The political landscape post-election in November was a stark and harsh reality for the left in the United States. With Donald Trump poised to regain his presidency more popular than ever, and with the support of Republican majorities in the Senate and House, the American Left seems to be in making a wide array of illusive plans. One could only classify these plans as whimsical dreams, such as the resurrection of Kamala Harris’s political career by replacing Gavin Newsom as California’s governor. But dreaming and reality are two different paths, a lesson the leftists are yet to learn, as made evident by the recent happenings in Southern California.
Alongside the usual suffocation and struggle of left-wing politics, a new crisis has arisen in this region: wildfires. The heartrending human toll of these wildfires is astronomical, with the impact of devastation yet to be fully measured or understood. Interestingly, this does not just present an environmental issue but also a political one, and yet it is far from being truly attended or addressed.
Natural calamities like wildfires are often considered beyond human control, therefore politicians are usually spared direct blame. However, the severity of these fires and the lackluster response have prompted people to question the leadership roles of local officials, especially in the context of preventative actions that could have been taken.
Amidst this chaos, one can’t help but recall the numerous times former President Trump spoke about forest management. He always stressed the importance of its role in mitigating such disasters. The absence of effective management, in this case, proves his point. The wildfire crisis could indeed have been averted if the local administration had taken heed.
Under Governor Newsom’s regime, there have been alarming cutbacks in forest management budgets. We’re talking about a $4 million cut from a programme that encouraged good land management practices, a $5 million cut from CAL FIRE fuel reduction teams, $28 million from wildfire resilience and more. The tally of these drastic reductions amounts to an astonishing $105 million sharply cut from fire prevention programs.
In contrast to the budget cuts, Newsom is known for his frivolous spending on other non-urgent matters. His blowing of billions on a climate bill and a high-speed rail project that’s been in planning for nearly two decades without making any substantial headway is a testament to this.
While Newsom did have the foresight to announce a ‘California Vegetation Treatment Programme’ soon after assuming office in 2019, a 2022 investigation revealed the slow progression of approvals may lead to even more disastrous fires in areas of major concern. This underlines Newsom’s poor decision-making capabilities and his inefficacy.
Newsom’s shortcomings as a governor, however, might just be overshadowed by the fiasco orchestrated by LA Mayor Karen Bass. Her ill-timed departure to Ghana, just at the precipice of the wildfire outbreak makes her misplaced priorities evident and serves as another critical indictment of the progressive government.
Past actions and choices of these public figures, Newsom and Bass, certainly fail to paint a commendable picture. But the real issue at hand is the flawed political ideology they embody that might be the deciding factor for voters’ rejection of these public representatives and the political brand they stand for.
The rise of public figures like Newsom, Harris and Bass in the political marathon can be attributed to their willingness to endorse popular progressive opinions, despite their impracticality. Whether it is the blanket acceptance of gender transformation, the alarmist attitudes about climate change, inviting economically damaging policies or the unwarranted legitimization of all migrants: their political stances underscore an insincere attempt to placate the crowd.
These progressive doctrines often end up harming those they supposedly aim to help – the migrants, the gender minorities, and the like. Moreover, they take the focus away from the essentials of governance such as maintaining public safety, improving education, and ensuring disaster preparedness.
The failure of California in these key areas of governance mirrors the gross incompetence of such leaders who are more focused on mouthing popular slogans instead of actual effective governance. They aim more for applause than for policy effectiveness, thereby letting down the very people they claim to serve.
A quintessential example of this hollowness is Kamala Harris. Despite having no material contributions on the campaign trail to refer to, she still enjoyed a lofty position in the run for Presidency, showcasing the disconnect between the Democratic Party’s claims and its actual accomplishments.
Harris managed to keep herself in the limelight by pushing frivolities like examining potentially ‘gender-biased language’ in the intelligence community during a critical time of escalating global threats rather than focusing on constructive security measures. This is representative of the misplaced priorities and misleading approach of the present vice president and in a broader sense, the entire democratic party’s mode of functioning.
Perhaps the clearest indicator of the American public’s disillusionment with this form of governance was seen in November when the United States showed a decisive inclination to move away from virtue-signalling politicians. As such, any hopes of a miraculous political resurrection mounted on Harris’ part appear rather feeble.