I was in Malibu working as a poll volunteer during the June 2nd election, and what I saw there didn’t feel like politics in the usual sense. It felt more like emotional accounting—people trying to settle a score with reality itself.
The polling place was the senior center multi-purpose room. Fluorescent lights, folding chairs, onsite kitchen. The voters who showed up angry about fire response and insurance and LA governance were the same people who used this room for bridge, knitting and blood pressure screenings. They were voting inside the infrastructure of their own maintenance, asking it to perform like expansion infrastructure.
The most immediate impression was how often voting stopped being about preference and became about attribution. People weren’t really asking who had the best ideas. They were asking, in quieter and sometimes sharper ways: who is responsible for what has happened to us?
One of the stranger moments of the day was how many people showed up wanting to vote in the Los Angeles election. Enough that it stopped being a curiosity and started feeling like a symptom. The irony is that Malibu spent years fighting not to become Los Angeles. The city incorporated precisely because residents did not want to be governed from downtown. They did not want to be folded into the machinery of a larger metropolis. They wanted local control, local priorities, local sovereignty.
They did not want Los Angeles telling them where to build, what to permit, how to develop their land, or how to connect their infrastructure. They did not want to be tied into the sewer systems, planning systems, and administrative systems that came with belonging to a much larger urban organism. Malibu’s identity was built, in part, on the idea that it was not Los Angeles.
And yet there they were, after the fires, angry at Los Angeles, wanting to vote in Los Angeles elections. That was the moment I started thinking about vengeance voting. Because what was being expressed wasn’t really a political philosophy. It was a desire to locate responsibility. The same people who spent decades insisting on autonomy suddenly wanted representation in the larger system they had deliberately chosen to remain outside of. They wanted independence when things were working and accountability when things were not.
The contradiction is not unique to Malibu, but Malibu presents it in unusually pure form.
People want local sovereignty without local limitations. They want to be their own city, except when they want the resources of a larger one. They want freedom from constraints, except for the constraints that protect them. They want Swiss services with a tax burden they imagine belongs somewhere else. What the fires exposed was not simply anger. They exposed the uncomfortable reality that sovereignty and dependency are not the same thing. Malibu can be politically independent. It cannot be infrastructurally independent. The water systems, insurance systems, fire-response systems, transportation systems, energy systems, and financial systems that determine daily life do not stop at the city limits.
Tilly’s “war made the state and the state made war” frame translates well to “disaster made the infrastructure and the infrastructure made dependency. Many of the underlying risks existed long before any particular failure. They are built into the landscape itself. Chaparral burns. Canyons become bottlenecks. Roads close. Droughts arrive. The mountains are not malfunctioning when these things happen. They are behaving exactly as mountains have always behaved.
The irony is that many voters direct their anger toward the institutions they can see rather than the conditions they chose to inhabit. A wildfire may be the product of decades of accumulated decisions by homeowners, planners, regulators, insurers, developers, and public agencies. Yet on Election Day all of that complexity collapses into a single question: Whose fault is this?
Malibu wants the privilege of living in the chaparral without fully internalizing the costs of living in the chaparral. People want the views, the privacy, the winding canyon roads, the deer trails, the feeling of being beyond the city. They want the fantasy of the frontier. But when the bill arrives—in the form of wildfire risk, road closures, insurance crises, firefighting costs, emergency evacuations, and infrastructure hardening—the responsibility is expected to migrate outward toward Los Angeles, Sacramento, Washington, or whoever happens to be standing nearest the microphone.
Many residents seemed to regard wildfire as a failure of government rather than a feature of the landscape they had chosen to inhabit. But the mountains had not broken their promise. The mountains had kept it. Chaparral burns. It has always burned. The surprise was not the fire. The surprise was the expectation that someone else should have prevented it. Geography is not a policy error.
The specific infrastructure battles within Malibu reveal a repetitive pattern of local preferences that actively increase long-term risk while simultaneously demanding flawless performance from the regional systems residents have partially opted out of. Consider the landscape management within Malibu and the surrounding Santa Monica Mountains. The community operates under a profound local resistance to “good fire,” favoring total suppression over ecological survival. When a 400-acre prescribed burn was proposed for the Malibu area, it was ultimately shelved due to intense public pushback over smoke, air quality, and the immediate fear of an escaped blaze.
This Malibu-centric approach to fire management creates a severe ecological debt: decades of absolute brush suppression mean an unnatural accumulation of fuel, ensuring that when a spark inevitably catches, it behaves not as a manageable burn but as a catastrophic event. Malibu residents enthusiastically support brush clearance on their own private acreages to secure individual defensible space, but aggressively resist the larger, landscape-scale operations that would actually protect the canyon as a whole.
