By Andrew Reeves
Andrew Reeves is a graduate student in the department of government at
Harvard University and an associate of the Center for Basic Research in
the Social Sciences.
October 3, 2004
The Bush campaign has
enlisted the help of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudolph Giuliani and John
McCain to make stump speeches on behalf on the president's reelection
effort, but in the end it may be Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne
delivering the president a second term in office.
Though Schwarzenegger and other Republican leaders can wax patriotic on
the president's virtues, it is the recent devastating hurricanes that
have given President Bush an extraordinary opportunity to deliver
billions of dollars directly to the pockets of Florida's 13 million
potential voters.
Florida, prominent among the battleground
states with 27 electoral votes, is considered a top prize for the Bush
campaign, for reasons that became obvious in 2000. Bush and John Kerry
have visited the state repeatedly — more than any other state except
Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Now the question is how the president
can use the millions of dollars he controls in federal disaster aid to
influence the election. Is that too cynical? Do you doubt that such
crass political motives would influence public policy? My research
shows that it does happen — and it happens regardless of whether the
president is a Democrat or Republican.
Indeed, the research
suggests that the electoral importance of a state plays a large role in
determining whether a president declares a disaster, an act that clears
the way for large sums of federal money to be sent to devastated areas.
In a study examining all presidential disaster declarations from 1989
through 1999, I found that a non-battleground state with three
electoral votes is almost 50% less likely to receive a disaster
declaration than a battleground state with 20 or more electoral votes —
even after accounting for actual need (in the form of private insurance
claims stemming from disasters). In a preliminary analysis (which does
not yet include the most recent Florida disasters), Bush seems to be
similarly disposed to allowing electoral considerations to shade
disaster-declaration policy. For example, in Connecticut, which is not
a battleground state, an ice storm downed power lines and left
thousands of residents without power for days in January 2003. The
total damage was estimated at $2.55 million; Bush did not declare it a
disaster. A few months later in June, a rainstorm hit Florida — causing
$613,047 damage to 41 homes — and this time a disaster was declared.
As political scientists have long known, politicians send pork back
home to their constituents in order to secure reelection. Presidents
rarely have the chance to deliver resources so directly to constituents
in the way that members of Congress do. Except for disaster
declarations. In the case of disaster declarations, the president has
total discretion.
Dealing with the grief and havoc of a
natural disaster also offers the president a chance to display his
leadership skills. Just as scholars have shown that the public rallies
around the president and the flag during times of war, there may be a
similar tendency when it comes to natural disasters. On the White House
website right now, there are pictures of the president touring stricken
orange groves, embracing relief workers and flying in on a helicopter
to survey hurricane damage.
While pundits, journalists and
academics rail against the Bush and Kerry campaigns focusing on a
handful of battleground states and ignoring the rest of the country, I
think the greater problem is not that campaign resources are being
disproportionately allocated to battleground states but that government
resources are.
The Florida hurricanes caused massive damage and
resulted in the loss of human life; the president was right to declare
a disaster. But would he have reacted so swiftly and with such a
massive amount of money if Florida wasn't a hotly contested state? I
think the answer is no.
