Erika D. Smith: Newsom Is too elitist to lead states' fight against Trump

California Governor Gavin Newsom knows a political opportunity when he sees one. That’s why it should come as no surprise that the ambitious lame-duck leader of the nation’s most liberal state has wasted no time picking a fight with President-elect Donald Trump.

Already, Newsom has announced that he’s convening a special legislative session to strengthen the state’s immigration and abortion rights laws. He also traveled to Washington to lobby the Biden administration to “Trump-proof” federal funding for disasters, climate change, and health care.

“We must assert ourselves,” Newsom told supporters of his Campaign for Democracy PAC, explaining over Zoom that the “onus” is on California to act — not only for Californians but all Americans.

If that sounds a bit presumptuous, that’s because it is — especially coming from the governor of the state that’s home to the Democratic presidential candidate who just lost the election. It’s also precisely the sort of rhetoric, coming from exactly the kind of person, that the Democratic Party is shying away from right now.

Newsom is angling to be a leading voice — if not the leading voice — in what Democrats have come to call the “resistance,” a loose coalition of politicians, activists, advocacy groups and party officials, all working in various capacities to oppose Trump. It would reprise Newsom's role during the president-elect’s first term when California, with its unparalleled population and resources, became a counterweight to MAGA, leading other states in dozens of lawsuits to stymie Trump’s agenda.

Politically, this makes sense for Newsom. It would help him to stay relevant when his final term ends in 2026 and could be a steppingstone to launching a widely expected bid for the White House in 2028. But Newsom clearly hasn’t given enough thought to whether he’s the right messenger for this incredibly fraught moment.

He’s not. Consider some of what has been made plain since Election Day.

Trump is on track to become the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years. He won every swing state and made gains with almost every demographic — including women and Latino voters and, to a lesser extent, Black, Arab American and younger voters. Americans also shifted to the right on several down-ballot races, handing Republicans control of both the House and Senate.

While there’s still a robust debate about why so many voted the way they did, Democrats seem to agree on a couple of points. First, the party has lost its mojo with voters without college degrees, particularly White people and men of all races. Second, the party only seems to do well with college-educated voters, a bloc that some call “elites,” and that’s not big enough to win elections alone.

Enter Newsom with his slicked-back hair and Hollywood smile. He screams “coastal elite” without saying a word. Unfortunately, when he does say something, he also sounds like a coastal elite, dropping words like “iterative” and “determinative” into casual conversation. Indeed, Newsom is a wonk to his core, even when he’s joking with former NFL player Marshawn Lynch on their podcast, “Politickin’.”

But what’s probably working against Newsom most right now are his progressive politics. On that Zoom call with supporters, he extolled the virtues of pluralism. He promised to defend, not demonize marginalized communities, including undocumented immigrants and transgender Americans, saying that California is coming from “a place of moral authority.”

“I believe our values are universal values,” Newsom said, “...American values.”

If only that were true. Maybe it was eight years ago when Trump was first elected president. But now, as we prepare to inaugurate him a second time after a campaign that trafficked in racism and sexism, there’s momentum among Democrats to ditch Newsom’s brand of identity politics, believing it cost them the election.

This is one reason Donna Brazile, former chair of the Democratic National Committee and an ally of Vice President Kamala Harris, has been calling for Democrats to engage in “deep introspection” before making any kneejerk decisions about a leader, messaging or strategy.

“With Hillary’s defeat, we said, the majority of us voted against that, and we felt like we could resist,” she told Politico. This year, “the American people rejected normalcy, decency, morality, and they chose Trump. Let’s sit with that.”

She’s right. But that advice is unlikely to sit well with Democrats who are looking to do something — anything — about Trump. Activists have planned several protests, including a People’s March in Washington in January.

Other Democratic politicians have stepped up, too. New York Governor Kathy Hochul warned Trump: “If you try to harm New Yorkers or roll back their rights, I will fight you every step of the way.” Governors JB Pritzker of Illinois and Jared Polis of Colorado have launched a coalition to bolster state institutions called Governors Safeguarding Democracy.

No matter what, Democrats need messengers who are steadfast in their beliefs but with a measure of humility as they try to explain the need to resist to the majority of Americans who believe Trump is the solution to their problems. (Trump, with his problematic Cabinet appointments, is certainly helping Democrats make that case.) Otherwise, the party risks reinforcing the narrative that it’s full of elites who think they know what’s better for the masses than the masses do for themselves. That’s a recipe sure to lead to more losses at the polls.

To Newsom’s credit, he has said that his job “isn’t to get up every day and try to put a crowbar in the spokes of the wheel of the Trump administration,” but that California “will stand firm.” That makes sense. Democrats must prepare for the worst with Trump. Governors, legislatures and attorneys general must shore up their laws to protect residents.

Newsom was right to be in Washington lobbying on behalf of California. Picking fights is only the beginning.

_____

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

_____