I don’t want this to turn into any kind of a bashing but if it has to go to GD then sobeit.
Is there any reason for a head of state to visit a disaster site, such as post-hurricane Florida, other than the fact that if he doesn’t he will be roundly accused of not caring? Certainly a head of state should have other things to do, things that he would have more expertise in, and he should have people who do have expertise in post-disaster management to whom he should delegate the job. Is it just a cosmetic thing, a photo-op?
The first President Bush was seen as not caring about Hurricane Andrew. In 1992, Florida went for Bush, but the race was closer than many thought. I can’t think of a single reason for any leader to need to visit a disaster site. FDR didn’t fly out to Hawaii three days after Pearl Harbor. The photo op is important. Cynical as it may, Bush may also want to get politics back into the news
in Florida. Non stop storm coverage has probably bumped the campaign off the front page.
I suppose it depends on the person. Some leaders might genuinely care about the plight of the people who were hit with the disaster, while others might just be looking for some good publicity. But even for the ones who do care, I imagine that part of it is to avoid looking like they don’t.
After the 1989 San Fransisco earthquake, Dan Quayle’s press agent suggested that he travel to the epicentre. So Dan booked a flight to Orlando, Florida…