ReportWire

Tag: senior research associate

  • Pack Your Memories Into Your Disaster Bag

    Pack Your Memories Into Your Disaster Bag

    [ad_1]

    This April, when a 1,000-year storm drenched South Florida, my father and older sister were among the thousands of people abruptly hit with severe flash flooding. They made it out physically unscathed, but many of their possessions were reduced to waterlogged piles of debris. Among those ruined mementos were sets of baby clothes, which my sister had painstakingly preserved for the future but forgotten during the rush of the flood. More than half a year later, she’s still grieving them. “Stuff is stuff,” she told me. But those pieces of clothing had been in the family for decades; she had worn them, and so had her 2-year-old. She just wished, she told me, that she could have held on to those outfits, “and my daughter could have had them for her kids.”

    The “rain bomb” that displaced my family from their damaged rental homes was amplified by a warmer climate. Climate change is likely making storms wetter and more frequent, and in coastal hot spots across South Florida, where drastically rising sea levels are driving tidal flooding, a sudden storm can easily become a disaster. Extreme hazards such as these are a by-product of the planet’s unprecedented pace of warming, which could change where and when wildfires, floods, and other catastrophes strike and how they overlap. These events affect millions of Americans—roughly one in 70 adults has been displaced by a hurricane, flood, or other disaster event in the past year, per the latest U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey data.

    People living in hurricane or earthquake zones have long been taught to be ready for the worst, but these new threats make “all hazards” preparedness that much more important for everyone, no matter your location. Emergency-management guidelines in the United States already include recommendations for every household to keep a supply kit on standby, with a more compact version that can be mobilized in case of evacuation. Both should contain emergency medications, copies of identity documents, food, water, and other essentials. “What you put in those ‘go bags’ are the items that really are essential to you,” Sue Anne Bell, a researcher and nurse practitioner who specializes in disaster response at the University of Michigan, told me.

    But in talking with experts about disaster preparedness, I was surprised to find that recommendations on storing personal possessions in those bags are basically nonexistent. That necessities come first makes sense: These items can make a life-and-death difference in moments of crisis. But ever since members of my immediate family were displaced, I have started thinking about a third way to prepare for the uncertainty of extreme weather and the disasters that follow—what I like to call my “climate carry-on.”

    This bag can now be found, zipped up and resting on a shelf in my bedroom closet, ready to be wheeled out if the need arises. In it, I have stashed away some of my most prized personal objects: photos of loved ones swaddled in pieces of clothing inherited from relatives who have died; a tarnished ring, priceless to me alone; a stack of journals teeming with childhood ramblings. All are relatively small physical mementos that I consider my most indispensable belongings. All are things that I’d like to one day be able to share with a family of my own.

    Most of the advice about preparing for an extreme-weather-related calamity is extremely practical, for good reason. “First and foremost, we need to safeguard our lives,” Fernando Rivera, a professor at the University of Central Florida who studies the sociology of disasters, told me. Bracing for the realities of recovery—grabbing physical copies of identity, medical, employment, and financial documents to help with disaster assistance and insurance claims—comes second. But survivors of climate disasters can benefit from preserving other meaningful parts of their life too.

    Bell told me that losing a home and certain possessions can affect a survivor’s well-being throughout the recovery process. In a small, qualitative study about supporting elderly patients through a disaster, the in-home caregivers she interviewed described the stress and personal devastation their patients experienced from those losses after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. “There’s a kind of trauma that comes along with knowing everything you’ve worked for in your life is something that you no longer have,” she said. That can affect “their larger health trajectory, as they’re trying to recover from a disaster in advancing age and feeling like they’re starting over.”

    Although it varies person-by-person, life changes after disasters do cause grief that can manifest in health complications, Priscilla Dass-Brailsford, a psychologist and Georgetown University professor who studies the effects of trauma, told me. And if these hazards put someone in a state of chronic stress, they can lead to serious physical health problems, including cardiovascular dysfunctions and cancer. “Extreme trauma and loss from a disaster, that’s a given,” Dass-Brailsford said. In the immediate aftermath, a person’s focus is typically on physical safety and navigating any remaining threats; the interwoven mental- and physical-health effects usually come later. “Once that’s done, and you’re settled down a little bit, the enormity of what happens then strikes people,” she said—problems such as headaches and stomach issues can suddenly flare up terribly, as she’s seen in her own patients.

