Something I learned in moving to a New England village with politics based in annual town meetings: All politics goes back to high school. Every serious issue debated in town meeting sees factions on either side who were in high school together decades ago, and still dislike each other. Newsom gets bad press from many political nerds. Most were nerds in high school too. Newsom is in presentation the popular kid. Have the nerds ever gone all in on liking the popular kid?
On the other hand, obviously, Trump is with the bullies. The bullies do generally like to team up. Even in town meeting. To win a national election, don't we need to find an acceptable popular kid? Maybe even one who is too pretty, too groomed, speaks too smoothly and confidently, to ever qualify for membership in nerd circles?
Gavin told us presciently, wake up America! That was way back during the LA fires I believe. Seems like years ago, but only months. I’m on Gavin’s side. And these days it is disheartening, but we have to take sides.
It could be that he and JD will run against each other in the ‘28 general. JD is scary. Gavin is right about that in every single way imagined. But people will dismiss as “political theater” because he is a politician who wants to be potus.
I think you're underestimating the French Laundry problem. You're treating it as a one dimensional problem, when it's multidimensional. There's the Mike Dukakis dimension (in a tank, with Willie Horton). There's the name of the place -- in the diners of central Pennsylvania, it's both foreign and weird. And there's the connection to the pandemic.
Now, Newsom is not Dukakis, but mud will be thrown, and the media will be happy to play along. It's not primarily a moral problem. It's a political one. I hope I'm wrong, or that Newsom has a good defense plan.
There's also a Guilfoyle problem, and its not a political problem but one of judgement. I'd be happier with someone I could trust not to disappoint me in the way that Sinema and Fetterman have (and reckless Bill before that), and the fact that I even have to think about this with Newsom gives me pause.
You're talking to someone who fundamentally sees virtue in orientation. Not in the totems of memory. That Newsom may have given way to excess in his rise into power is a matter of record. I, too, am guilty of such things, just to be clear, dear reader. The question becomes, is there value in the lessons of the sinner who wants to be good, and knows not that he sins as he goes, but comes to realize it as such, and propels oneself to become better through those sins? Is that not an orientation of character that we should look up to? And if we're honest, among us normal people who have sinned our whole lives, realize it's something we could even relate to?
Just a different bit of framing on your very thoughts. Thank you for them.
I really do appreciate the redemption perspective -- I used to run a graduate program in biomedical sciences, and I was always attracted to applicants that had a redemption story (their sins were, as far as I have ever known and was ever my business, conventionally academic).
On the other hand, the country bought GWB based upon sophisticated packaging of a redemption story, and while W may have stopped drinking (though people oddly wanted to have a beer with him), I'm not sure he became better in the dimensions that matter to the country.
I guess I'd say virtue in orientation is necessary but not sufficient.
But George W. Bush had a moral fiber. He actually believed in things bigger than himself. Now, I think we might agree that he believed in the wrong things. Perhaps, maybe even he might concede that in his most private moments. I think, however, that if we're suggesting that Newsom is potentially a George W. Bush-like figure with a more liberal worldview, I mean, that's not so bad ...
I don't say that to minimize what happened under that administration. In particular, the Cheney and Rumsfeld clan, which held much sway over and shape that administration's direction post-9/11. But if we're simply trying to think about the man who was George W. Bush, I think he was the empathetic one of the bunch. Personally, I think he was a well-meaning guy in way over his head, and got taken to the cleaners by a particularly vicious economic cartel in Washington DC. And that doesn't mean he doesn't have responsibility for all of that. And that we ought not judge him as having morally failed in those ways. I think the truth is, Mr. Bush agrees with us on that. And so I'm, again, not sure if the way of moral accounting you are trying to pull me into is how we should proceed.
To err is human. Which way... faithless or faithful wanderer?
I hope you don't mind me pulling you back in one more time. I think there are important things here that deserve extended dialog.
First, I think you're giving GWB more credit than he deserves. I'll return to important digressions on this theme after hitting the main event.
Second, I think there is great danger in your preference for "virtue in orientation. Not in the totems of memory." Putting it harshly, it leaves you open to getting played. Now, you don't strike me as someone who is highly susceptible to getting played, but just as we're all sinners, we all have blind spots. You have written extensively about your own conversion narrative, but I think you may be projecting onto others levels of redemption for which there is more hope than evidence.
