Ten Miles Square


November 01, 2012 8:00 AM Why not Evaluate the Candidates on their Responses to Crises?

By Seth Masket

Frida Ghitis writes an odd column for CNN urging voters not to take Hurricane Sandy and its aftermath into consideration when casting a vote in the presidential election. As evidence for why such voting is wrongheaded, she offers examples of national leaders in Thailand, Japan, Peru, and Chile attracting a great deal of support during crises but then losing or resigning in disgrace later. This is supposed to suggest that the leaders we choose in a crisis are not necessarily those that are best for our country; they’re just particularly good at exploiting crises for political gain.

But all Ghitis has described here is a rally effect. Even a particularly corrupt leader can become popular during a crisis by virtue of the opposition declining to criticize him or her for a while. Later, when the country is trying to rebuild after the tragedy, there is usually plenty of fodder for criticism. Bridges are being rebuilt in some places rather than others. Certain construction companies and certain unions are being hired to do the building, and some aren’t. Some roads are getting repaired before others are. So criticism returns, and the leader doesn’t look as popular anymore. If the tragedy causes the nation’s economy to slip, or if it just slips on its own anyway, the leader will look even worse. On top of that, voters may ultimately blame a leader for an “act of God” like a storm or an earthquake. It’s not necessarily that the crisis caused voters to be swayed into voting for an incompetent or corrupt fool. It’s just that crises can cause short-term benefits and long-term headaches for leaders.

Beyond that, why dissuade voters from evaluating the candidates at a time like this? This is a moment when action by the federal government is (nearly) universally regarded as being necessary. Is it not appropriate to consider how the president is actually administering it? And what would be better to consider? Debate performance? Likability? “Vision”? I’d say that the economy would be important, and voters actually do consider that, but the president has a far greater direct impact on disaster relief than he does on economic growth.

One side point: Ghitis says that “voters must make a superhuman effort to not let the storm carry any more weight than it deserves in their judgment of politicians.” Why ask people to do something superhuman?

[Cross-posted at Mischiefs of Faction]

Seth Masket is an associate professor of political science at the University of Denver.


  • zandru on November 02, 2012 2:13 PM:

    Performance in a crisis is a great way to see the candidates "in action". Remember ol' John McCain deciding to halt his presidential campaign as the financial collapse started? (after first denying it was happening). How he called a big economic summit meeting in DC, and at the table said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, allowing (ahem!) Candidate Obama to look even more presidential?

    If you can remember way back to H. Ross Perot, he lost most of his support when he ditched his campaign over a rumor (apparently whispered in his ear by the voices in his head) that the Bush administration was planning to ruin his daughter's wedding (!!!). When he came back in later, the thrill was gone.

    Performance in the face of an emergency - we all know the US President will have to face it. Why not take the opportunity to grade them by their responses?

  • Ted on November 13, 2012 10:48 PM:

    Except that Obama didn't actually do anything, other than deliver the standard boilerplate expected of any President. If we had a media not dominated by democrat voters and funders, they might have pointed out all the previous disasters he was AWOL from. But no, this was somehow his shining moment.

  • Anonymous on November 14, 2012 1:39 AM:

    While I don't really think it's worth worrying about whether voters "should" vote based on candidates responses to an environmental crisis (they certainly will do so, no matter what pundits argue), it's worth pointing out that it's rarely a fair fight. McCain and Obama actually had the same job, so their responses mattered and could be compared. But Obama is the president of the United States of America. Romney is a retired governor of Massachusetts; it's not like he has a crisis like Sandy to address.

  • Inandyfar on December 04, 2012 11:16 AM:

    Mainly because the cost of everything keeps going up every year many folks are finding that their present income is not enough to cover their bills and so they look for ways to make some extra cash. Quite a lot of these individuals wind up turning to the Internet simply because they have heard that this can be a great way to start earning some extra money or even making more money than they do with their current job. The only issue is that loads of folks do not know how to start making cash from the Internet mainly because they don't have the knowledge that they need in order to get started. The truth is that there are few different methods you can begin making cash on the net and we will be talking about a number of them in this article.

    [url=http://www.newjordansoutlet.com/air-jordan-shoes-c-307.html]buy jordans retro[/url]

    Becoming successful on the internet is something which a lot of individuals have done by using the 2 techniques above, but there are plenty of other ways that you could begin earning cash online. For people who could be looking for other techniques in order to earn a living on the net you will discover that using one of the search engines like google, will have the ability to offer you more options.

    [url=http://www.foreverairjordans.com/]shoes jordan[/url]