    Losing personal property and, for those permanently displaced by a disaster, the place they live, can mean that survivors fare worse psychologically, according to Dass-Brailsford. She was a Hurricane Katrina first responder: “I remember walking through the rubble, looking at things that were lost during the storm, and wanting to pick things up and save them,” she said. She remembered thinking that “this is someone’s treasured object, and it was just now going to be sent to the dump.”

    Some may balk at the suggestion of packing away belongings that they’d rather see every day. Precautions like this can seem unnecessary—and it’s easy to tell yourself you’d move quickly enough to save what matters in case of a crisis. But although we may feel we are ready for an unexpected disaster event, that perception can often be far from reality, Bell, the University of Michigan disaster-response researcher, told me. A 2021 study she led found that, even for the basic steps of all-hazards readiness—having a stocked emergency kit, having conversations with family or friends about evacuation plans—people believed they were more prepared than they actually were.

    When measuring well-being after disaster or success in recovering, the focus is on quantifiable indicators, Sara McTarnaghan, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute who studies resilience planning and disaster recovery, told me. Disasters can put people in debt, or land them in the hospital. But, she said, hazard preparation shouldn’t just consider those tangible aspects of recovery. “As people, we’re often boiled down to those financial resources,” McTarnaghan said. When I asked her how people could better prepare for other types of loss they might experience, she stressed the importance of mental health, which climate-hazard-recovery processes tend to put less emphasis on. Reminding people that sentimental belongings—whether a photograph, a figurine, or an item of clothing—matter too could be a small stride toward helping them recover emotionally after a disaster.

    Of course, the objects that would be most meaningful to save will differ from person to person. And that’s probably one reason it’s harder to find guidance about selecting and storing personal property ahead of a calamity, McTarnaghan said. Thinking about this question at all is a good first step. “I absolutely encourage the reflection of some of the more personal and sentimental pieces that also lead to loss for individuals,” she said.

    Because searching for those items really isn’t what anyone should be doing in the rushed moments before evacuating, or as they start to shelter in place. No one should prioritize personal memorabilia over their own physical safety. Think of a climate carry-on as an optional supplement to a disaster kit and go bag. The latter two reflect the things we can’t live without; the first, the things we’d rather not.

    Still, creating a climate carry-on isn’t a bad idea, Rivera, the UCF sociologist, said. He has thought, too, about the possibility of a communal repository, where things that matter to people could be stored and easily accessed year-round, further encouraging community-wide hazard resilience. “Individually, you never think that you’re going to be in that situation,” he said. But climate change is that much of a threat, becoming all the more real in our daily lives. Some of us will end up in that very position, forced to swiftly determine what we consider irreplaceable.

    My dad never fathomed he would be displaced by a flood until he was watching the waters rising around him. “As the water increases, you have to, right away, rationalize what is important and take it from there,” he told me. If he could go back in time and pack a bag full of memories, he would stuff it with objects that are now lost: a collection of books he’d kept with him for decades and photo albums of his parents, his brother, and his sister, all of whom he’s lost. But of course, not everything can fit. He was thinking, too, of a rug worn down by multiple countries and moves, and a box of schoolwork and memorabilia handcrafted by my siblings and me.

    “I saved a good amount,” he said. “But the rest of it? It’s gone. And you have no choice but to move on.”

    [ad_2]

    Ayurella Horn-Muller

    Source link

  • Abortion Is Inflaming the GOP’s Biggest Electoral Problem

    Abortion Is Inflaming the GOP’s Biggest Electoral Problem

    [ad_1]

    The escalating political struggle over abortion is compounding the GOP’s challenges in the nation’s largest and most economically vibrant metropolitan areas.

    The biggest counties in Ohio voted last week overwhelmingly against the ballot initiative pushed by Republicans and anti-abortion forces to raise the threshold for passing future amendments to the state constitution to 60 percent. That proposal, known as Issue 1, was meant to reduce the chances that voters would approve a separate initiative on the November ballot to overturn the six-week abortion ban Ohio Republicans approved in 2019.

    The preponderant opposition to Issue 1 in Ohio’s largest counties extended a ringing pattern. Since the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide constitutional right to abortion with its 2022 Dobbs decision, seven states have held ballot initiatives that allowed voters to weigh in on whether the procedure should remain legal: California, Vermont, Montana, Michigan, Kansas, Kentucky, and now Ohio. In addition, voters in Wisconsin chose a new state-supreme-court justice in a race dominated by the question of whether abortion should remain legal in the state.