The same structural paralysis plays out in the Malibu water grid. Plans to expand water storage tanks and build out the gravity-fed infrastructure required to maintain hydrant pressure during a major fire-flow event have languished in Malibu’s bureaucratic limbo for years. These local storage improvements are delayed not just by environmental reviews and cost allocations, but by localized disputes over whether expanding water infrastructure is simply a Trojan horse designed to invite more development into the canyons. Yet, in the immediate aftermath of a fire, when Malibu hydrants inevitably bleed dry because the upstream infrastructure lacks the capacity and redundancy to fight hundreds of structural blazes simultaneously, the resulting fury is directed entirely outward—at the county, at Los Angeles, at the failure of centralized governance.
This pattern is finalized at the regulatory level with utilities like Southern California Edison within the Malibu city limits. The immense complexity of managing vegetation around aging power poles, undergrounding lines through rugged Malibu burn scars, and implementing Public Safety Power Shutoffs is governed by a dense, slow-moving apparatus at the state level. Local resistance in Malibu routinely manifests as furious pushback against aggressive line-clearing or rate adjustments, even as the community demands immediate, total resilience from a grid built for a climate that no longer exists.
That was the deeper irony visible at the polling place. Many voters were trying to cast a ballot in a political geography that no longer matched the infrastructure geography they actually inhabit. And when those two maps diverge, politics becomes less about self-government and more about finding someone to blame.
In the aftermath of the fires, that question carries a kind of weight that doesn’t fit neatly into policy discussion. There is grief, yes, but also a kind of conversion of grief into political direction. I would call it vengeance voting—not in the sense of violence, but in the sense that the ballot becomes a ledger of perceived failures. The vote becomes a way of restoring balance, or at least attempting to.
What struck me most is how high the expectations are, and how mismatched they feel to the system that actually exists. People in Malibu expect Swiss-level services operating on what feels, in global comparison terms, closer to a South African tax burden. That is not meant as a literal fiscal analysis so much as a perception gap: expectations of precision, responsiveness, and resilience that belong to one model of the state, combined with a funding and governance structure that belongs to another.
This mismatch produces something subtle but important. It generates frustration that does not have a clean object. It circulates. It attaches itself to whoever is most visible as “the system.” Sometimes that is local government. Sometimes state government. Sometimes it expands outward into abstractions like “LA,” “Sacramento,” or even “Silicon Valley.” The target shifts depending on what part of the system has recently become visible through failure.
What becomes clear at that point is that we are living inside overlapping layers of sovereignty that no longer align cleanly. Malibu can imagine itself as a distinct local world—geographically, culturally, economically—but it is still embedded inside non-local infrastructure systems: water, energy, insurance, environmental regulation, emergency response coordination, and financial risk modeling. The sovereignty is partial, while the dependencies are total.
This is where the contradiction becomes most visible. Populist rhetoric increasingly operates at a symbolic level of “freedom from constraints”—less bureaucracy, fewer permits, more autonomy, faster action. But the material economy operates at a systems level of interdependent infrastructure. You cannot meaningfully opt out of the grid, or the insurance system, or the regulatory environment that governs fire risk, or the capital markets that price recovery.
The gap between those two levels is where the tension lives. On one side, language that promises simplification, speed, and liberation from friction. On the other, systems that only function through friction, coordination, and constraint. When those collide in real life—during a fire, during rebuilding, during insurance reassessment—the result is experienced not as structural limitation, but as incompetence or bad faith.
That is the political atmosphere I felt in Malibu: not ideological coherence, but systems stress translated into moral judgment. People are not wrong to be angry; the anger is real. But it is often aimed at the wrong scale of causality. The system is too distributed to be cleanly responsible, yet too present to feel accidental.
In that sense, voting becomes less about choosing a future and more about trying to restore legibility to a world that feels overcomplicated. The ballot is asked to do something it was not designed for: resolve a mismatch between symbolic politics and infrastructural reality.
Whether this produces reform, fragmentation, or something like a new institutional settlement is not clear. But what is clear is that the gap between what people think the system is and what the system actually is has become one of the central political facts of the moment.
<>
I was doing the Farmer’s market the sunday befoee the election and it struck ne how little you can actually do with one dollar. That moment stuck with me because it wasn’t really about the dollar. It was about the compression of expectations inside a system that has become too large, too layered, and too abstract to be emotionally legible. A dollar used to be a unit of frictionless meaning. Now it is a unit that only makes sense inside a much larger apparatus: pricing systems, subscription tiers, insurance logic, platform fees, tax layers, and all the invisible adjustments that determine what anything “really costs.” So when someone hesitates around the question of what a dollar can do, it isn’t confusion. It is recognition that the unit itself no longer maps cleanly onto lived experience.
