The story emphasizes that compassion, rather than partisanship, should be the response in times of tragedy. The author recounts their experience as a representative for a suburban district, where media often questioned their political ideology, using their constituents as a backdrop for ideological provocation. Rather than answering with ideology, the author stressed that a philosophy, shaped by faith and human history, allows for compassion and understanding, rather than a rigid response shaped by ideology.
The narrative shifts to the Southern California wildfires, where some on the political right blamed the victims for supporting certain policies and ideologies, such as climate change advocacy. The author argues that such a response only alienates the victims and fuels division, preventing any meaningful dialogue. Compassion, the author insists, should be the primary response—helping those in need, not blaming them for their misfortune. A tragedy should bring out the best in people, not partisan sniping, and only by responding with empathy can a society hope to learn and grow from such events.
Ultimately, the author warns that engaging in partisanship during a disaster—whether from the right or left—risks undermining any productive solutions or accountability. They encourage focusing on kindness and competence, believing that over time, this compassionate approach will lead to more effective and lasting change.