    In each of those eight contests, the abortion-rights position or candidate prevailed. And in each case, most voters in the states’ largest population centers have voted—usually by lopsided margins—to support legal abortion.

    These strikingly consistent results underline how conflict over abortion is amplifying the interconnected geographic, demographic, and economic realignments reconfiguring American politics. Particularly since Donald Trump emerged as the GOP’s national leader, Republicans have solidified their hold on exurban, small-town, and rural communities, whose populations tend to be predominantly white and Christian and many of whose economies are reliant on the powerhouse industries of the 20th century: manufacturing, energy extraction, and agriculture. Democrats, in turn, are consolidating their advantage inside almost all of the nation’s largest metro areas, which tend to be more racially diverse, more secular, and more integrated into the expanding 21st-century Information Age economy.

    New data provided exclusively to The Atlantic by Brookings Metro, a nonpartisan think tank, show, in fact, that the counties that voted against the proposed abortion restrictions are the places driving most economic growth in their states. Using data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, Brookings Metro at my request calculated the share of total state economic output generated by the counties that voted for and against abortion rights in five of these recent contests. The results were striking: Brookings found that the counties supporting abortion rights accounted for more than four-fifths of the total state GDP in Michigan, more than three-fourths in Kansas, exactly three-fourths in Ohio, and more than three-fifths in both Kentucky and Wisconsin.

    “We are looking at not only two different political systems but two different economies as well within the same states,” Robert Maxim, a senior research associate at Brookings Metro, told me.

    The Ohio vote demonstrated again that abortion is extending the fault line between those diverging systems, with stark electoral implications. Concerns that Republicans would try to ban abortion helped Democrats perform unexpectedly well in the 2022 elections in the key swing states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, particularly in well-educated suburbs around major cities. Democrats won four of the six governor contests and four of the five U.S. Senate races in those states despite widespread discontent over the economy and President Joe Biden’s job performance. Even if voters remain unhappy on both of those fronts in 2024, Democratic strategists are cautiously optimistic that fear of Republicans attempting to impose a national abortion ban will remain a powerful asset for Biden and the party’s other candidates.

    When given the chance to weigh in on the issue directly, voters in communities of all sizes have displayed resistance to banning abortion. As Philip Bump of The Washington Post calculated this week, the share of voters supporting abortion rights exceeded Biden’s share of the vote in 500 of the 510 counties that have cast ballots on the issue since last year (outside of Vermont, which Bump did not include in his analysis).

    But across these states, most smaller counties still voted against legal abortion, including this last week in Ohio. A comprehensive analysis of the results by the Cleveland Plain Dealer found that in Ohio’s rural counties, more than three-fifths of voters still backed Issue 1.

    Opponents of Issue 1 overcame that continued resistance with huge margins in the state’s largest urban and suburban counties. Most voters rejected Issue 1 in 14 of the 17 counties that cast the most ballots this week, including all seven that cast the absolute most votes (according to the ranking posted by The New York Times). In several of those counties, voters opposed Issue 1 by ratios of 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1.

    Equally striking were the results in suburban counties around the major cities, almost all of which usually lean toward the GOP. Big majorities opposed Issue 1 in several large suburban counties that Trump won in 2020 (including Delaware and Lorain). Even in more solidly Republican suburban counties that gave Trump more than 60 percent of their vote (Butler, Warren, and Clermont), the “yes” side on Issue 1 eked out only a very narrow win. Turnout in those big urban and suburban counties was enormous as well.

    Jeff Rusnak, a long-time Ohio-based Democratic consultant, says the suburban performance may signal an important shift for the party. One reason that Ohio has trended more solidly Republican than other states in the region, particularly Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, he argues, is that women in Ohio have not moved toward Democrats in the Trump era as much as women in those other states have. But, he told me, the “no” side on Issue 1 could not have run as well as it did in the big suburban counties without significant improvement among independent and even Republican-leaning women. “In Ohio, women who were not necessarily following the Great Lakes–state trends, I think, now woke up and realized, Aha, we better take action,” Rusnak said.

