Why Louisiana governor says Donald Trump's visit was 'helpful'

Gov. John Bel Edwards, once wary of Donald Trump and Mike Pence's trip to Louisiana in the wake of a deadly storm, said on Sunday that the visit was "helpful." 

Rebecca Santana/AP
A sign placed by resident Doug Ford welcomes Republican Presidential candadate Donald Trump on Friday, Aug. 19, 2016 in St. Amant, La. Casting his campaign chairman aside with just 11 weeks until Election Day, Trump moved ahead with the reboot of his White House bid on Friday with a tour of flood-ravaged Louisiana. Ford 's trailer was completely flooded.

Days after expressing concerns that Donald Trump's trip to flood-stricken Louisiana could turn into a "photo-op," Gov. John Bel Edwards has said that the Republican nominee's visit was "helpful." 

The visit, and the accompanying press coverage, were beneficial in drawing attention to the situation in Louisiana, Gov. Edwards said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, also noting his appreciation for a "good phone call" with vice presidential candidate Mike Pence, whom Edwards described as "sincere and genuine."

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama has faced criticism from some for not yet visiting Louisiana, instead finishing out a family vacation to Martha's Vineyard. (Governor Edwards has defended the president, saying that the White House offered to visit but the state told them to hold off until the immediate response phase was finished.) The president is scheduled to visit Louisiana on Tuesday. 

The responses of politicians including Trump and President Obama to the flooding in Louisiana – and the public's response to their responses – demonstrate how quickly a disaster can turn political, as politicians walk the thin line between engaging with affected areas and drawing attention for personal gain. 

"Natural disasters hurt all Americans – rich and poor, black, white and Latino, male and female. Therefore, they are one of the few times when many Americans – red and blue – tend to turn to government for help and put aside their political biases," writes Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, in an op-ed for CNN. "How leaders respond to these crises, particularly after Katrina, can determine how the public sees them in the years to come."

Prior to Trump's visit to Louisiana, Edwards, a Democrat, appeared initially skeptical of the campaign's motives behind the visit. 

"We welcome him to Louisiana, but not for a photo-op," the governor said in a statement. "Instead we hope he’ll consider volunteering or making a sizable donation to the LA Flood Relief Fund to help the victims of the storm." 

Trump's opponent, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, has taken an entirely different strategy altogether in responding to the flooding: she has not visited, nor announced plans to, but rather encouraged supporters on social media to donate to the rescue efforts. 

"My heart breaks for Louisiana, and right now, the relief effort can't afford any distractions," Ms. Clinton wrote on Facebook. "The very best way this team can help is to make sure Louisianans have the resources they need." 

The question of whether to visit a disaster site in the immediate aftermath is a tricky one for politicians: go, and risk being labeled a "distraction" who only wants a photo-op; stay away, and risk being labeled uncaring, as George W. Bush did when, in 2005, he observed the damage done by Hurricane Katrina by flying over the affected areas in Air Force One.

Regardless of the motivation behind politicians' visits to disaster sites and their level of engagement while visiting, these visits can serve an important purpose, as Edwards noted Sunday. 

"It helped to shine a spotlight on Louisiana and on the dire situation that we have here," he told CNN. "It was helpful."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.