That small hesitation becomes politically interesting when you place it back into Malibu. Because Malibu is not a place where reality is cheap. It is a place where every layer of infrastructure—housing, fire protection, insurance, permitting, rebuilding—has already been fully translated into high-resolution cost. Nothing is approximate. Everything is priced as if failure has already been modeled in advance.
So when people vote there, they are not voting inside an abstraction. They are voting inside a very concrete accumulation of costs and failures that have already been converted into monthly numbers.
This is where the contradiction sharpens.
On one side, you have a political language that still speaks in moral clarity and ideological simplification: freedom, regulation, efficiency, bureaucracy, waste. On the other side, you have a material system that is anything but simple. It is deeply entangled, computationally optimized, risk-modeled, and structurally dependent on coordination across levels that no single voter ever sees.
That is why populist rhetoric becomes so powerful and so unstable at the same time. It operates as if complexity is optional. It speaks as if constraints are decisions rather than structures. It imagines that if you remove the right layer—permits, taxes, regulators, “bureaucracy”—the system underneath will remain intact and simply become more responsive.
But what you actually see in places like Malibu is that the system underneath is not optional. It is the thing holding everything together. Remove one layer and another constraint appears immediately. Reduce regulation and insurance tightens. Accelerate building and infrastructure becomes stressed. Lower taxes and capacity contracts elsewhere. There is no clean subtraction, only redistribution of pressure.
So the political promise of “freedom from constraints” collides with the reality of “constraints all the way down.”
This is also where the earlier phrase becomes visible in practice: local sovereignty claims inside non-local infrastructure systems. Malibu can imagine autonomy, but it cannot opt out of energy pricing, insurance modeling, water systems, wildfire risk pools, or the financial architecture that determines recovery speed after disaster. Sovereignty exists at the level of identity, but not at the level of systems.
There is a specific mutation that happens when this systems stress collides with hyper-concentrated capital. In a place like Malibu, the response to a failing or over-burdened system isn’t just political resentment; it’s an attempt to buy an escape hatch. When the public grid becomes unreliable, you install industrial-grade home batteries and micro-grids. When the state’s insurance market contracts, you self-insure or hide behind bespoke offshore risk pools. When the canyon fires start moving, you hire private, engine-company defense teams to coat your specific acreage in fire-retardant gel while the rest of the hillside burns.
This is the privatization of resilience. It creates a secondary, parallel illusion of autonomy—the belief that if you have enough leverage, you can decouple your personal reality from the surrounding decay. But what makes the political atmosphere here so toxic right now is the sudden, jarring realization that this escape hatch is a fiction. You can build a fortress of private infrastructure, but you still have to drive home on Pacific Coast Highway when the rocks slide. You can bypass the domestic insurance market, but you cannot bypass the global capital markets that dictate whether your local property values retain their gravity.
When the ultra-wealthy realize that even immense capital cannot fully untangle them from the shared, burning infrastructure of a fragile coast, their anger morphs into something far more volatile than standard populism. It becomes a deeply personalized fury. The ballot is no longer just a ledger of public failure; it becomes an act of retaliation against the fact that money failed to buy an exemption from reality.
What makes Malibu particularly interesting here is the social psychology of landownership. Some residents seem to think of themselves less as participants in a metropolitan region than as proprietors of a coastal estate. The house is not merely a dwelling. It is a badge of rank. Threats to the property are experienced not merely as financial losses but as affronts to status. What struck me most was how often discussions of public safety slipped into discussions of property protection. Somewhere along the line, protecting lives became confused with protecting asset values. Saving people from a wildfire is one thing. Guaranteeing the value of luxury real estate built inside a fire-adapted ecosystem is another.
Historically, the gentry justified privilege through stewardship. The estate carried obligations. Forests had to be managed. Water had to be managed. The land itself demanded attention. Modern Malibu often preserves the privileges of landed status while outsourcing the responsibilities. The result is a kind of aristocracy without estate management: fiercely independent when discussing authority, deeply dependent when discussing assets. They wish to be treated as an independent landed class while remaining protected by a vast democratic and administrative system whose existence they prefer not to think about.
And when those two levels diverge too far, politics starts to behave strangely. It becomes less about governing and more about protest against structure itself. The ballot becomes a place where people attempt to express a feeling that has no administrative channel: that the system is too complex, too expensive, too slow, and yet also unavoidable.
