“Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of ‘big government’, which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it.” ~Editorial, New York Times, October 29th, 2012

“Mr. Romney ignored all questions this morning about his plans for federal emergency management. It’s probably embarrassing to admit those plans consist largely of collecting soup cans.” ~David Firestone, New York Times Editorial Blog, October 30th, 2012

Can we stop? Please?

Hurricane Sandy has caused nearly 50 fatalities and left millions of people without homes or power over the last few days. That’s without taking into account the damage Sandy did in the Caribbean. Its impact has been devastating.

However, that devastation is no longer enough to report. Now, everything has to be analyzed from every possible angle, which in this case means examining the links between Hurricane Sandy and the U.S. presidential election.

Look, I get it: the election is a big deal. Given America’s geopolitical status in international politics, any presidential election will have far-reaching implications for the rest of the world. And with the current state of the global economy, not to mention America’s own fragile recovery, and the multitude of international security issues currently facing the world, this particular election is arguably the most important that Americans have experienced. But you know what else is a big deal? A hurricane.

Obviously, with the election a week away, the fact that this storm happened now will definitely have an impact on the election, with campaigning more subdued and passive. But, is it too much to ask to lay off the politicking for a while? At least a couple of days?

The first quote referenced at the beginning of this piece  was first published on Monday, October 29th. That’s Monday, October 29th, the same day Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast of the U.S. Is nothing sacred anymore?

It’s a source of personal shame that this politicization has come from the liberal media. To see that the New York Times pounced on the first opportunity they could find to criticise Mitt Romney (in this case, for the former governor’s remarks earlier in his campaign that he would abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency) was incredibly discouraging. Even if the point was to extoll the virtues of FEMA and the overall importance of central government in coordinating disaster relief, could it not have been done without being turned into a direct political attack on Mr. Romney? Or could it not have waited at least one more day?

Not that things got better after one more day. The New York Times also carried a piece on October 30th about Mr. Romney’s contribution to relief efforts, after it emerged that the Republican nominee had cancelled a planned rally in Ohio out of consideration for the hurricane victims, and instead held a storm relief event in the site where the rally would have been. Apparently coordinating a donated goods collection to send to New Jersey wasn’t enough, because disaster relief agencies have found cash donations to be far more useful than boxes of clothes and canned soup. This may be perfectly fair and true, but was the critical tone, and especially the snarky comment at the end (the second quote at the beginning of this piece), really necessary?

For as long as I lived in America, collecting food and clothes was the way those of us who couldn’t write large cheques contributed to relief efforts. Those citizens were going to donate canned soup and old sweaters anyway, whether or not Mitt Romney turned his rally site into a donation center. Mr. Romney probably had that site booked from before the hurricane was even due to hit. So if he, or a member of his staff, decided “hey, we’ve got this spot anyway, and people are going to want to do their bit for relief efforts, why don’t we combine the two?”, is there really something wrong with that? Maybe the idea was politically motivated, but even if it was, he’s still doing something, isn’t he? As a person with no actual political power at the moment, there isn’t much else Mr. Romney can do, so why criticize him when he’s doing something? Can we not just acknowledge that the Republican contender is “doing his bit” and stick to the real news?

This politicization hasn’t been restricted to the American liberal media. Even the Guardian’s live blog covering Hurricane Sandy came on a page with a “US Elections 2012” heading. What? No! This is a hurricane! It’s newsworthy in its own right. And as a standalone event in itself, has nothing to do with the elections!

The point here is simply to say: give it a rest. Yes, we live in the age of a 24-hour news cycle. Yes, almost all news tends to come with political opinion now. Yes, we’re one week away from a presidential election. I’m not denying any of these things. But, there was a hurricane. There were people who died, who have been forced out of their homes, who are spending their days under extreme duress. Maybe the hurricane keeps people from voting on November 6th because they have more important things to worry about. Or maybe the hurricane inspires them to turn out and vote in a show of defiance against Mother Nature. Maybe the hurricane hurts President Obama’s chances in the elections because he can’t spend as much time campaigning. Maybe this, maybe that. The point is, a lot of people don’t care. None of it matters right now. For a lot of people, just dealing with this hurricane is their primary concern. These people are living day-to-day, hoping that they can have some semblance of normalcy return to their lives. Is it too much to ask that we focus on these people?

 

Aditya Devavrat