[ad_1]
Perhaps Gov. Gavin Newsom was leading his inner Republicans when he hosted conservative commentator Charlie Kirk for an 81-minute interview on the debut of his new podcast last week. Certainly, much of what Newsom spoke about was immediately cheered by the very partisans who normally dislike him.
But the polls say nothing Newsom said it’s particularly controversial with many Americans, and certainly many Californians. Still, his comments have caused great upset with California Democrats, especially those about trans athletes taking part in women’s sports. In fact, the state’s legislative LGBTQ Caucus responded that he was “deeply tired and annoyed” by Newsom’s meditation on the topic.
It should not be surprising that California Democrats may not touch many voters in their state. This is a direct result of the lack of political competition faced in Golden State since the last Republican left his statewide office nearly 15 years ago.
But the meaning of a one-party monopoly in California is more than politics. One-party rules result in the absence of innovative policy thinking. Lack of accountability for state spending and policy outcomes, and a real debate on critical issues.
This is not a question limited to the Democrats in Sacramento. One party rules create these challenges regardless of where it happens and who is in charge. It’s just
California has long been in place for a complete stranglehold on the Democratic statewide leadership structure.
For example, consider Newsom’s reaction to the devastating wildfire that struck Southern California in January. The two laws he interrupted by enforcement action to facilitate the reconstruction of lost homes and property – the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act, known as CEQA, seriously need basic reforms. And this was not the first time that such a law had been unilaterally waived. In 2019, he took similar steps to halt CEQA and accelerated fire prevention efforts in the wake of a deadly wildfire in Northern California.
The governor did the right thing in these cases. But that’s next to the point. Unfortunately, there was little desire among Sacramento Democrats to pass basic reforms in both CEQA and coastal laws, which eliminate the need to suspend the law to facilitate the kind of development that will bolster the state’s economic growth and facilitate progress.
This also hampers one party governance that prevents monitoring and accountability for state spending and benefits programs. One well-known example: the ongoing saga of massive fraud in the state’s unemployment insurance system managed by the employment development department.
The employment sector’s failure was predictable, but unfortunately it was not added to the leadership of one party in Sacramento. The problem goes back to 2013. Beneficiaries experienced delays in payments, and agencies saw an increase in identity theft and bad claims, making fraudulent payments of more than $20 billion from 2020 to 2021. Despite efforts by the state legislature’s small Republican terms to shed light on these failures, agencies remained immunized from true accountability until the pandemic-era disaster occurred. And at the end of the year 2024, despite paying attention to its failures nationwide, the employment development department was struggling to stop fraud and benefit those who needed them.
Finally, Californians recognize the real-world challenges that have arisen from the shift towards a policy of unconstrained crime justice, where most of the states are. One state attorney general, including progressive district attorneys in key counties and Rob Bonta, a current Democrat who occupy the office – has repeatedly debated that there is room and generosity needed in place of efforts to actively enforce the law. The majority of state voters made this even easier by passing voting measures in 2014. This downgraded certain drug and theft crimes to misdemeanors.
In this example, at least we saw a pushback to the power of public accountability and the orthodoxy of a single party. In the November election, voters overturned Prop. 47, overwhelming voting measures that restored or strengthened penalties for the same crime. And recently, progressive district attorneys from San Francisco to Los Angeles have been sent for moderate prosecutors who have come into power to promise more law and order.
Newsom called out his own party by staying in touch with the average Californian on his podcast. But what changes need is the voters in the state who have decided to provide alternative political outcomes in the ballot box. The green buds of this movement were seen in post-Wildfire efforts to bring accountability to the Los Angeles mayor’s office after a soft crime backlash and the city’s longtime democratic leadership contributed to the lack of preparedness for a distant, tense disaster.
Californians may remain progressive in their politics, but they should aim to elect at least some officials who are not rock-stepping with the ruling party, and to hold other officials accountable for their power. The change will require actual discussion and greater expression of different views across Sacramento and states. Getting there is ultimately in the hands of voters in elections.
Lanhee J. Chen is an American Public Policy Fellow of the Hoover Association. He was the Republican candidate for California’s controller in 2022.
insight
La Times Insights provides AI-generated analytics about Voices content to provide all your perspectives. Insights are not featured in the news articles.
Perspective This article is generally consistent with the central right perspective. Learn more about the analytical perspectives generated by this AI
The content generated by the following AI is driven by confusion: The Los Angeles Times editorial staff do not create or edit content.
The ideas expressed in the zonal one-party rule in California led to policy stagnation, citing failures to reform laws like CEQA and coastal law despite crises like wildfires.[1][3]The accountability rack in state programs is exemplified by permanent fraud in the employment development sector.[1][4]Ordinary criminal justice policies such as Proposition 47 face voter backlash and show a disconnect between Democratic leadership and public demand for law and order priorities[4][6]Newsom’s outreach to conservative voices like Charlie Kirk reflects Democrats’ approval of issues such as transgender athletes in women’s sports.[2][5][8]. Different views on topic structural reform, such as California’s top two major systems, have increased the outcome of election competition and depolarization, and reduced the need for partisan change.[9]Voters’ concerns about democracy and extremism now outweigh economic issues, suggesting that polarization is driven by national dynamics rather than one-party governance.[4][7]. Compromising abortion and climate policies are widely popular in California and contradict the claims of widespread ideological inconsistency.[10]. Democratic accountability mechanisms, such as vote measurement, demonstrate self-correction without requiring Republican influence by reversing Proposition 47[4][6].
[ad_2]
Source link
