really think a firefighter pulling someone out of a collapsed building will be motivated by a supervisor hovering over them, taking notes on their aptitude?

I'd simply say, bluntly, that any "leader" who shows up in such a situation with a media entourage is more hindrance than help and has his/her own interests more in mind than the interests of those directly affected.

If my home was flooded, burned to the ground, or blown to kingdom come by a hurricane, the last thing I'd want - THE VERY LAST THING I'D WANT - would be some politician floating around looking for a dazed victim to hug and commiserate with for the cameras.

CanadaJohn said:

I'd simply say, bluntly, that any "leader" who shows up in such a situation with a media entourage is more hindrance than help and has his/her own interests more in mind than the interests of those directly affected.

If my home was flooded, burned to the ground, or blown to kingdom come by a hurricane, the last thing I'd want - THE VERY LAST THING I'D WANT - would be some politician floating around looking for a dazed victim to hug and commiserate with for the cameras.

Click to expand...

I have to wonder what the politicians did in Louisiana between Katrina and now? Obviously not much.

I would expect a leader not to lecture state/local rescue officials on discrimination.

blaxshep said:

I have to wonder what the politicians did in Louisiana between Katrina and now? Obviously not much.

Click to expand...

Nobody was watching, so you're probably right. Although, Mayor Nagin of "chocolate city" fame got arrested and is in prison and Governor Blanco got replaced by another Democrat, brother of Senator Mary Landrieu if I'm not mistaken, so hopefully there's a little more competence in command on the ground.