Two weeks ago, California Governor Gavin Newsom utterly embarrassed himself in an hour-long episode of his new podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom,” with his inaugural guest, the famously small-faced Charlie Kirk.
Newsom has long been considered a contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, and has been not-so-subtly trying to build his national profile in recent times. Last year, for instance, he debated Florida’s Governor Ron Desantis on Fox News in a shitshow where neither man came out looking great.
Newsom did not learn his lesson, going out of his way to display his morally bankrupt, power-hungry nature once again. At least against DeSantis, Newsom stood by his positions and exhibited his apparent addiction to dismantling Republican talking points. But of his own volition, on his own show, he both betrayed much of his own party’s platform and seemed an incompetent debater incapable of defending his positions.
The one bright side is that this might finally end his chances of ascending to any higher office.
The most viral moment from the discussion is when Newsom completely capitulates on one of the right’s most treasured issues: directing the might of the federal government to ruin the lives of the minuscule number of transgender athletes (fewer than 0.002% of the NCAA) to quell a manufactured moral panic. Kirk spewed his talking points unopposed, with only the mildest of pushback from Newsom, which consisted of encouraging conservatives to have “a heart” for trans athletes.
It should not need to be said that Kirk did not concede this point.
Meanwhile, Newsom conceded that he is “totally aligned” with conservatives, while simultaneously touting his licensing of same-sex marriages decades ago during his time as mayor of San Francisco. It became clear that Newsom believes he can boost his chances in a hypothetical 2028 general election by throwing vulnerable Americans under the bus.
Newsom’s failure was not limited to just that issue. Not once did he attack Kirk for his history of anti-semitism, anti-vaccine fear mongering or destruction of public education. Instead, on each topic of discussion, he invariably adopted Kirk’s skewed conservative framing, eschewed potentially sensible rebuttals and positioned himself as a “uniquely reasonable” Democrat for having the temerity to question supposed progressive orthodoxy. There’s a term for this duplicity: triangulation. Again and again, Newsom triangulates.
Instead of standing by his historically well-articulated positions on criminal justice reform, Newsom called police reform “lunacy.” Despite designating California as a sanctuary state, he reassured a salivating Kirk that he was heavily cooperating with ICE in their efforts to abandon due process and carry out mass deportations; Newsom astonishingly acquiesced on what Kirk deems “quality of life,” remarking that he “agrees with [Kirk] especially.”
Now is a good time to remind the reader that consistently, states run by Democrats have higher quality of life (as measured by HDI), better healthcare outcomes, better public services and higher wages than those run by Republicans. For a potential 2028 candidate to suggest that Republicans are winning on “quality of life” indicates that the candidate might be better suited to run in a Republican primary.
I will give Newsom the tiniest bit of credit for criticizing the unholy alliance between conservatives, like those on the Huntington Beach council who claimed to be environmentalists to block housing development. Kirk seemed legitimately uncomfortable with Newsom’s legitimate threats to sue cities for their “rank NIMBYism,” including those he deemed as “[Kirk]’s friends.” However, this section of the interview was relatively mild, and buried within another hour of conciliatory concessions — it is simply too little from a candidate who expects us to see him as a fighter.
Like with Senator Chuck Schumer’s vote for the Republican continuing resolution, Newsom demonstrates a doomed strategy of appealing to fictional voters, which will not help him in the slightest. It is clear that voters are not on his side: Newsom is polling around 50% in his own state, after he polled at 27% when he was eyeing a presidential candidacy. While it is true that the Democratic Party is at a terribly low approval rating, this has been driven by Democrats dissatisfied with their party’s leadership. Democrats want a fighter, not a collaborator, with more than a 30-point swing since 2017.
Here’s where the most annoying members of the media circus will jump in — isn’t it good to have conversations with people you disagree with? Isn’t it just so important that in America, you can vehemently disagree with someone and then agree to have a beer after?
Newsom attempted to do exactly that, but lacked the backbone to actually disagree with or challenge his guest.
Let’s consider the more likely scenario here: Either Gavin Newsom is rediscovering the benefits of the Socratic method in reevaluating his personal political philosophy, which for the previous twenty years has been seemingly quite staunchly center-left, or he’s decided that it’s more politically expedient for him to pretend to be a Republican. I’ll say one thing in conclusion: Good luck in 2028, governor.
Akshay Seetharam HM ’27 is better known for making TSL’s crosswords every other week. He was quite dejected last November after California voters roundly rejected far-left, radical liberal propositions like “raising the minimum wage” and “banning slavery.” If you know Senator Whitehouse (D-RI), tell him to work on fulfilling the promise of his last name.
Facebook Comments