California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is doing something unforgivable: He’s having lengthy conversations with people he disagrees with. Worse yet, he’s not even informing them about how wrong their worldviews are.
Newsom recently launched a podcast called This is Gavin Newsom. The show is advertised as a way for Newsom to sit down with a wide range of political thinkers, with a special emphasis on MAGA personalities who see politics very differently than Democrats do. So far, it’s living up to its billing: Newsom has already interviewed conservative activist and Trump’s Gen Z whisperer Charlie Kirk, conservative commentator Michael Savage, and MAGA media mogul Steve Bannon, who was recently released from prison. Kirk and Bannon, in particular, have been branded by the left as deeply evil and racist hatemongers, and their appearances drew an intense reaction online.
Newsom’s project has rightly sparked a lot of speculation about his intentions to hop into the 2028 presidential race, including from me (on last week’s Sunday podcast, I said his podcast was basically his campaign announcement). It’s also birthed a neverending stream of criticism.
“What on Earth Is Gavin Newsom Doing?” Michelle Goldberg asked in The New York Times.
“Newsom tries to use right-wing influencers to fix his image. Don’t fall for it,” Dace Potas wrote in USA Today.
“Gov. Newsom could step up to be the leader California needs. Instead, he made a podcast,” a letter to the editor in the Sacramento Bee read.
“Why is Gavin Newsom handing Steve Bannon a megaphone?” Margaret Sullivan asked in The Guardian, perhaps unaware that Bannon himself has one of the most popular podcasts in the world.
Others branded the podcast “cringe” or said it “backfired.” The conservative account LibsOfTikTok called Newsom out for lying when he claimed he never used the term “Latinx.” Anti-Trump Republican Adam Kinzinger said he was “in shock at the stupidity” of Newsom having Bannon on his show, calling it “unforgivable and insane.” In reaction to the podcast, Newsom’s favorability among liberals cratered, dropping from 46% to 30%; the same polling showed Republicans overwhelmingly believed him to be insincere, calling him “fake” and “pandering.” The show now has an abysmal 2.8 out of 5 star rating on Apple podcasts.
Which, honestly, is a shame. I actually listened to the episodes with Kirk and Bannon, and I have to say… I quite liked them. A few things about Newsom’s approach stood out to me as remarkable and novel:
First, it’s incredible that these conversations happened at all. Many liberals and Democrats claim to be open minded to right-wing ideas but limit their intake of conservative media to exclusively never-Trump Republicans who share a great deal of their worldview. Newsom didn’t launch a purportedly ideologically diverse podcast and then invite, say, David French of the New York Times. He immediately brought on guests who — as the commentary above demonstrates — are considered off limits to a lot of people in left-wing bubbles. Newsom’s decision to sit down for a lengthy interview with someone like Kirk or Bannon is even more extraordinary given his status — he’s not a journalist or influencer; he’s a politician, and a rather prominent one at that.
Second, both discussions I listened to were cordial, despite the radical differences in worldview between host and guest. Neither devolved into shouting matches or ad hominem attacks, and Newsom even managed to laugh off a few barbs from Kirk and Bannon that were clearly bait intended to send the conversation off the rails.
Third, and perhaps most impressive, Newsom didn’t use the interviews to defend his record, preach his own views, or try to prove his guests wrong. He spent almost the entirety of both interviews asking questions — that is, actually trying to better understand the perspective of his guests. Bannon, who I happen to think is a dishonorable liar, made several reasonable points and conducted himself with a good deal of candor and grace. I learned more about his worldview, and while I still loathe much of what he’s done to degrade our politics (not to mention to screw over fellow Trump supporters), I left better understanding how and why he believes what he believes. Newsom got him to act like a normal human being and also gave him space to state his opinions clearly.
I simply cannot overemphasize how refreshing that is. Sadly, I can’t understate how unsurprising it was to see it get pilloried by the left.
Michelle Goldberg said she was “open to the idea” of Newsom’s podcast until she realized “the governor frequently seems less interested in arguing than in finding common ground, assuming the good faith of people who have next to none.” Read that again: Goldberg was “open” to the idea of the podcast until she realized Newsom might emphasize common ground or let guests speak uninterrupted, rather than debating all of them until, presumably, they submitted to the worldviews she shares with Newsom. That is not, actually, what being open-minded or curious is about; and perhaps more to the point, it’s the same unoriginal approach happening all across the media that has continued to degrade political dialogue (and has completely failed the left politically).
In MSNBC, Zeeshan Aleem said Newsom “allowed Bannon to casually lie about the 2020 election without pushback, and to define right-wing populism as ‘anti-elitist’ without any substantive objection about Trump’s billionaire-friendly presidency.” I have interacted with Aleem a few times and believe him to be an honest broker, but I don’t think either of these characterizations are quite right. On the former, Bannon preempted Newsom’s pushback by saying “they did steal — according to us — the 2020 election,” pushback Newsom smoothly applied by audibly laughing at the absurdity of this position. And on the latter, Newsom pushed back directly and verbally, leading to an extended exchange about Elon Musk and the billionaires Trump has courted into his administration. Like Goldberg, Aleem concluded his criticism of the show by bemoaning the fact that “it wasn’t a debate.”
Was Newsom at times disingenuous or dodgy? Yes, he was. That is sort of his entire brand — he’s a tall, handsome, slippery, car salesman-like talker who is extremely good at political comms. But at least he is in the arena with these people having open conversations, allowing them to be critical of his own perspectives, asking smart questions, and conceding the obvious reality that Democrats are out to sea right now. That’s far more than most Democratic politicians or pundits can say. I really can’t think of any other well known elected Democrat who has had the kind of candor about their party’s political weaknesses that Newsom displayed in these conversations (aside from maybe Bernie Sanders, though he’s an independent and that is his entire brand).
The show, and its implied purpose, certainly invites reasonable criticism. In USA Today, Potas warned his readers that Newsom is “trying to find votes and support,” and “most of all… power,” not necessarily consensus. I think that is probably true.
Goldberg also made a couple of reasonable suggestions about places where Newsom could have pushed back. For instance, Newsom is well within his rights to change his position on trans women in sports, which he seemed to do during his interview with Kirk. But, for his own benefit, if Newsom is going to simultaneously claim to champion LGBT rights (which he did on the show), he’s going to come off as a rather weak-kneed champion if he doesn’t push Kirk about his previously stated view that trans women were “disgusting, mentally ill, neurotic, predatory freaks.” He also might have interjected when Kirk described his organization, Turning Point USA, as some kind of gritty start-up that blossomed through Kirk’s college campus appearances; it was backed by a Tea Party activist and seed money from a deep-pocketed evangelical megadonor.
These are all fair callouts, but again, they’re smaller criticisms within a much more important, larger thrust of his show. Newsom is doing something few liberal members of the media ever do, let alone left-of-center politicians: He’s sitting with scarlet-lettered conservatives and trying to better understand them. As self-serving as Newsom’s intentions might be, the dialogue is earnest — and there is very little “gotcha” nonsense or the kind of thunderdome moments that we frequently see on CNN or Fox News.
For all of that, I’m grateful; and I found the show genuinely appealing. It’s not just in the Tangle ethos, but it’s an encouraging sign of where our political leaders could be headed and a healthy response from a leader in a party that just lost a lot of power in the last election. We should all want more of this, not less, if we have any hope of our country stepping back from the abyss. |
