Comforter in Chief

President Trump has made a second trip to Texas in order to address criticisms leveled in the wake of his first visit.  Much of the media reported that he didn't show enough empathy.  Why is that the job of a president?  In 1871, Chicago suffered the its great fire.  President Grant was not involved in the aftermath.  In 1874, Chicago had another fire.  President Grant still didn't get involved.  When Galveston was flatted by a hurricane in 1900, it was up to the state and local government to deal with the 6,000 to 12,000 dead.  President McKinley may have offered condolences but that's about it.  When San Francisco was flatten by an earthquake in 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt didn't jump on the first train to California.  For most of American history, local disasters were a local problem.  It wasn't that these presidents were unfeeling monsters, it was not part of their job to deal with such problems.  Trump may or may not agree with me on that subject but he has learned from the treatment President Bush got in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.  Bush's failure to be on the ground in the immediate aftermath was used as a cudgel against him for the remainder of his presidency and some suggest it led to the loss of the House of Representatives in 2006.  Though there is no Constitutional requirement for the federal government to be involved in such disasters - indeed, one can easily argue that they are barred from doing so - the PR disaster of not getting involved feeds into the centralizing of power in Washington, DC.

 

Much as I want government to shrink to its Constitutional limits, it would be nigh impossible to reverse calls for national involvement in local disasters.  State governments used to be able to handle far more devastating disasters with little or no federal help but now the federal government must be involved if Timmy stubs his toe on the way to school.  On this, there is probably no going back.