How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria? The Politics of Hurricane Response

• In Event: Emerging Issues in the Politics of Public Health

Abstract

Research Objective:
The federal government responded far-quicker and with more resources to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma compared to Maria, incommensurate with need and severity (Vinik 2018). This research will evaluate the role of partisan political elites’ and media perceptions of race and citizenship in the U.S.’s response to Maria compared to Harvey and Irma. Partisanship affects disaster response timing and service-distribution (Salkowe and Chakraborty 2009). Increased racial animus among conservatives posits that notions of race and citizenship likely affect disaster-response decision-making (Valentino, Brader, and Jardina 2013).

Study design: We conducted a retrospective examination political elites’ discourse – major news media broadcasts and Congressional testimony – to compare substantive content and reception in each case. The analysis covers from landfall until one-year post-landfall, to examine the discourse trends overtime, along with any changes in political elites’ perceptions of the populations affected by the Hurricanes. Evaluating this discourse right before, during and after the disaster responses gives an indication of the role these factors may have played in shaping disaster response for each hurricane. Further, this research will help understand the role of social construction of affected or at-risk populations in disaster management, as well as the heterogeneity among political elites in their perceptions of affected groups.

Methods: To understand the role of perceptions of citizenship and race in directly or indirectly shaping disaster responses, we analyzed political elites’ perceptions as shared in congressional floor debates and cable news media broadcast coverage, of the hurricanes and disaster responses from Fall 2017 until Fall 2018. Congressional floor debates were collected from the Congressional Record. Media coverage includes Cable News coverage from Lexis Nexis and the Vanderbilt TV News Archives. The research team analyzed over 1,000 documents across Congress and broadcast media. In each case we measured discourse frequency about each hurricane across partisan and geographic categories. In addition to frequency, we conducted content analysis, coding across emergent themes and notions of citizenship and race for the three hurricanes. Six coders were used in an iterative process for consensus and reliability.

Initial Results: Democratic members of Congress spoke more frequently about disaster response efforts compared to Republican Congress members. However, members from states with large Puerto Rican populations or populations affected by or at risk of Hurricanes were most likely to speak about disaster relief efforts. Republican members in Texas differentiated disaster relief pleas for their own constituents, compared to Puerto Rican Americans, in religious-identity frames, more often than citizenship. Democratic members were most likely to assert disaster relief pleas based on citizenship framing.

Policy Implications: Research has shown that partisanship affects disaster response timing and service distribution (Salkowe and Chakraborty 2009). Increased political polarization paired with increases in anti-immigrant rhetoric among conservatives posits the potential for variation in and influence from partisan opinions on race and citizenship in disaster response discourse and appropriations. Environmental disasters bring acute and long-term risks to individual and population health requiring timely, effective responses. Understanding the role that partisan biases may play in shaping disaster relief efforts can help improve protocol and efficacy of future responses.

Authors

• Charley Willison, Harvard University

• Phillip M. Singer, University of Utah

• Scott L. Greer, University of Michigan