Fingers Pointing, Fires Burning

The Politics of Catastrophe A Perfect Storm of Disaster and Division

When the wind blows at 90 miles per hour, it doesn’t matter how many firetrucks you have on the planet. As 60 Minutes recently reported, no amount of preparation can contain fires in those conditions. My friend Joe, who lives in Silverlake, put it bluntly: “We’re used to 45 mph winds but at 90? The harm is exponential. At one point, I couldn’t even stand upright on my patio.”

This latest disaster wasn’t just a wildfire; it was a reckoning. Nature, with its relentless winds and dry conditions fueled by climate change, remains an undefeated opponent. We can try to mitigate the risks—create defensible space around homes, and build more resilient infrastructure—but nature always holds the upper hand. These fires are a reminder that, like hurricanes along the East Coast or flooding in the Southeast, there are limits to human ingenuity when faced with the extremes of a changing climate.

And yet, we rebuild. Time and time again, we see people return to disaster-prone areas, whether it’s a wildfire zone in California, a hurricane-ravaged coastline, or a floodplain. That’s a testament to human resilience—but it also raises difficult questions. Should the rest of the country subsidize this rebuilding through higher taxes and insurance premiums? At what point do we acknowledge that living in certain places comes with risks that can’t always be shared collectively? These are uncomfortable questions, but ones we need to grapple with as disasters become more frequent and severe.

Opportunism Amid the Flames

In moments of crisis, there’s always someone ready to exploit the tragedy. Donald Trump’s space Nazi, Elon Musk, in his usual grandstanding, claimed there wasn’t enough water to fight the fires—a statement promptly debunked by firefighters on his own livestream. And Trump, as he so often does, seized the opportunity to attack California, framing the disaster not as a shared American tragedy but as a chance to score political points. As Steve Schmidt pointed out, “Trump looks at this disaster, and he sees one thing, and one thing only: opportunity. He sees an opportunity to attack and weaken the enemy, which in his sick mind, is California.”

Trump isn’t alone. Some have gone so far as to blame the LA fire chief’s appointment on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives (DEI), as though those principles somehow sparked the flames. Let’s be clear: that narrative is complete bullshit. DEI wasn’t responsible for the winds, the drought, or the fire’s spread. To blame DEI is not only absurd but distracts from the real issues—climate change, under-resourced disaster response systems, and a lack of national consensus on how to address these growing threats.

Unprepared or Overwhelmed?

Los Angeles, for all its resources, was not fully prepared for this disaster. But it’s important to recognize the scale of what happened. When winds reach 90 mph, the devastation becomes nearly impossible to prevent. Yes, there are lessons to be learned, and Governor Gavin Newsom will undoubtedly face political repercussions. But no leader or system could have completely mitigated this level of destruction.

The fallout is already becoming clear. These fires have sparked a literal exodus—of people fleeing their homes—and an exodus of insurance companies unwilling to cover properties in a state where wildfires have become a grim annual tradition. California, once the land of endless opportunity, now faces the harsh reality of trying to sustain a growing population in the face of worsening natural disasters.

Closing Thoughts

Amid this devastation, we are left with more questions than answers. How do we balance personal freedom with collective responsibility? How do we prioritize prevention over reaction? And how do we hold accountable those who would rather weaponize these disasters than work toward solutions?

But one question stands out most: I asked Joe, “There’s no recovering from this, is there?” He paused before replying, “We have to. There’s no other choice.”