During a recent episode of the podcast “Hacks on Tap,” David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Obama, discussed the impact of Hurricane Helene on western North Carolina, particularly focusing on Asheville. He noted the heavy rainfall and flooding that resulted in significant displacement in the region, identifying it as a critical issue ahead of the upcoming presidential election. Axelrod characterized North Carolina as the “second most rural state” in the U.S. and emphasized Asheville as a predominantly Democratic, or “blue,” area within the otherwise conservative state. He portrayed Asheville’s electorate as upscale and liberal, suggesting that they would find ways to vote despite the challenges posed by the hurricane.
Axelrod’s comments drew a stark contrast between voters in Asheville and those in other parts of western North Carolina, which he implied were predominantly supportive of Donald Trump. He speculated that while liberal voters from Asheville would likely be resourceful enough to navigate the obstacles created by the hurricane, those affected who held Trump-supporting views might struggle to participate in the voting process. His remarks hinted at a belief that political allegiance could influence the resilience and determination of voters to cast their ballots following a natural disaster. Axelrod acknowledged the unpredictability of the situation, referring to it as an “interesting” element of the presidential race in North Carolina.
The podcast segment provoked backlash from various commentators and political observers, who characterized Axelrod’s remarks as offensive and disheartening. Critics, including journalists and conservative media personalities, accused him of harboring elitist views and lacking sensitivity towards the plight of those affected by the hurricane. Miranda Devine, a journalist for the New York Post, highlighted the implication that Hurricane Helene’s victims were largely Trump supporters who might face challenges in voting. In contrast, she underscored Axelrod’s assumption that typical Democratic voters in Asheville, described as “upscale,” would naturally find a way to fulfill their civic duty.
In addition to Devine, radio host Tammy Bruce expressed her disgust at Axelrod’s characterization of rural Trump supporters, questioning the notion that they were somehow less capable or intelligent than urban liberal voters. She suggested that his views reflected a condescending attitude towards those in rural communities who had just faced significant losses. David Marcus, a columnist for Fox News, echoed these sentiments, expressing that the standard of political discourse had deteriorated, particularly among those opposing Trump. He pointed out the troubling implication that Democrats had abandoned decorum in the face of the challenges posed by their political rivals.
Responses to Axelrod’s comments underscored a growing perception that political rhetoric is becoming increasingly divisive in the context of natural disasters. Stephen Miller, a senior advisor to Trump, referred to Axelrod’s remarks as “truly sinister,” highlighting the broader concerns over how political dynamics are playing out amid crises like Hurricane Helene. This reflects a widening gap in understanding and empathy between urban and rural communities, particularly regarding how natural disasters are perceived within the larger political narrative.
As the aftermath of Hurricane Helene continued to unfold, reports and images emerged illustrating the devastation in Asheville and surrounding areas. Many roads became impassable, while widespread power outages left communities isolated without communication. The dual challenge of rebuilding and participating in the democratic process loomed large for residents. These contextual factors remain crucial as North Carolina navigates the complex intersection of environmental challenges, political allegiance, and the upcoming electoral process. Axelrod’s comments, while controversial, have highlighted the unique dynamics at play in a state that often serves as a battleground in national elections, raising significant questions about the resilience and engagement of different voter demographics in the face of adversity.
