Gavin Newsom is the outgoing Governor of California and a would-be President. His background is that of the bizarre time that was California in the 80s and the early 90s, and his idiosyncrasies reflect that duality.
Newsom's father was a corporate lawyer and a judge appointed to the bench by Governor Jerry Brown, in the 1970s. His Mother, Tessa Menzies, was a Secretary who later put herself through college and was never wealthy. His father, meanwhile, was best friends with the Getty family; the Los Angeles Times wrote about this when Newsom first ran for statewide office (Lieutenant Governor) in 2010:
As a child, Newsom was whipsawed between competing realities: living with a mother who worked three jobs and vacationing with the Gettys, meeting the famous Leakeys in Africa or visiting Hudson Bay to see polar bears denning.
“Gordon Getty is someone who has very significantly shaped me,” Newsom said during an interview in his downtown campaign headquarters. But, he added, “My name is Newsom, not Getty. No trust funds in my life.”
The duality of that experience, which is pretty common in California where lots of people know wealth, but where few are truly wealthy, shaped Newsom's politics. Unlike our current President, Newsom generally champions what he sees as the underdog--whether it was gay couples who wanted to marry in the mid 2000s; service industry workers who didn't have access to health care in the late 2000s; or making major structural reforms to California government that address delays in permitting that spawned a decades long housing affordability crisis in California, Newsom's biggest policy achievements have generally benefited the middle and working class.
But unlike Democratic Socialist Politicians, Newsom also wants to be accepted by, and support, the business community. Part of this is natural for any Governor of California--they need to retain good relations with major employers...the titans in the tech and entertainment industries. The tech industry has shifted dramatically to the right in the Trump era. And the California entertainment is struggling, with conservative tech billionaires presenting themselves as a savior to an industry under threat from things like artificial intelligence models ripping off intellectual property.
So it's within that context that Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, is trying to do what seem to be two mutually exclusive things: run a campaign progressive enough to win the nomination but moderate enough to carry Georgia and Pennsylvania. It's the threading of the needle that Newsom has done throughout his career.
And it leads to things like him appearing on a podcast with Ben Shapiro and moderating past progressive statements.
I don't know that I would vote for Gavin Newsom in a primary. Currently, I would probably vote for Tim Walz over Newsom were he to run; and it'd be a tough choice between Newsom and Alexandria O'Casio Cortez for me. I basically think Newsom's heart is in the right place, but I worry he'd be too friendly to AI companies and that such friendliness would create epic political problems for the Democratic Party, as the only thing less popular than JD Vance on the polls are AI models. I think Walz or AOC wouldn't have the deep relationships with tech industry titans that any politician from California has to have, so I trust them more to appropriately regulate that industry.
On the other hand, a hundred years ago the Governor of New York was the politician who was the friendliest with the trusts that ruled the day. When that Governor of New York, who had a relatively privileged upbringing but who like Newsom has seen the world beyond wealth, ascended to the Vice Presidency and Presidency, he became the worst enemy of the monopolies and passed bills which controlled corporate excesses for nearly a century.
I am not saying that Gavin Newsom would be like Theodore Roosevelt, but the chances of that are much, much better than the chances of the charlatan who is JD Vance finding his inner TR. And even at his worst, Newsom is still light years ahead of the current administration, and would do some good in office. So while I think it's fine to not support him in a primary (heck, I might not), and to pressure him to be better, I think attacking people who have a 1/4 chance of being the only candidate between us and a JD Vance Presidency (or God forbid a Don Jr one) is misguided at best.