That is where vengeance voting returns as a concept. It is not irrational. It is mis-scaled. It is a response to a world in which causality has become distributed beyond the reach of everyday explanation. The vote becomes an attempt to reattach agency to something that still feels reachable.
But the deeper problem remains. The system that produces Malibu’s reality is not designed to be emotionally legible at street level. It is designed to function. And when functioning itself becomes indistinguishable from constraint, then every outcome begins to feel like a choice someone made against you. That is the tension running underneath everything. Not collapse. Not clarity. But a widening gap between lived experience and system explanation, where politics becomes the language we use to translate that gap into something we can temporarily act upon.
This is where the hesitation over the single dollar connects directly back to this slow transition into systemic senescence. The reason a dollar no longer feels like a unit of frictionless meaning is because it is no longer allowed to simply buy a thing. In a senescent society, every single transaction is quietly carrying the invisible, accumulated debt of maintenance. When you spend a dollar today, a massive fraction of that unit is immediately siphoned off to stabilize a legacy network—underwriting a bankrupt state insurance fund, subsidizing an aging healthcare apparatus, or patchworking a power grid that was built for a climate that no longer exists.
The dollar has been compressed because it is working double-time just to hold the baseline steady. We experience this on the ground as inflation, or service fees, or regulatory overhead—the sheer, exhausting friction of everything costing twice as much to do half as much.
In Malibu, this compression is absolute. The high-resolution costs people pay every month are not investments in a more resilient future; they are massive premiums paid to prevent immediate structural backsliding. The dollar is no longer an engine of forward motion. It is a structural sandbag.
There is also a Batesonian dimension underneath all of this that I didn’t fully see at first, but that keeps resurfacing once you start looking at systems instead of events. Gregory Bateson’s way of thinking was never really about individual behavior. It was about feedback loops—how systems learn, or fail to learn, from their own consequences. And what I keep noticing, moving through places like Malibu during moments of stress, is that the feedback loops are still there, but they are increasingly delayed, distorted, or split across too many institutions to form a coherent signal.
The most obvious version of this is demographic.
Nobody planned the symbolism, but there it was. The political arguments filling the room were about failure: fire response, insurance, rebuilding, governance, cost. Yet the room itself belonged to a different economy entirely. Not an economy of growth. An economy of maintenance.
That distinction feels increasingly important.
For most of the twentieth century, Americans became accustomed to living inside systems optimized for expansion. More roads. More houses. More consumption. More credit. More throughput. Political language still assumes that world exists. It still speaks in the vocabulary of acceleration.
But the Senior Center room in Malibu suggested something else. What if the dominant function of the system is no longer expansion? We are living inside a long transition into senescence at scale. Not just individuals aging, but a population structure shifting into a higher baseline of care dependency, medical complexity, and extended end-of-life management. This is not a moral claim about any generation. It is a systems claim about timing.
The institutions we have—healthcare, insurance, taxation, family structure, housing—were not designed around this distribution. They were designed around a shorter arc of life, a clearer separation between working age and retirement, and a much lower degree of medical intervention at the far end of life. That world no longer exists in the same way.
What matters, from a Batesonian perspective, is not the aging itself, but the way the system registers it. Because the cost of senescence is not felt in a single place. It is diffused across:
healthcare pricing, insurance premiums, public budgets, family stress, housing constraints,
and eventually political resentment.
By the time it becomes visible, it is no longer legible as a single phenomenon. It arrives instead as inflation, taxation pressure, “waste,” bureaucratic overload, or generational blame. The signal has already been translated into arguments. That is the key Bateson point: the system is still responding, but the response is arriving in the wrong language and at the wrong level of abstraction.
And once you see that, a lot of the political atmosphere in places like Malibu starts to look less like ideology and more like delayed feedback misfiring. People are reacting to constraints they did not design, but which they experience as immediate moral failure. A fire becomes a question of governance competence. Insurance becomes a question of fairness. Rebuilding becomes a question of who is blocking whom. Voting becomes a way of forcing the system to acknowledge that something is out of alignment.
This is where the earlier pattern returns: vengeance voting is not really about punishment in a personal sense. It is an attempt to restore feedback. To make the system feel responsive again by attaching consequence to decision.
The problem is that the system being voted on is not a single system. It is layered. Local sovereignty sits inside regional infrastructure. Regional infrastructure sits inside financial models. Financial models sit inside global capital flows. And senescence—this slow demographic shift—cuts through all of it without belonging to any one layer.
So when feedback arrives, it is always partially misaddressed. What looks like incoherence in political rhetoric is often just the collision of incompatible levels of explanation: symbolic politics on one side, material constraint on the other, and between them a system that no longer translates cleanly between the two.