Third, in public political life, we're engaging in more than moral accounting. We're making bets on the future, many of them existential. Like all bets, we have imperfect information at the time we place them. Furthermore, all people seeking our votes are wearing masks. We may claim to value authenticity, but most of us prefer the masks -- we can feel virtuous by association.
Our imperfect legal system attaches great weight to a totem of memory -- it's there in the concept of impeaching a witness. We base decisions about incarceration based upon post hoc determinations of reliability. Are we right to do this? As I said, the system is imperfect, but it's all we got. Another way of looking at this is through a concept I admit I understand at too shallow a level -- that of Bayesian priors. You seem to be saying that we should put less weight on history than I'm comfortable with.
Now, to return to Newsom, just yesterday (after all previous entries in this dialog), I read in The New Republic a long review Newsom's just published book "Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery" (https://newrepublic.com/article/206907/gavin-newsom-struggle-everyman-cred). The review is brutal, and it's worth going through a few key points (it's probably paywalled).
Passage 1: "The governor of California is, in his own words, resentful of being depicted in the media as a tool of the billionaire Getty family, with whom he has been close his entire life thanks to his father’s role as a Getty family confidant and manager of the Getty family trust."
Passage 2: "The Gettys put up the money for 10 of the 11 businesses Newsom started or led."
Now, why is this relevant? It's relevant because Newsom has vowed to veto a billionaire tax bill if it reaches his desk (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/us/newsom-billionaire-tax-california.html). Many people who are excited by his courageous and forceful punching at Trump -- myself included -- are puzzled and disappointed by this. It can only be fully understood by a totem of memory of a life of extraordinary privilege, one that Newsom himself appears to provide in his book. His associations seem to be manufacturing guilt.
Sorry to be so bleak (and harsh). I love what you are doing and have been a subscriber since I discovered you (and I've shared your work with many others).
John
PS - oh, to return to GWB, I do give him great credit for not indulging in anti-Islamic rhetoric after 9/11 and for PEPFAR; both demonstrated moral fiber. Other than that, his capacity for empathy was severely limited (much like his mother). I always thought "compassionate conservatism" was a mask constructed by third party wordsmiths that he was happy to wear.
He married her. In this case, yes. Coupled with the fact that he has always struck me as sleazy. Do I appreciate what he's been doing to fight back, absolutely. Would I vote for him? Of course. Would I prefer someone else? Yes.
Or, from an alternative view, it makes Newsom one of the epistemically privileged persons among us to understand the psychology behind what he now opposes, by having lived inside that psychology, and now understands how to attack it on its own terms.
I mean, if we're going to do it, it needs to be federal. Billionaires can easily make their home anywhere. They're own homes everywhere. They just choose their primary residence, like you, or I choose what to watch on Netflix. I think California's billionaire tax is largely counterproductive for that reason. I now agree with Elizabeth Warren's idea of a wealth tax. But I also think you can't really do it at the state level with a mobile elite. It's just a gesture. Fine. I get it. But it's tactically the wrong move.
I agree most of what he is saying. I think more Americans need to pay attention. I believe that the majority of Americans should rule not a few that are corrupt and not paying attention to what’s really going on.
Something I learned in moving to a New England village with politics based in annual town meetings: All politics goes back to high school. Every serious issue debated in town meeting sees factions on either side who were in high school together decades ago, and still dislike each other. Newsom gets bad press from many political nerds. Most were nerds in high school too. Newsom is in presentation the popular kid. Have the nerds ever gone all in on liking the popular kid?
On the other hand, obviously, Trump is with the bullies. The bullies do generally like to team up. Even in town meeting. To win a national election, don't we need to find an acceptable popular kid? Maybe even one who is too pretty, too groomed, speaks too smoothly and confidently, to ever qualify for membership in nerd circles?
I am scared of Vance (& Thiel)…
I am also scared of Newsom and all other AIPAC puppets…
We cannot continue electing politicians who justify genocide, in exchange for campaign donations.
American democracy may burn down but at least you’ll be pure as the driven snow for never having backed a supporter of Israel.
