I have great faith that democratic politics have a way of washing away bad ideas. I've been hearing from friends in California that people are getting frustrated and restless. It didn't just start with the Palisades fire.
Pacific palisades is burning
- Thread starter jalimon
- Start date
Of course it didn't just start with the Palisades fire.
That's what I just said.
This has been an ongoing debate for years, if not decades.
But as we've seen, the debate is going to not be about that or moving forward with fire management, prevention, and infrastructure.
That's all out the window now.
It's got real political juice, which means addressing the problem has to take a back seat to using it for political power.
People are pushing back in California against Sacramento and their local progressive leaders in general. I'm not just talking about the fires and fire management. It was evidenced in some of the CA electorate's choices in November 2022. It started a few years ago.
Beyond it being a good thing, it's selfish on my part. I enjoy watching Moderate Democrats squaring off against Progressives.
You might be right. I however think fire management and prevention will take priority in California over other conflicting objectives in the next few years.
The 2026 Governor's race will give us an idea what will happen. I suspect the candidates will have to specify what they will do with fire management and prevention. Watch my posted clip above of Gavin Newsom. I don't think that kind of rhetoric talking to this group and that group, reimagining L.A. 2.0 will cut it for his successor.
The GOP self-immolated in California a long time ago and fucked themselves.
The only political discussions of consequence for the last 10-15 years in California have been between wings of the Democratic party.
That's not really new, either.
What conflicting objectives?
Yes, there will be a push for more money spent on it, probably, it will maybe break through some of the blockades from people who said it cost too much.
But outside of cost, most of the arguments that were actually policy based were about what the policy should be. (How many reserve reservoirs are enough in the new normal. What management policies to implement and where. When to go against the Federal directives, etc.)
Unless you mean things like "money should be taken from the police and given to the fire department", which is a fight over objectives I could see happening.
Not sure which clip you are talking about.
I have never seen a candidate who didn't talk about fire prevention, though, not in the whole time I have had family living in California.
I suspect the more likely situation is that there won't be talk about fire prevention, there will be talk about DEI and how lesbians can't be in charge anymore, which will make it impossible to talk about fire prevention responsibly.
Progressives are losing ground in California. When extreme views lose favor whether Left or Right, I think it's a good thing. Gavin Newsom's future is over and he now will only be in the White House as a visitor.
I said earlier. We can argue about what needs to done. However, look to the next few years to see what should have been done and how successful the new fire management and prevention policies are. It's always possible that things improve in California with the same policies.
This uninspiring clip of Gavin Newsom. In the language of executive parlance, this all sounds like someone not in command trying to please too many groups.
Its not about fires at all, is it?
Its about right wingers being pissed at California so enjoying watching part of it burn.
lovely
If progressives are losing ground in California, Newsome would be in better shape.
He's far, far, from a progressive darling.
Mind you, he's spent years cultivating an image as the "Progressive who is also reasonable and Centrist" but I think because he became an actual presidential threat he's being recast as the "wild-eyed progressive" for targeting purposes.
Live by the photo op/press narrative, die by it as well, I suppose.
I don't think any wing of the Democratic party is particularly dominant in California right now or has been for 20 years.
Lots of back and forth as the various sides win some and lose some.
The real question is, as always, whether the GOP can unfuck its crazy enough to make a credible come back given the highly favorable national environment for crazy right now.
They made gains in the Presidential election state wide and people are understandably sick of one party rule. (They don't even have good leverage in primaries due to the "jungle primary" nonsense.)
They didn't really make any headway in the congressional election, though, losing seats (but got a bit more popular vote).
No real headway in the Senate election either.
Statewide they gained seats (not many) in both the state assembly and senate.
So is this the beginning of a resurgence, despite not moderating?
Possibly. The national tide of Trump and the national GOP meeting the California standard means that might be the future.
I just don't think we know yet until the trend maintains itself.
Of course people will argue about what needs to be done.
That's always gone on. Fire management and prevention is a huge issue in California politics and always has been.
The problem is that what we are seeing now is "fuck discussing policy, that's boring, let's talk about how there are too many lesbians" and other such nonsense.
I think someone like Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is going to be for a lot of things. Too many in my opinion. So yeah, people can attack her for her policies and that's the nature of politics.
Do you have a problem with her being in Ghana during in fire season? Bass probably couldn't have done much, but the optics are horrible. All her priorities are going to be questioned.
If memory serves, you're the Democrats aren't promoting CRT and transgender issues guy. So you're not going to accept any critical discourse that follows some of the DEI lines.
