By Matt Underwood It seems there’s quite a bit of strong feeling brewing, particularly from the left, regarding Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent pronouncements on Democratic messaging strategy. The sentiment appears to be that his advice, rather than being strategic, is dangerously out of touch and potentially self-destructive for the party.
The core of the criticism seems to stem from Newsom’s suggestion that Democrats should de-emphasize topics like pronouns and identity politics, framing them as less impactful than “kitchen table” economic issues. This has been interpreted by many as a direct dismissal of the struggles and rights of marginalized communities, particularly the LGBTQ+ community, making their lived experiences seem secondary or even irrelevant to a winning political campaign.
For many on the left, issues concerning trans rights and pronouns are not abstract political talking points; they are fundamental human rights. The idea that these shouldn’t be central to a Democratic platform, or that focusing on them is a losing strategy, is seen as a profound betrayal. It’s argued that conservatives are the ones weaponizing these issues to create division, and that by suggesting Democrats back down, Newsom is essentially ceding ground to the very forces actively seeking to erode these rights.
There’s a strong undercurrent of feeling that Newsom is prioritizing electability over principle, and that this “third way” or centrist approach is a relic of a bygone political era. Many believe that the world has moved beyond the kind of triangulation tactics that might have worked in the past, and that a more robust defense of progressive values is not only necessary but also potentially more appealing to a broader electorate than Newsom might believe.
The criticism extends to the idea that Newsom is out of touch with the anger and frustration many voters feel about their worsening economic situations and a perceived loss of control. Some argue that this anger is precisely what gave rise to figures like Trump, and that a politician who doesn’t fully grasp these underlying social, political, and economic circumstances risks repeating the same mistakes, albeit perhaps more competently.
This sentiment is often framed as Newsom being a “billionaire puppet” or someone who prioritizes his own political ambitions over the needs of the working class and marginalized groups. His actions, such as personally dismantling a homeless encampment, are cited as further evidence of this disconnect from genuine progressive values.
Conversely, some voices do acknowledge a kernel of truth in Newsom’s argument about economic issues being paramount for many voters. They suggest that while identity politics are important, an overwhelming focus on them might not be the most effective way to mobilize a winning coalition. This perspective often frames it as a matter of strategic prioritization, arguing that Democrats can and should address both economic concerns and social justice issues simultaneously.
However, even those who see some merit in focusing on economic messaging often express disappointment or frustration that this becomes the sole focus, or that it comes at the perceived expense of solidarity with marginalized communities. The idea that one must choose between advocating for human rights and addressing economic inequality is seen as a false dichotomy, and one that Democrats are ill-equipped to navigate successfully if they abandon their progressive base.
Ultimately, the prevailing sentiment from those criticizing Newsom is that his advice is not only politically misguided but also a sign of a deeper problem within the Democratic Party: a willingness to compromise on core values in pursuit of a perceived broader appeal, an approach that many believe alienates the very voters who are most passionate about progressive change. The fear is that such a strategy will lead to more competent versions of the very politicians they oppose, promising change but ultimately failing to deliver for the people.