Gavin told us presciently, wake up America! That was way back during the LA fires I believe. Seems like years ago, but only months. I’m on Gavin’s side. And these days it is disheartening, but we have to take sides.
It could be that he and JD will run against each other in the ‘28 general. JD is scary. Gavin is right about that in every single way imagined. But people will dismiss as “political theater” because he is a politician who wants to be potus.
That isn’t even the point. It is a distraction.
I concur. Vance is very dangerous not because he is smart but because he is a vessel for all the Nihilistic people in the shadows.
I am seeing this more that they are a threat to our humanity and freedom. The church example is so accurate.
I think you're underestimating the French Laundry problem. You're treating it as a one dimensional problem, when it's multidimensional. There's the Mike Dukakis dimension (in a tank, with Willie Horton). There's the name of the place -- in the diners of central Pennsylvania, it's both foreign and weird. And there's the connection to the pandemic.
Now, Newsom is not Dukakis, but mud will be thrown, and the media will be happy to play along. It's not primarily a moral problem. It's a political one. I hope I'm wrong, or that Newsom has a good defense plan.
There's also a Guilfoyle problem, and its not a political problem but one of judgement. I'd be happier with someone I could trust not to disappoint me in the way that Sinema and Fetterman have (and reckless Bill before that), and the fact that I even have to think about this with Newsom gives me pause.
You're talking to someone who fundamentally sees virtue in orientation. Not in the totems of memory. That Newsom may have given way to excess in his rise into power is a matter of record. I, too, am guilty of such things, just to be clear, dear reader. The question becomes, is there value in the lessons of the sinner who wants to be good, and knows not that he sins as he goes, but comes to realize it as such, and propels oneself to become better through those sins? Is that not an orientation of character that we should look up to? And if we're honest, among us normal people who have sinned our whole lives, realize it's something we could even relate to?
Just a different bit of framing on your very thoughts. Thank you for them.
I really do appreciate the redemption perspective -- I used to run a graduate program in biomedical sciences, and I was always attracted to applicants that had a redemption story (their sins were, as far as I have ever known and was ever my business, conventionally academic).
On the other hand, the country bought GWB based upon sophisticated packaging of a redemption story, and while W may have stopped drinking (though people oddly wanted to have a beer with him), I'm not sure he became better in the dimensions that matter to the country.
I guess I'd say virtue in orientation is necessary but not sufficient.
But George W. Bush had a moral fiber. He actually believed in things bigger than himself. Now, I think we might agree that he believed in the wrong things. Perhaps, maybe even he might concede that in his most private moments. I think, however, that if we're suggesting that Newsom is potentially a George W. Bush-like figure with a more liberal worldview, I mean, that's not so bad ...
I don't say that to minimize what happened under that administration. In particular, the Cheney and Rumsfeld clan, which held much sway over and shape that administration's direction post-9/11. But if we're simply trying to think about the man who was George W. Bush, I think he was the empathetic one of the bunch. Personally, I think he was a well-meaning guy in way over his head, and got taken to the cleaners by a particularly vicious economic cartel in Washington DC. And that doesn't mean he doesn't have responsibility for all of that. And that we ought not judge him as having morally failed in those ways. I think the truth is, Mr. Bush agrees with us on that. And so I'm, again, not sure if the way of moral accounting you are trying to pull me into is how we should proceed.
To err is human. Which way... faithless or faithful wanderer?
Mike,
I hope you don't mind me pulling you back in one more time. I think there are important things here that deserve extended dialog.
First, I think you're giving GWB more credit than he deserves. I'll return to important digressions on this theme after hitting the main event.
Second, I think there is great danger in your preference for "virtue in orientation. Not in the totems of memory." Putting it harshly, it leaves you open to getting played. Now, you don't strike me as someone who is highly susceptible to getting played, but just as we're all sinners, we all have blind spots. You have written extensively about your own conversion narrative, but I think you may be projecting onto others levels of redemption for which there is more hope than evidence.
Third, in public political life, we're engaging in more than moral accounting. We're making bets on the future, many of them existential. Like all bets, we have imperfect information at the time we place them. Furthermore, all people seeking our votes are wearing masks. We may claim to value authenticity, but most of us prefer the masks -- we can feel virtuous by association.
