McDonald’s Crisis Response is Barely A Response At All

When speaking on the Pacific Northwest Wildfires, Republican Candidate Maurice McDonald gives little reasoning on his plan of action, getting off to a rocky start this Presidential Election season.

By: Evan Sporkin

Few times in my many years as a journalist have I heard a speech as empty as the one given by Maurice McDonald on wildfires in the Pacific Northwest. Of the quotes from his speech, of which very few were memorable, this quote summed up his position, “We must provide funding for the firefighters and rescue workers to help end this crisis.” This was virtually the only trace of any kind of policy or plan.

After completely dodging the question of what would be done about these fires, McDonald quickly returned to empty sentences and criticism of the current system. Mind you, there is very, very little evidence that McDonald’s approach, if you can call it that, would be any better.

In Addition, McDonald completely neglected a golden opportunity to mention climate change, but it seems he may be even more unprepared for that than he was for the wildfires. For a politician who made the conscious decision to say something like, “I plan to take action quickly unlike the current system that will not make the necessary moves to ensure the local citizens and businesses are protected.” McDonald’s response had remarkably little substance.

McDonald’s strategy of literally throwing money into a fire does not and will not solve forest fires. This strategy has a complete lack of proactivity and specificity. The response fails to address how money would be spent. Would it be spent to hire more firefighters? Buy more equipment? This problem is not one that is going to be solved after fires are already raging.

In case the firefighters who are actually solving the problem in the Pacific Northwest needed any reassurance that McDonald is unconcerned with you, look no further. The businesses and citizens McDonald is so profoundly claiming to serve will not necessarily be better off with more firefighters. What was needed here was a response with proactivity and substance, neither of which could be found in this speech.