New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy faced criticism for not returning to the state following a 4.8 magnitude earthquake that struck near Lebanon, New Jersey. U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew expressed disappointment that Murphy did not issue an on-camera address to residents, instead opting for TV and phone interviews. Van Drew noted that residents had to rely on New York officials for guidance during the earthquake, rather than their own governor. He suggested that Murphy could have taken the time to travel back to New Jersey to assure residents that they were safe. Despite the criticism, Murphy’s office reported that there was no major damage to structures, roadways, or infrastructure as a result of the earthquake.
Van Drew also questioned Murphy’s absence during the earthquake, pointing out that the governor was at a Democratic convention at the time. He suggested that Murphy’s presence in New Jersey during times of crisis would have been reassuring to residents. The earthquake, while not as severe as those in other states, was still significant as the largest in New Jersey in almost a century and a half. Van Drew emphasized the importance of leaders being present during times of problems, and expressed disappointment that Murphy did not return to the state following the earthquake. Fox News reached out to Murphy’s office for comment, but there has been no response as of yet.
The earthquake was felt by more than 42 million people in 14 states from Maine to North Carolina, with over 152,000 Americans reporting feeling shaking to the USGS. There have been more than two dozen aftershocks felt since the initial earthquake. Despite the widespread impact, there have been no reports of major damage in New Jersey. Murphy announced on social media that the state’s emergency operations center was deactivated, indicating that the situation was under control. While the earthquake was a significant event for the state, it appears that New Jersey was able to handle the aftermath without major issues.
The criticism of Governor Murphy’s absence during the earthquake highlights the importance of leadership presence during times of crisis. Van Drew’s comments suggest that residents would have found reassurance in Murphy’s return to the state to personally review the infrastructure and assure them of their safety. While natural disasters can be unpredictable and chaotic, having leaders present can provide a sense of stability and support to affected individuals. The fact that residents had to look to New York officials for guidance instead of their own governor raises questions about the effectiveness of leadership response in times of crisis. Moving forward, it may be important for elected officials to prioritize being present during emergencies to provide much-needed reassurance to their constituents.
Despite the criticism and calls for Murphy to return to the state, the reality is that the earthquake did not result in major damage or widespread destruction in New Jersey. The deactivation of the state’s emergency operations center indicates that the situation was quickly assessed and managed effectively. While having the governor present during a natural disaster may provide psychological comfort to residents, it is ultimately the rapid and efficient response of emergency personnel that ensures public safety and minimizes damage. It remains to be seen how Murphy’s absence during the earthquake will impact his standing with New Jersey residents in the long run.