PS- Maybe Newsom's a moderate at the core. I suspect he has an strong opportunist streak that would have made him an interesting Presidential candidate. However, his slick talk sometimes comes off as pandering to the Left to a Republican like myself.
On further thought, I can only judge Newsom on his actions. I think he has found himself on the wrong side of a California Proposition vote once maybe twice or more. Going against the California electorate doesn't suggest moderation.
Last edited:
She's the mayor and absolutely should be a target of legitimate criticism about how this was handled.
No.
It's a non-issue, really.
Foreign travel is part of the job for big city mayors and governors of lots of states.
That's just an inevitable part of the more interconnected world.
This seems to be more of a goodwill ambassadorial kind of thing, so that doesn't help but her real problem was she seemed to have made some sort of promise about not travelling or something.
Which, if so, was stupid of her, since she was almost certainly going to have some foreign relations work to do at some point.
But if I've learned nothing else, it is that "this really isn't that important from a policy/reality pov" is a very bad metric when "we can milk these optics to stir shit" is on the table.
So I fully expect it to work heavily against her despite it being of such little importance.
Because there isn't any to be had.
It's bullshit and the people promoting it mostly know it is bullshit.
I personally know people who have lost homes in the fire.
I'm very fucking mad about lots of shit going on in LA.
That "If only they didn't do DEI they would have been prepared" is going to be the vast majority of the discourse about this, preventing real shit that needs to be done from happening, is only making me angrier.
He is 100% an opportunist.
And his slick talk comes off as pandering to the right to many, many progressives.
I think his real issue is that he comes off as slick.
Having such an opportunist streak and his tendency to think he can slick his way out via smart media means he is super vulnerable to being characterized by a strong media push. He doesn't have a core he can push back from as far as I can tell.
So he will be "the radical progressive" (although let's be honest, everyone Trump and Co want to attack will be a "radical progressive", that's just the baseline play now).
The main reason I bring it up at all is that so you don't be surprised at the complete lack of reaction by progressives to his downfall.
It will be like Cuomo a bit. There will be lots of media and lots of conservatives who think of him as the progressive hope when at best he is the "maybe he can win an election" guy that lots of Democrats only grudgingly accept if they have to.
I don't think you can say too much from that, given how easy it is to get propositions on the ballot there.
And lots of people think "prevent the crazy things the people voted for" as being the very definition of moderation.
It doesn't really matter what his policies or such are though, as we've seen.
It just matters what story they can tell about them.
From your statement here, I get the impression you don't care for direct democracy.I don't think you can say too much from that, given how easy it is to get propositions on the ballot there.
And lots of people think "prevent the crazy things the people voted for" as being the very definition of moderation.
I think it has generally been a moderating influence on U.S. political bodies. It can cut through the political static and recalcitrance driving home the will of the people.
I wish more States had Constitutional provisions for referendums.
Having seen what a shit show it is in California, I'm not a fan of how it is implemented there.
I'm not sure why you think it has been a moderating influence on US political bodies, either.
Say more about that, I'm intrigued.
Direct Democracy is something that absolutely should be part of the mix, in my view.
The devil is in the details.
You can cite where you think Direct Democracy has gone wrong in recent memory. I might concur. I kind of like when State electorates overturn restrictive abortion legislation by way of referendum.
Believe me, I hear plenty of whining from politicians who don't like referendums. It takes power away from politicians and their natural constituencies.
Oh, I totally understand why there are legislatures that hate it on the pure level of "Waaah, but we want to never be questioned" side.
But unless you believe everything should be done with direct democracy (which is a pretty radical position that I have seen some people take) then you also know there are going to be limits on how referendums work in a system.
Of course. Referendums don't work well in complex governing matters, but there have been some good referendums across the country.
I just want to be clear. I think both Republican and Democratic politicians overplay the that's a very bad idea or that won't work in practice card for their constituencies. Many times they have to come out against a popular referendum to please their supporters.
Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord.
He wants to bring back coal.
Is it time to ask about the race of mayors in the south?
He wants to bring back coal.
Is it time to ask about the race of mayors in the south?
Trump is pushing out of the country the only workers who would have dared to work in coal plants.
Absolutely.
There is also the California "vote on the type of dialysis machine funding" (I can't remember the details of that and am probably getting it wrong) kind of thing.
Of course.
And whether a referendum even goes into practice if voted on is another issue.
But all of that is just part of "if you make a system that has any kind of multiple points of power those points of power will be in conflict sometimes" stuff.
The question is how the resolution mechanism works in both spirit and letter.