Our imperfect legal system attaches great weight to a totem of memory -- it's there in the concept of impeaching a witness. We base decisions about incarceration based upon post hoc determinations of reliability. Are we right to do this? As I said, the system is imperfect, but it's all we got. Another way of looking at this is through a concept I admit I understand at too shallow a level -- that of Bayesian priors. You seem to be saying that we should put less weight on history than I'm comfortable with.
Now, to return to Newsom, just yesterday (after all previous entries in this dialog), I read in The New Republic a long review Newsom's just published book "Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery" (https://newrepublic.com/article/206907/gavin-newsom-struggle-everyman-cred). The review is brutal, and it's worth going through a few key points (it's probably paywalled).
Passage 1: "The governor of California is, in his own words, resentful of being depicted in the media as a tool of the billionaire Getty family, with whom he has been close his entire life thanks to his father’s role as a Getty family confidant and manager of the Getty family trust."
Passage 2: "The Gettys put up the money for 10 of the 11 businesses Newsom started or led."
Now, why is this relevant? It's relevant because Newsom has vowed to veto a billionaire tax bill if it reaches his desk (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/us/newsom-billionaire-tax-california.html). Many people who are excited by his courageous and forceful punching at Trump -- myself included -- are puzzled and disappointed by this. It can only be fully understood by a totem of memory of a life of extraordinary privilege, one that Newsom himself appears to provide in his book. His associations seem to be manufacturing guilt.
Sorry to be so bleak (and harsh). I love what you are doing and have been a subscriber since I discovered you (and I've shared your work with many others).
John
PS - oh, to return to GWB, I do give him great credit for not indulging in anti-Islamic rhetoric after 9/11 and for PEPFAR; both demonstrated moral fiber. Other than that, his capacity for empathy was severely limited (much like his mother). I always thought "compassionate conservatism" was a mask constructed by third party wordsmiths that he was happy to wear.
The Guilfoyle problem, yes. If these were normal times, I wouldn't want Newsom.
What did he do, abuse her or something? Please tell me you guys aren’t judging him for a bad dating choice.
He married her. In this case, yes. Coupled with the fact that he has always struck me as sleazy. Do I appreciate what he's been doing to fight back, absolutely. Would I vote for him? Of course. Would I prefer someone else? Yes.
Or, from an alternative view, it makes Newsom one of the epistemically privileged persons among us to understand the psychology behind what he now opposes, by having lived inside that psychology, and now understands how to attack it on its own terms.
Good point. Similar to the position you are in. Let us hope he makes as good use of that insight, as you have with yours.
Why is Newsom actively working against the proposed ONE TIME billionaire tax? That tells me a lot. 😣
I mean, if we're going to do it, it needs to be federal. Billionaires can easily make their home anywhere. They're own homes everywhere. They just choose their primary residence, like you, or I choose what to watch on Netflix. I think California's billionaire tax is largely counterproductive for that reason. I now agree with Elizabeth Warren's idea of a wealth tax. But I also think you can't really do it at the state level with a mobile elite. It's just a gesture. Fine. I get it. But it's tactically the wrong move.
Thanks Mike. You’re right about Gavin and that’s why I’m supporting him. You have a keen eye for what is real. I enjoy your work.
I agree most of what he is saying. I think more Americans need to pay attention. I believe that the majority of Americans should rule not a few that are corrupt and not paying attention to what’s really going on.
Thanks for this opinion it is an interesting glimpse into Newsom’s thoughts in relation to Vance and his enablers.
I'm a believer.
Mike -- your totally entitled to your own opinions - which you labeled -- but having said that:
--- you are not entitled to your own facts -- and facts as you write here - are totally non-existent.
Go on ...
Mike -- just be very careful with people -- they can bite back.
What facts have I misplaced, Scott?
Stating your opinions as to who "owns who - is not fact - it's opinion Mike
I see. Well, I'm not sure you fully understood what I was trying to say in that case.
Mike -- I understand that you made accusations that you can't substantiate - about a person who you most likely do not k now personally.
Yet you take license to make comments about him.
What you make yourself out to be when you do that - is that you have little if not zero respect for fact based truth.
"IF" you want to make a real difference -- instead of being an "also ran" -- then write truth: not as you see it - but what it factually is.
Sorry: tell me again, why are we suddenly dissing Newsom?