Reality Check
Says You: should the President have cancelled his Irish trip?
Posted by Rebecca Teti
in News
on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:30 PM
The people of Joplin, Missouri—like the people of Tuscaloosa and Birmingham last month—are in our prayers after a massive tornado essentially wiped out the town, killing hundreds.
This morning I heard the President roundly criticized for not cancelling his 4-nation European trip to fly to Joplin.
Is that a fair criticism?
I’m not inclined to think so.
As a practical matter, the role of Chief Executive requires the President to declare federal disasters and set FEMA and other national aid programs in motion.
His presence on the ground, however, is largely as a figurehead. As embodiment of the American people, he arrives to show a devastated community that they aren’t forgotten: the nation is with them and will help them recover.
That may be an important function, but in the first few days after a disaster, when search and recovery efforts are still underway, the security measures necessitated by the presence of the President can hamper the process. I can’t imagine any president wanting to read stories about how his security team delayed some family’s rescue for 24 hours!
I recall President Bush getting similarly hounded (though by a different set of talk show hosts!) for opting to fly over Katrina-devastated New Orleans rather than inspecting from the ground. I thought that was the right call.
I can understand why people who have just lost everything including their loved ones would find photos of the President downing Guiness in Ireland a little hard to take, but it seems to me that once FEMA’s been called in, any President is wise to stay out of the way for awhile—and therefore the criticism seems to me unwarranted.
For the record, President Obama called Missouri governor Jay Nixon to consult about disaster relief, issued a statement of condolence, and will tour the area later this week.
On a related note, pro-life presidents are often criticized by some pro-lifers for lacking the “courage” to attend the March for Life in person. That’s always struck me as crazy, because the security necessary shuts down the city, literally. Foot traffic has to be directed through specific security check points, police and security units have to be brought in from all over to man every street corner and the tops of buildings. It would be a huge hassle, not least to the marchers themselves!
To make a presidential inauguration happen requires a federal holiday, to spare security teams from having to inspect commuters on their way to work or shut down every office building and business in the area. Until the March for Life has the funds to pay for a federal holiday, no president is going to attend!
Returning to the topic at hand, then: in times of great trouble, we need our President…but not right away.
Am I nuts to think this kind of criticism is a cheap shot—and a proxy for larger policy disagreements? A lot of callers to that show seemed to think I am.
What do you think? How important is the role of Consoler-in-Chief? Should the President have cancelled his trip and flown to Joplin?
Official White House Photo: Pete Souza
By submitting this form, you give Faith And Family Magazine permission to publish this comment.
Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please
limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Print Blog
Email a Friend