    The Ohio results followed the pattern evident in the other states that have held elections directly affecting abortion rights since last year’s Supreme Court decision. In Kansas, abortion-rights supporters carried all six of the counties that cast the most votes. In the Kentucky and Michigan votes, abortion-rights supporters carried eight of the 10 counties that cast the most votes, and in California they carried the 14 counties with the highest vote totals. Montana doesn’t have as many urban centers as these other states, but its anti-abortion ballot measure was defeated with majority opposition in all three of the counties that cast the most votes. In the Wisconsin state-supreme-court race this spring, Democrat Janet Protasiewicz, who centered her campaign on an unusually explicit pledge to support legal abortion, carried seven of the 10 highest-voting counties. (All of these figures are from the New York Times ranking of counties in those states’ results.) For Republicans hoping to regain ground in urban and suburban communities, abortion has become “a huge challenge because they really are on the wrong side of the issue” with those voters, Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School poll, told me.

    The results in these abortion votes reflect what I’ve called the “class inversion” in American politics. That’s the modern dynamic in which Democrats are running best in the most economically dynamic places in and around the largest cities. Simultaneously, Republicans are relying more on economically struggling communities that generally resist and resent the cultural and demographic changes that are unfolding mostly in those larger metros.

    Tom Davis, a former Republican representative from Northern Virginia who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee, has described this process to me as Republicans exchanging “the country club for the country.” In some states, trading reduced margins in large suburbs for expanded advantages in small towns and rural areas has clearly improved the GOP position. That’s been true in such states as Tennessee, Kentucky, and Arkansas, as well as in Texas, Iowa, Montana, and, more tenuously, North Carolina. Ohio has fit squarely in that category as well, with GOP gains among blue-collar voters, particularly in counties along the state’s eastern border, propelling its shift from the quintessential late-20th-century swing state to its current position as a Republican redoubt.

    But that reconfiguration just as clearly hurt Republicans in other states, such as Colorado and Virginia earlier in this century and Arizona and Georgia more recently. Growing strength in the largest communities has even allowed Democrats to regain the edge in each of the three pivotal Rust Belt states Trump in 2016 dislodged from the “blue wall”: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    In 2022, Democrats swept the governorships in all three states, and won a Senate race as well in Pennsylvania. Support for legal abortion was central to all of those victories: Just over three-fifths of voters in each state said abortion should remain legal in all or most circumstances and vast majorities of them backed the Democratic candidates, according to the exit polls conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of media outlets. The numbers were almost identical in Arizona, where just over three-fifths of voters also backed abortion rights, and commanding majorities of them supported the winning Democratic candidates for governor and U.S. senator.

    Those races made clear that protecting abortion rights was a powerful issue in 2022 for Democrats in blue-leaning or purple states where abortion mostly remains legal. But, as I’ve written, the issue proved much less potent in the more solidly red-leaning states that banned abortion: Republican governors and legislators who passed severe abortion bans cruised to reelection in states including Texas, Georgia, and Florida. Exit polls found that in those more reliably Republican states, even a significant minority of voters who described themselves as pro-choice placed greater priority on other issues, among them crime and immigration, and supported Republican governors who signed abortion restrictions or bans.

    Ohio exemplified that trend as powerfully as any state. Though the exit polls showed that nearly three-fifths of voters said abortion should remain legal in all or most circumstances, Republican Governor Mike DeWine cruised to a landslide reelection after signing the state’s six-week abortion ban. Republican J. D. Vance, who supported a national abortion ban, nonetheless attracted the votes of about one-third of self-described voters who said they supported abortion rights in his winning Ohio Senate campaign last year, the exit polls found.

    The fate of Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who’s facing reelection in 2024, may turn on whether he can win a bigger share of the voters who support abortion rights there, as Democrats did last year in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. (The same is likely true for Democratic Senator Jon Tester in Republican-leaning Montana, another state that voted down an anti-abortion ballot initiative last year.)

    Brown has some reasons for optimism. After the defeat of Issue 1 last week, the follow-on ballot initiative in November to restore abortion rights in the state will keep the issue front and center. The two leading Republican candidates to oppose Brown are each staunch abortion opponents; Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the probable front-runner in the GOP race, was the chief public advocate for last week’s failed initiative. Most encouraging for Brown, the “no” vote on Issue 1 in the state’s biggest suburban counties far exceeded not only Biden’s performance in the same places in 2020, but also Brown’s own numbers in his last reelection, in 2018.

    For Brown, and virtually every Democrat in a competitive statewide race next year, the road to victory runs through strong showings in such large urban and suburban counties. Given the persistence of discontent over the economy, it will be particularly crucial for Biden to generate big margins among suburban voters who support abortion rights in the very few states likely to decide control of the White House. The resounding defeat of Issue 1 this week showed again that Republicans, in their zeal to revoke the right to legal abortion, have handed Biden and other Democrats their most powerful argument to move those voters.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link