Donald Trump and Gavin Newsom are complicated combatants
One is the quintessential New Yorker, the other, the archetypical Californian.
One has yanked the Republicans rightward, the other is the personification of the leftward lurch of the Democrats.
One was criticized for insensitivity after tossing paper towels to hurricane victims at a Puerto Rico relief centre, the other was pilloried for poor judgment for dining indoors at the swanky French Laundry restaurant in Napa Valley in defiance of his own COVID restrictions.
To make this personal: One of them has hair the colour of Kraft French Salad Dressing, the other possesses hair that resembles salt and pepper spilling out of a Peppermill Tremblay dispenser. And one of them almost was the father-in-law of the television news personality Kimberly Guilfoyle, for a time engaged to Donald Trump Jr. The other is the ex-husband of Kimberly Guilfoyle, whom he divorced in 2006.
President Donald Trump and Governor Gavin Newsom of California − entangled in a battle over migrants, civil liberties and crime − are a complicated set of combatants.
Urback: Donald Trump campaigned on eroding democracy. Now, he's just fulfilling his promises
Mr. Trump, the one with the populist identity, is a graduate of the Ivy League's University of Pennsylvania (with an endowment of US$22.3- billion and with a Nov. 15 football game against Harvard, which Mr. Trump is hoping to cripple financially). Mr. Newsom, the one with the elitist identity, is a graduate of Santa Clara University (with an endowment of US$1.5-billion and hasn't played America collegiate football since 1992).
Mr. Trump has suggested that Mr. Newsom might be imprisoned, reprising and revising one of his favourite lines from the 2016 presidential election ('Lock him up'). In response, Mr. Newsom has channelled Clint Eastwood in Sudden Impact ('Go ahead. Make my day.')
Mr. Trump is playing his role as it were in a reality television show (American Ninja Warrior). Mr. Newsom, governor of the state with countless sound stages and movie lots, seems caught in an episode of reality television himself (Survivor).
'These two are always on stage and aware of it,' said Martin Kaplan, a former studio executive who is director of the University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center, which examines the interchange between entertainment, society and politics. 'These are people who do their best to make the spotlight follow them.'
Now the two are in the spotlight in a dramatic dispute over both values and tactics.
Mr. Trump argues that the violence in Los Angeles is an insurrection that threatens civil peace and that requires both the National Guard, a state-based military force, which Mr. Trump mobilized over the objection of the Governor, as well as the deployment of the Marines, who arrived in the city Tuesday.
Mr. Newsom believes that Mr. Trump has exaggerated the dangers − 'fanned the flames,' is his characterization − and is using it as a blunt instrument to extend executive power in a situation that state and local personnel can handle.
'The L.A. Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, and 434 other police agencies in L.A. County are well-equipped to handle this peacefully and effectively without interference from the federal government,' said Robert Saltzman, a former member of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners. 'Things were calm before the federal government got involved. Since then, they've done nothing but create problems.'
Mr. Newsom considers the President a tyrannical threat to democratic principles. Mr. Trump considers the Governor a blue-state progressive and − to resuscitate a phrase Richard Nixon once employed to describe Ramsey Clark, Lyndon B. Johnson's attorney-general − a conscientious objector in the war against crime.
'The very incompetent 'Governor,' Gavin Newscum, and 'Mayor,' Karen Bass, should be saying, 'THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP, YOU ARE SO WONDERFUL,' Mr. Trump said on his Truth Social platform. 'WE WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT YOU, SIR.'
Democrats feel quite the opposite.
'Newsom is trying to calm the situation down and Trump is trying to stir things up and portraying all of L.A. in combat,' said Robert Shrum, a veteran Democratic political consultant. 'That's entirely false.'
Opinion: For Trump, the L.A. protests are an opportunity to wield power and spread fear
The conflict between them − which both believe is but the first front of a wider war over migrants and civil liberties − has immense political implications.
Mr. Newsom knows the President is an effective foil in a state Mr. Trump lost three times in a row; Hillary Clinton defeated him in California by a two-to-one margin in 2016. Mr. Trump knows the Governor has presidential ambitions. Both know this episode is the political equivalent of a drama performance in New Haven, Conn., which over the years has provided trial runs for such Broadway shows as Oklahoma! and My Fair Lady.
Speaking of the prospect of arresting Mr. Newsom, Mr. Trump said, 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity.' Mr. Newsom clearly is portraying himself not only at the centre of a storm but also as a national leader − an important moment for him and for a party that, after the 2024 defeat of then-vice-president Kamala Harris, herself a former California attorney-general, has been adrift.
'This is about all of us. This is about you,' Mr. Newsom said, addressing residents of other states. 'California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next.' He said Mr. Trump 'wants to be bound by no law or constitution, perpetuating a unified assault on American tradition.'
Their conflict is itself part of an American tradition.
When Governor Orval Faubus mobilized the Arkansas National Guard to prevent integration of the Little Rock Central High School, President Dwight Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division. John F. Kennedy federalized the National Guard in Mississippi and did so twice in Alabama to enforce school desegregation.
But after the 1965 'Bloody Sunday' violence at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., Governor George Wallace told Mr. Johnson that the state 'is unable and refuses to provide for the safety and welfare' of civil-rights activists. In this occasion, the governor and president both deployed military forces.
There is no such agreement today in California.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
16 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Government, union representing public servants to restart contract talks
Two years ago, more than 120,000 federal public servants went on strike after negotiations broke down. Now, the union representing those workers is going back to the bargaining table with the government with the goal of securing greater job security and remote work options for its members. The Public Service Alliance of Canada says next week's initial meetings offer its first opportunity to present priorities identified by members, such as better wages, greater job security and stronger provisions for remote work. Those issues were all front and centre during the 2023 strike, which saw public servants spend almost two weeks on picket lines across the country. Sharon DeSousa, national president of PSAC, said contract discussions can take anywhere from weeks to years. She said the union's bargaining teams are 'ready to set the tone' and get a good contract, adding that striking is always the 'last resort.' The union said the initial talks are the government's first chance to show it's ready to make meaningful improvements to public servants' working conditions. 'We're about improving the working conditions and we're hoping that the government is interested as well,' DeSousa said. 'These are the same workers who protect our coasts, assist businesses and farmers, and deliver vital social programs and respond to emergencies like wildfires. 'We're hoping that we're able to sit down and deal with the main issues at hand.' Rola Salem, a spokesperson for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, said in an email that the government looks forward to a 'productive round of collective bargaining' with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. 'We are committed to negotiating in good faith and to reaching agreements that are fair to employees and reasonable for Canadians,' she said. David McLaughlin, a former provincial official in Manitoba and president and CEO of the Institute on Governance, said the union's requests seem to be a 'continuation' of the last round of bargaining. 'I would not expect that the current government would have a radically different view of how to treat those issues,' McLaughlin said. 'I'd be very surprised if they reverse their position on remote work. They're trying to hold the line, as they did last time.' McLaughlin said he expects the government will put some more money toward wages. He added that job security likely will be the biggest issue at the table for both the union and the government, which has committed to 'capping' the size of the public service.
CTV News
18 minutes ago
- CTV News
NS sees little interest for uranium exploration
Atlantic Watch Nova Scotia has received no bids for uranium exploration in the province yet.
Winnipeg Free Press
35 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump moves to merge wildland firefighting into single force, despite ex-officials warning of chaos
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered government agencies to consolidate their wildland firefighting into a single program, despite warnings from former federal officials that it could be costly and increase the risk of catastrophic blazes. The order aims to centralize firefighting efforts now split among five agencies and two Cabinet departments. Trump's proposed budget for next year calls for the creation of a new Federal Wildland Fire Service under the U.S. Interior Department. That would mean shifting thousands of personnel from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service — where most federal firefighters now work — with fire season already underway. The administration has not disclosed how much the change could cost or save. Trump in his order cited the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January as highlighting a need for a quicker response to wildfires. 'Wildfires threaten every region, yet many local government entities continue to disregard commonsense preventive measures,' the order said. The Trump administration in its first months temporarily cut off money for wildfire prevention work and reduced the ranks of federal government firefighters through layoffs and retirement. The order makes no mention of climate change, which Trump has downplayed even as warming temperatures help stoke bigger and more destructive wildfires that churn out massive amounts of harmful pollution. More than 65,000 wildfires across the U.S. burned almost 9 million acres (3.6 million hectares) last year. Organizations representing firefighters and former Forest Service officials say it would be costly to restructure firefighting efforts and cause major disruptions in the midst of fire season. A group that includes several former Forest Service chiefs said in a recent letter to lawmakers that consolidation of firefighting work could 'actually increase the likelihood of more large catastrophic fires, putting more communities, firefighters and resources at risk.' Another destructive fire season is expected this year, driven by above-normal temperatures for most of the country, according to federal officials. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. A prior proposal to merge the Forest Service and Interior to improve firefighting was found to have significant drawbacks by the Congressional Research Service in a 2008 report. But the idea more recently got bipartisan support, with California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla and Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy sponsoring legislation that is similar to Trump's plan. Before his election last year, Sheehy founded an aerial firefighting company that relies heavily on federal contracts. In a separate action aimed at wildfires, the Trump administration last month rolled back environmental safeguards around future logging projects on more than half U.S. national forests. The emergency designation covers 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers) of terrain primarily in the West but also in the South, around the Great Lakes and in New England. Most of those forests are considered to have high wildfire risk, and many are in decline because of insects and disease.
