• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it necessary for a high-level politician to personally view a disaster area?

Is it necessary for a high-level politician to personally view a disaster area?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Some of both

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    6
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is it necessary for a high-level politician (President, Governor, etc.) to personally view a disaster area?

Is their presence helping, or hindering, the relief efforts? Is the President/Governor, along with their entourage of security and the media, getting in the way? Is there anything they can gain first-hand that they could not gain via a team of observers who can report back to them in real time?
 
radcen said:
Is it necessary for a high-level politician (President, Governor, etc.) to personally view a disaster area?

Is their presence helping, or hindering, the relief efforts? Is the President/Governor, along with their entourage of security and the media, getting in the way? Is there anything they can gain first-hand that they could not gain via a team of observers who can report back to them in real time?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's unusual; in fact, I'd guess it's customary. As far as anything they can gain? They can't gain a thing. But if they're "on the ground" instead of flying over, if they're thanking the first responders, the National Guard, the firefighters, the line crews that are working their asses off trying to get a handle on this disaster? Well, I think that's more than appropriate.

I do think they should ask permission (which Obama did, I believe) because the President's arrival brings with it a plethora of demands on the coppers, etc., to provide security who are often already stressed to the limit.
 
I think they should. They're the one who ultimately signs off on aid designations, so they should have a good understanding of the damages and challenges of the area.
 
Not usually. They scale up with proportional impact. Sometimes a simple statement from the President and administration officials is all that is needed, other times they send a lower-level person there to represent the administration. In terms of a Governor, a Governor has more reason to show up to a local devastated area than the President of the United States.
 
Politically its necessary they want to look Presidental or in charge or whatever.

Practically I think its a nice jesture but necessary probably not. It just shows that they know something happened thats bad.
 
radcen said:
Is it necessary for a high-level politician (President, Governor, etc.) to personally view a disaster area?

Is their presence helping, or hindering, the relief efforts? Is the President/Governor, along with their entourage of security and the media, getting in the way? Is there anything they can gain first-hand that they could not gain via a team of observers who can report back to them in real time?
Click to expand...

Of course it's necessary! How else are they going to get their photo op?
 
I think they should. The people need to know that their elected leaders are on top of things. When disaster strikes any person in the world would for their government to do something about it. That is one of the functions of govt.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't think it's unusual; in fact, I'd guess it's customary. As far as anything they can gain? They can't gain a thing. But if they're "on the ground" instead of flying over, if they're thanking the first responders, the National Guard, the firefighters, the line crews that are working their asses off trying to get a handle on this disaster? Well, I think that's more than appropriate.

I do think they should ask permission (which Obama did, I believe) because the President's arrival brings with it a plethora of demands on the coppers, etc., to provide security who are often already stressed to the limit.
Click to expand...
It is customary, but I don't think it's necessary. If the politician's presence doesn't stop things entirely around them, it at least slows things down. You have the politician, a few from their staff, Secret Service (and/or state & local police), and of course the gaggle of reporters and their own support people tagging along. There's no way that whole group of people can't be in the way.
 
radcen said:
Is it necessary for a high-level politician (President, Governor, etc.) to personally view a disaster area?

Is their presence helping, or hindering, the relief efforts? Is the President/Governor, along with their entourage of security and the media, getting in the way? Is there anything they can gain first-hand that they could not gain via a team of observers who can report back to them in real time?
Click to expand...
Assuming the politician has some sort of responsibility to fulfill regarding the disaster, I think it is necessary for both practical and symbolic reasons.
 
I think they should since they are the elected official of that area or country...
 
I don't disagree with those who point out the symbolic value. There are those for whom that is important, I guess. For me personally, I see more value in getting the job done as efficiently and quickly as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom