Les Jones

Political Survival Kit > The Bizarre Reaction to Private Fire Insurance in California

So some people in the recent California blazes had private fire protection to supplement the government fire protection. The homeowners did this at their own expense, and either they or the company they contracted with had their own stores of chemical fire retardant independent of public fire hydrants and fire trucks. No funds were extracted from the public coffers, and arguably this freed up firefighting resources to save other homes. Yet some people are vehemently opposed to the idea. Matt Welch surveys the negative reactions to this seemingly positive development:

You would think that the cheap availability of potent fire retardant, and the creation of supplementary firefighting capability — with costs borne entirely by the homeowners who choose to live in fire zones, instead of everyday taxpayers — would be a cause for at least mild enthusiasm. Instead, it was greeted with howls of class warfare.

Liberal journalist/historian Rick Perlstein called it "a sickening indication about how the conservative mania for privatization is beginning to create two Americas: One that is protected from fires, and one that is not." (Never mind that no one within shouting distance of power or influence is calling for the privatization of fire departments.) In an L.A. Times article filled with such loaded phrases as "mansions of the moneyed," lefty social critic Naomi Klein decried supplemental fire insurance as "disaster apartheid." (Never mind that apartheid was imposed by a federal government on unwilling victims based on race, whereas paid-for emergency assistance imposes nothing negative — and can even lead to positive outcomes, such as a saved house — on the comparative have-nots in this case, most of whom are affluent homeowners who can certainly afford $995 for a tub of Phos-Chek.)

Nation contributor Chris Hayes warned that the trend reflected a desire to go back to the dark days of the 19th century, when "most fire-fighting was done by private companies," even though no one had suggested such a thing. MSN moneyblogger Jon Markman referred to the emergency response units as (shudder) "independent fire militias." Local lefty blogger Bob Morris maintained that they were "just like Blackwater ... with their heavily armed guards in the aftermath of Katrina." (Blackwater was contracted by the Department of Homeland Security; AIG's fire teams were not.) A blogger at Byzantine Ruins made the bizarre claim that the supplemental Phos-Chek sprayers were "wast[ing] firefighting resources."

It seems like another symptom of what Isabel Paterson described, with a certain segment of so-called humanitarians who aren't happy unless all want is created by and satisfied by a centrally-controlled government, and anyone who can take care of themselves is considered a cheat or worse.