Perhaps Gov. Gavin Newsom was channeling his inner Republican when he hosted conservative commentator Charlie Kirk for an 81-minute interview on the debut of his new podcast last week. Indeed, much of what Newsom talked about was immediately cheered by the very partisans who usually loathe him.
But polls tell us that nothing Newsom said was particularly controversial with many Americans, and undoubtedly many Californians. Still, his comments, particularly on transgender athletes participating in women’s sports, caused a significant stir with some California Democrats. In fact, the state’s Legislative LGBTQ Caucus responded that it was “profoundly sickened and frustrated” by Newsom’s musings on the topic.
That California Democrats may be out of touch with many voters in their own state should not be a surprise. It is a direct result of the lack of political competition they have faced in the Golden State since the last Republican left statewide office nearly 15 years ago.
But the implications for California of a one-party monopoly are more than political. One-party rule results in a lack of innovative policy thinking; little to no accountability for state spending or policy outcomes and an absence of true debate on critical issues.
This is not a problem limited to Democrats in Sacramento. One-party rule, regardless of where it happens and who is in charge, generates these challenges. It’s just
pervasive in California, where Democrats’ complete stranglehold on our statewide leadership structure has been in place for a long time.
Consider, for example, Newsom’s reaction to the devastating wildfires that hit Southern California in January. The two laws he suspended by executive action to ease rebuilding of lost homes and properties — the California Environmental Quality Act, better known as CEQA, and the California Coastal Act — are in desperate need of basic reform. And this wasn’t the first time Newsom unilaterally waived such laws. In 2019, he took similar steps to suspend CEQA to accelerate fire prevention efforts in the wake of deadly wildfires in Northern California.
The governor did the right thing in these cases. But that’s beside the point. Unfortunately, there has been little appetite among Democrats in Sacramento to pass the fundamental reforms to both CEQA and the Coastal Act that would obviate the need to suspend the laws when tragedy strikes and make it easier to build more housing and move ahead on the kinds of development that would bolster economic growth in the state.
So, too, has one-party governance hindered oversight and accountability for state spending and benefit programs. One well-publicized example: The ongoing saga of massive fraud in the state’s unemployment insurance system administered by the Employment Development Department.
The employment department’s failures were predictable but, unfortunately, unaddressed by Sacramento’s one-party leadership. The problems extend back as far as 2013, when beneficiaries experienced delayed payments and the agency saw an uptick in identity theft and bad claims, all the way through 2020-21, when it made more than $20 billion in fraudulent payouts. Despite efforts by the small Republican contingent in the state Legislature to cast light on these failings, the agency remained immune from true accountability until the pandemic-era disaster struck. And even with national attention on its failings, as of the end of 2024, the Employment Development Department was still having difficulty stopping fraud and delivering benefits to those who need them.
Finally, Californians are aware of the real-world challenges created by the state’s largely unconstrained shift toward soft-on-crime justice policies. Progressive district attorneys in major counties and one state attorney general after another — including the current Democrat who occupies the office, Rob Bonta — repeatedly made the argument that leeway and forbearance were needed in lieu of efforts to aggressively enforce the law. A majority of the state’s voters made this even easier by passing a ballot measure in 2014, Proposition 47, that downgraded certain drug and theft crimes to misdemeanors.
In this instance at least, we have seen the power of public accountability and the pushback against single-party orthodoxy: In the November elections, voters resoundingly passed a ballot measure that overturned Proposition 47 and reinstated or even strengthened the penalties for the same crimes. And recently, from San Francisco to Los Angeles, progressive district attorneys have been dispatched for moderate prosecutors who came to power promising more law and order.
Newsom called out his own party for falling out of touch with the average Californian in his podcast. But what’s needed for change is the state’s voters deciding to deliver a different political outcome at the ballot box. The green shoots of this movement have been seen in the soft-on-crime backlash and in post-wildfire efforts to bring accountability to the Los Angeles mayor’s office after years of Democratic leadership in the city appear to have contributed to a lack of far-sighted disaster preparedness.
Californians may remain progressive in their politics but should look to elect at least some officials who aren’t in lockstep with the ruling party and will hold others in power accountable. Change will require real debate and a greater representation of divergent views in Sacramento and throughout the state. Getting there is ultimately in voters’ hands in elections to come.
Lanhee J. Chen is an American public policy fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was a Republican candidate for California state controller in 2022.
