Reflecting on the Expansion of Federal Powers to Mitigate Pandemics and Other Natural Disasters

 

Reflecting on the Expansion of Federal Powers to Mitigate Pandemics and Other Natural Disasters

Jim Rogers

. . .

. . .

         Natural disasters are society-altering events that have long shaped the nature of human governance by authority figures. Rather than being solely physical phenomena, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, fires, and diseases evoke deep mental and emotional reactions that can result in dramatic upheavals in societal progression. In many ways, the reactions to natural disasters around the globe, occurring since time immemorial, have provided a scaffold for societal structures that seek to maintain a thriving human population. As a consistent base of enculturated citizens is the backbone of any successful economy, the modern world has become increasingly aware of the role that natural disasters play in diluting economic prosperity. The utility of understanding natural disasters is apparent to any who engages with historical material, as it exposes the way individuals and institutions approached disaster relief efforts, disease management, and the distribution of relief aid.

As federal authority expanded to combat disasters during the 19^th century, the paternal responsibility of the U.S. government increased. In exchange for the right to govern themselves freely in all situations, the citizenry requested improvements to the disaster relief system. Pandemics, floods, hurricanes, droughts, grasshopper/locust plagues, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, earthquakes, and mudslides, had all played their part in establishing this need for broad federal oversight. There was no precedent for such a vast expansion of governmental power, but as financial woes related to flooding began to reveal themselves, the risk of economic depression outweighed prior reservations. The American people, though industrious, were simply incapable of managing such vast devastation. As the economic infrastructure had expanded, so had the physical presence of that infrastructure. Ports, factories, mills, and farmsteads, were all too productive to allow for them to be sidelined for extended periods of time. To this day areas that have a higher economic footprint receive more aid, more frequently. Still, most would agree that the role that our federal government has played in mitigating natural disasters has been a helpful one.

Just as the Great Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 revealed the flaws of supernatural rationalism, the citizens becoming an emotional mass capable of little more than ceaseless proselytizing and repentance, the steamboat accidents of the early 19^th century revealed the flaws of an unchecked industrial complex that saw no limits, technologically or morally, to profitable expansion. The greatest flaw revealed in these instances, however, is the powerlessness of individuals to mitigate the effects they are experiencing. How does one so insignificant fight an earthquake? Likewise, the individual is simply too small to demand institutional reforms to steamboat production, unless of course that individual be draped in federal power. As a result of this impunity, federal authority grew to ensconce the world of industrial regulation, representing another exchange of personal freedom for the sake of personal posterity. Another such exchange may be on the horizon, as the government ramps up its financial investment in Covid-19 vaccines, as well as its focus on dissuading the spread of disinformation about the disease.

The fact that we are currently living through a pandemic has not been lost on me during my studies this year. In truth, much of the material brought the crisis into the foreground of my mind and fixed it there, and for that I am grateful. What I have learned about the origins of federal disaster relief, the process through which federal authority is established and expanded, and the resistance that the U.S. government has historically shown in responding to natural disasters, has revealed that many of the societal divisions we are currently experiencing in regards to federal action concerning the Covid-19 pandemic are relatable. So relatable in fact as to be uncanny at times. The divisions that could be observed in response to the Portland, Maine, fire of 1866, (where the federal government ultimately decided against providing aid to the state due to the inability to prove that the damage was of a “broad and unprecedented nature” that could not be managed by states alone) are the same divisions that plague state and federal responses to modern variances in disaster relief. However, as states currently vie for federal disaster relief in the wake of Covid-19, a new precedent is being set, one by which future relief legislation will no doubt be measured. At the time of this writing over 4.5 million cases in the United States, and 159,000 deaths have been recorded. There can be little doubt that the U.S. is currently mired in its greatest natural disaster and one that requires a further revision of the balance between responsibility and authority. What these legislative changes will be is a matter of speculation, but, as history is prone to rhyming with itself, it seems that a further reduction of personal autonomy for the sake of posterity is likely to be one solution among the suite of health-related societal/institutional reforms proposed.