Australian Outlook

In this section

California’s Wildfires and the Battle Between Populists and Progressives

22 Jan 2025
By Professor Timothy W. Kneeland
Palisades Fire that started in the City of Los Angelas, January 2025. Source: California Fire Official photo stream / https://t.ly/q2N8o

The California wildfires have become a flashpoint for ideological conflict, with critics leveraging the crisis to challenge progressive policies on climate, diversity, and governance while promoting populist ideals. As leaders face scrutiny over their handling of the disaster, the fallout may reshape public perception, intensify partisan divides, and influence the future of American politics.

The wildfires ravaging California are more than a natural disaster—their ongoing destruction has set the stage for a battle over progressivism and populism. The wildfires have become a political minefield over the progressive policies implemented by California Governor Gavin Newsom and the populist ideals espoused by the returned President Donald Trump. As the fires continue to burn, local and federal authorities find themselves under a microscope, with their responses potentially shaping the political landscape for years to come.

Criticism began when President-Elect Donald Trump accused Newsom of incompetence. Trump suggested that the fires resulted from Newsom’s failure to agree to a 2020 plan by Trump to divert water from Northern California to Southern California. Newsom fought the decision in court, claiming it was unnecessary and would cause environmental harm to species such as smelt fish. Trump also claimed Newsom had failed to manage and eliminate the brush that fuelled the fires raging across the Los Angeles area.

Trump’s ally Elon Musk blamed Los Angeles Fire Department Chief Kristin Crowley for prioritising liberal policies over competency in the department. Musk accused the Fire Department of being more concerned with the progressive agenda of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) than effecting planning and deploying the necessary resources to combat wildfires.

Rick Caruso, a former Republican who lost his bid to become mayor of Los Angeles to incumbent Karen Bass, claimed she failed to protect the public by leaving LA to attend a state ceremony in Ghana. Caruso noted that even before the progressive mayor departed, the National Weather Service had already issued dire warnings about the potential for catastrophic fires caused by dry conditions and the expectation of Santa Ana winds of up to 100 miles an hour.

In response to these criticisms, Democratic leaders and mainstream outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post have been quick to point out the misleading and distorted nature of Trump and Musk’s comments. However, FOX News and other news outlets have perpetuated this narrative and critique of California’s leaders and their policies. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times ran a series of articles suggesting failure by the Mayor and the Fire Chief. In an unusual move, the owner of the LA Times expressed regret for the paper’s endorsement of Bass in the 2022 election.

Playing politics and using disaster for political gain is common in the United States. After the 1960s, elected officials found that during a disaster, they could burnish their image as strong leaders and enact generous relief packages for victims, which they translated into political gain in subsequent elections. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, showed competent leadership when Hurricane Sandy swept the eastern coast of the United States in 2012. Obama’s response was praised by Republican rivals such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, which boosted Obama’s reelection that year.

Meanwhile, partisan rivals have used disasters to question elected officials’ political skills, undermine faith in their leadership, and denigrate their policies. Such was the case for President George W. Bush, who Democrats lashed for his response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. They castigated Bush for sending National Guard units to Iraq, thereby making them unavailable to assist in rescue and recovery after the levees broke in New Orleans. They also said federal officials did not act fast enough to send food and water to those trapped in New Orleans. As a result, Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 and the White House to the Democrats in 2008.

Already, questions about Newsom’s and Bass’s leadership have triggered petitions to recall these public servants and for a bipartisan commission to review their actions before, during, and after the crisis. However, the criticism levelled at the mayor and governor is more than just an attempt to undermine their leadership; it is a means to disrupt their agenda and undermine progressive politics. California is the most populous and progressive state in the US and has the most ambitious plans to combat climate change. The scrutiny of these leaders and the political ramifications of their actions—or inactions—has implications for their agenda and the future of progressive ideals.

Progressive politics in the United States can be traced back to the turn of the twentieth century. Progressives argued that experts should oversee decision-making to eliminate corruption and create a more efficient government. They also believed that the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few “robber barons” was a danger to democracy. They enacted legislation and shaped the Constitution to remedy these problems. Their actions set an example for progressive politicians like President Joe Biden, who used his farewell address to warn the public that an oligarchy is taking shape in the United States and threatens democracy. Although he did not explicitly say so, it was understood that he was implicating Donald Trump and followers like Elon Musk.

Contemporary progressives value diversity, equity and inclusion, and climate justice. Leaders in California have promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion to enhance democracy and improve public policies. They have acted against climate change over shorter-term goals such as inexpensive energy. They favour environmental sustainability and species protection over water diversion to aid agricultural growth.

President Trump and his MAGA coalition of populists have attacked these policies. Trump ran as an opponent of elitism and has suggested experts are merely the mask worn by elites to take power away from ordinary Americans. Populists celebrate merit and reject diversity, equity, and inclusion. Wealth is not necessarily invidious to democracy unless it is misused. Men like Elon Musk are not robber barons but captains of industry.

Populists are quick to point out that no amount of action by California can change the trajectory of climate change; it is too little, too late, and only squanders resources that will cost ordinary Americans jobs and economic growth in the long run. They favour economic development over species protection.

Criticism of handling the California disaster has become a surrogate for the more significant battle of ideas between populists and progressives. Critics know that even the slightest misstep could prompt widespread public backlash in a state where environmental policy is closely tied to politics. The power of social media to disseminate misleading or distorted information makes the situation even more challenging, primarily when prominent figures like Musk and Trump take progressives to task. Once these ideas enter the social media world, they are spread by the public across platforms that are difficult to dispel.

The criticism is already impacting national politics. Mike Johnson, the Republican leader of the House of Representatives, has suggested he might tie any disaster assistance to California to changes in California’s climate and environmental policies.

One thing is clear: the political fallout from how officials handle the crisis will have long-lasting consequences for American politics. In the coming months, the American public will evaluate the leadership in California, and if post-disaster reviews show that these leaders made avoidable errors of judgment, progressives across the country may pay a heavy price. Even when the current fires are under control, the political scars from this latest battle between populists and progressives will remain.

Timothy W. Kneeland is Professor of History and Politics, Nazareth University, New York.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution.