By Nanette Star, Particular for CalMatters
This commentary was initially printed by CalMatters. Join for his or her newsletters.
The California governor’s new podcast, the place he broke with Democrats on trans rights, triggered a media firestorm and evoked quite a lot of opinions from Californians. Beneath, a longtime voter says Gavin Newsom’s want to have nuanced conversations is badly wanted. The opposing view: A queer guardian felt he was pandering to conservatives by scapegoating his personal constituents.
Once I noticed the headlines about Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new podcast“This is Gavin Newsom,” I rolled my eyes.
Media shops buzzed with criticism. He was pandering to the suitable, giving platforms to extremists and abandoning Democratic values. That includes far-right figures like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk felt like a betrayal — not simply of progressive beliefs, however of the communities Newsom had as soon as fiercely championed.
As a California voter, I felt let down. I’ve marched for girls’s rights, knocked on doorways for state lawmakers and even stayed politically engaged whereas residing out-of-state. I as soon as believed in Newsom’s imaginative and prescient: flawed however fearless. However these days, his management feels prefer it’s pivoting towards nationwide opticsnot California wants.
So once I heard concerning the podcast, I assumed the worst. Earlier than listening, the headlines learn: “Newsom flip-flops on trans rights.” I used to be livid. It was absolutely one other calculated transfer towards a much bigger stage, or one other politician buying and selling values for visibility.
Then, I listened.
What I discovered wasn’t capitulation. It was a dialog. Newsom wasn’t yielding floor — he was coming into the sector, nevertheless imperfectly. In a tense change with Kirk, the 2 sparred over transgender athletes in girls’s sports activities.
However once I heard him say, “Some of these things are more nuanced than we want to acknowledge. I get why people are concerned about fairness. I don’t think it’s transphobic to say that,” I paused.
That didn’t sound like betrayal. It gave the impression of somebody making an attempt to carry area for a tough dialog.
I’m not saying folks ought to validate dangerous rhetoric. However there’s a distinction between giving in and digging in. Leaning into nuance and listening to what’s really mentioned, not simply the loudest headline.
Newsom didn’t land each punch, however he confirmed up within the ring.
The true intestine examine got here when a pal requested me if I listened to the entire thing. I hadn’t. I’d gone off the headlines. I all the time inform others to examine their sources, dig deeper and keep away from outrage as an alternative to understanding. And but, I’d finished precisely that.
In in the present day’s media local weather, that’s simple to do. A number of headlines aren’t designed to tell — they’re crafted to impress. And in a world of fixed alerts, who has the time?
However this podcast jogged my memory that headlines are the hook, not the entire struggle. We have now to cease shadowboxing. We have now to pay attention.
Mockingly, the podcast’s critics solely amplified its attain. Proper-wing outrage helped enhance Newsom’s visibility, deliberately or not. It echoed Trump-era dynamics of controversy as gas and a spotlight as forex. It made me marvel if we’re all enjoying into the identical script, feeding the spectacle we declare to despise.
However right here’s what issues: Newsom engaged. He challenged the binary narratives that dominate political discourse. He didn’t have all of the solutions, however he requested the questions. That sort of engagement doesn’t sign weak point. It alerts a shift towards dialogue, not division.
In my very own coverage work, I’ve realized that compromise isn’t everybody getting what they need. It’s about understanding what individuals are prepared to surrender and why. That requires listening previous the floor, asking deeper questions and staying on the desk even when it’s uncomfortable.
As sociologist Pierre Bourdieu wrote, “A political compromise is not the negation of struggle, but its transformation into a more strategic form.”
I judged the podcast earlier than I heard it. In doing so, I practically missed a mannequin for the sort of political discourse we desperately want — one grounded not in performative outrage however in curiosity, respect and the assumption that progress lies, not on the extremes, however someplace within the messy center.
This text was initially printed on CalMatters and was republished below the Inventive Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
