AMU Emergency Management Opinion Public Safety

Presidential Politics and Emergency Management

It would be a lovely thing if we could completely divorce emergency and disaster management from politics. It really would. However, that isn’t possible in our modern, integrated, systems-oriented world, so it’s a situation we have to address. Here at the blog, we’ve explored this a few times in the past:

[relink url=”http://edmdigest.com/adaptation/the-professionalization-of-emergency-management/how-will-the-next-president-consider-emergency-management/” url2=”http://edmdigest.com/adaptation/the-professionalization-of-emergency-management/how-will-the-next-president-consider-emergency-management-perspective-2/”]

Analyzing the 2016 presidential race with an EDM lens

So, as the presidential race clarifies, it would be appropriate at this point to provide a characterization of how each political party’s nominee will address issues that involve emergency management. This is important, because both policy and budget issues are involved, and voters like you will need to choose which of the perspectives best represent your ability to serve and protect the public. I will represent the political perspectives as Party A and Party B, and describe how each party will address emergency management issues based on public statements. I leave it to you to figure out which party identifies with which letter. So here goes:

Perspectives & policy by issue

Climate change:

Party A: Climate change is a hoax that was designed to advance Party B policies.

Party B: Climate change is the greatest threat to the survival of our civilization–a threat that is already impacting our economic success, the health and well-being of our citizens, and our future prospects as a viable civilization.

Disaster response and recovery:

Party A routinely votes for disaster declarations and funding that are beneficial to home states (such as Oklahoma politicians voting for tornado recovery funding in Oklahoma) and against disaster declarations and funding that are outside of home states (such as Oklahoma politicians voting against Superstorm Sandy relief funding and funding to address the Flint Michigan water crisis).

Party B routinely supports federal funding for all disaster relief efforts that meet published criteria.

National security:

Party A advocates national security as a primary function of government. That’s a good thing. However, when the rationale for a security policy is politically inconvenient, such as open communication with stakeholders who hold opposing views, Party A will attempt to shut down the conversation–as with the nuclear treaty with Iran, or the treaty that was on the verge of success with North Korea when Party A took over the US government.

Party B advocates national security as a primary function of government. That’s a good thing. However, party B takes the worldview that agreements, even if they’re imperfect and not what we would dictate if we were dictators, are beneficial to our ability to survive as a nation and a civilization. That’s also a good thing.

Current candidates:

Party A has put forth a presumptive nominee that has advocated various forms of xenophobia–a wall around our country, characterization of certain minorities as murderers and rapists, acceptance of immigrants from one religion and not another, and so on.

Party B’s presumptive nominee has advocated patience with the vision of our forefathers–that the American dream is inclusive, non-discriminatory, and provides equal rights for all regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, and so on.

Our country’s future

Our country’s future is in grave danger. We have the greatest and most profound documents establishing our existence that any nation has ever achieved in the history of the world. Yet despite that, we suffer from the influence of individuals in power that use that power to advance only the interests of their tribe.

Despite all of the emphasis and importance that we have placed on education, the treatment of all world citizens as valued equals, the importance of governing based on citizens’ well-being rather than the craving for power, and factual evaluations of effective public policy, the people that we elect to government to represent our best interests do not always represent our best interests.

In my home state, just this morning, I received an email from my senator that informed me that we were in grave danger unless we agreed with him that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was a threat to the U.S. The utter idiocy of this is beyond belief, as the EPA has successfully protected us from pollution for decades now, ensuring the life, health, and safety of more of our fellow citizens than can be counted.

This is not the first time my particular senator–from Party A–has sent me incoherent, misleading, and wholly inaccurate representations of his accomplishments as a legislator. When I have attempted to respond with a factual evaluation of his response to the given issue, my emails are always returned as undeliverable. In other words, he’s not interested in what any of his constituents think.

Wrap-up

So in conclusion, this is what we face as voters going into the elections for our next president. We are faced with candidates that have all of the flaws of being human that will blare out as us as public figures, that can be exploited ad infinitum by political operatives that hope no one is actually paying attention to policy positions. So that is of minimal concern.

What is of more concern is the way that each will treat emergency management–a critical component of government–and that is of serious concern. One party has indicated that emergency management is of concern only when it does or does not involve political advantage; and the other party has indicated that emergency management is a concern whenever the life, health, and safety of citizens is involved.

Make your choice. Your choice will not be insignificant.

Comments are closed.