Bateson would probably say that when a system starts producing persistent miscommunication between levels of learning, it doesn’t necessarily collapse. It starts to generate what look like pathologies: overreaction, simplification, moral substitution, cyclical blame. And from inside it, those pathologies feel like everything is getting worse.
But what is actually happening is more specific, and less dramatic: the system is still learning, but it is learning through distorted feedback channels that no longer map cleanly onto the world they are trying to describe.
That is the atmosphere I kept sensing in Malibu.
Not breakdown.
But miscalibration at scale.
Senescence, taken seriously, isn’t just “people getting older.” It’s the point where biological time starts to reorganize political and economic time—and systems that were designed for expansion begin to behave like they are running a different operating system, one that no longer prioritizes growth but maintenance.
At the individual level, senescence means familiar biological realities: declining cellular repair, the accumulation of chronic conditions, increasing dependence on external care systems, and the extension of the interval between autonomy and death. What appears at first as a medical phenomenon, however, becomes something different when aggregated across millions of people. At scale, senescence ceases to be primarily biological and becomes infrastructural. It manifests as a structural increase in maintenance demand across the entire social system.
This matters because modern economies are not organized around maintenance. They are organized around growth, throughput, productivity, and forward motion. The language of policy assumes acceleration. It assumes expansion. Senescence quietly reverses that ratio. More resources are required simply to sustain existing life, while less marginal capacity remains available for novelty, investment, or expansion. What once functioned primarily as a production system gradually begins to operate according to a different logic.
A growth society is organized around a relatively simple sequence: education, work, consumption, and investment. A senescent society drifts toward another sequence altogether: healthcare, insurance, housing stability, assisted dependency, and end-of-life management. The shift is not merely economic. It is definitional. The central function of the system ceases to be the production of new output and becomes the continuity of biological existence. Yet much political language remains calibrated to an earlier reality. It continues to describe the system as though its primary purpose were generating growth when an increasing share of social resources is devoted to preserving stability and sustaining what already exists.
This is where a Batesonian perspective becomes useful. In a relatively young system, feedback loops are comparatively clear. Consequences return quickly, costs remain legible, and institutions can adapt through visible signals. Learning occurs because the relationship between action and outcome remains relatively direct. In a senescent system those loops begin to distort. Costs are deferred, sometimes for decades. Responsibility becomes distributed across families, governments, insurers, debt structures, and medical institutions. Outcomes are buffered through layers of financial and technological mediation. The system continues to respond, but it no longer learns cleanly.
The result is that underlying signals arrive translated into other forms. Healthcare inflation becomes the signal. Fiscal stress becomes the signal. Housing distortion becomes the signal. Generational resentment becomes the signal. Yet none of these phenomena are named for what they actually represent. They enter public consciousness already transformed into political arguments. Ideology begins to crystallize around conditions that are not, in themselves, ideological.
Because senescence lacks political legibility, it tends to be expressed through moral vocabulary. Debates emerge around tax burdens, welfare expansion, intergenerational theft, bureaucratic inefficiency, or systemic collapse. Beneath these disputes lies something simpler and less dramatic: a large cohort entering prolonged dependency while the productive base shrinks relative to the demand for care. This is not primarily a moral claim. It is structural arithmetic.
For that reason senescence often feels like decline without producing actual collapse. It rarely generates singular moments of failure. Instead it produces friction. Institutions continue to function, but they become slower, more expensive, and more heavily mediated. The system does not break. It thickens. What emerges is a distinctive emotional atmosphere characterized by stagnation, resentment, exhaustion, and a pervasive sense of unfairness whose source remains difficult to identify. Human beings are accustomed to interpreting the loss of acceleration as the loss of vitality itself. A society optimized for continuity under constraint can therefore feel lifeless even while remaining operational.
In Malibu this dynamic ceases to be abstract. It appears in insurance curves that move in only one direction, in rebuilding timelines that extend beyond ordinary horizons of memory, and in permitting systems that seem calibrated to conditions that no longer exist. It appears in a population increasingly exposed to two forms of fragility simultaneously: the fragility of the landscape and the fragility of the body. Senescence here is not a demographic statistic but a lived compression between vulnerability and delay.
From the outside, what appears as ideology or political disagreement is often this underlying mismatch struggling to find language. The system continues to respond, yet it responds in temporal forms that no longer correspond to how people experience time. This is the Batesonian failure mode: not collapse, but miscalibration across levels of learning. Once that miscalibration stabilizes, politics gradually ceases to be a process for solving problems within the system and becomes a struggle to force the system to acknowledge that something fundamental has drifted out of scale.
Leave a Reply