So I'd recommend reading this thread from Dave, but I thought about some of these policies, and how they fit into the whole, a lot, and want to offer a different interpretation.

I think California is world leading on progressivism that doesn't ask anyone to give anything up, or accept any major change, right now.

That's what I mean by symbolically progressive, operationally conservative.
Take the 100% renewable energy standard. As @leahstokes has written, these policies often fail in practice. I note our leadership on renewable energy in the piece, but the kind of politics we see on housing and transportation are going foil that if they don't change.
Creating a statewide consumer financial protection agency is great! But again, you're not asking most voters to give anything up or accept any actual changes.

I don't see that as balancing the scales on, say, high-speed rail.
CA is willing to vote for higher taxes, new agencies, etc. It was impressive when LA passed Measure H, a new sales tax to fund homeless shelters. And depressing to watch those same communities pour into the streets to protest shelters being placed near them. That's the rub.
For progressivism to succeed, it needs to address the basics of people's lives. It doesn't get more basic than housing, transportation, schools.

If we can't fix those, I can't say I'm optimistic on climate change, or progressives continuing to hold power.
I tried to show this in the piece, but maybe I should've said it more explicitly. I don't think the fault here mainly lies with political leadership.
Gavin Newsom, Eric Garcetti, London Breed — they have hard jobs, and while I have my critiques, I think they're largely pushing the right things. But they keep getting forced back by local backlash and fractured governance systems. And those systems were fractured by design.
Look how hard SF's political leadership has been fighting to reopen schools! If Breed could do it, it would be done. But it's not just that Breed can't open the schools, she can't even stop them from doing a politically toxic renaming exercise while the schools are still closed.
The point of this piece isn't There Oughta Be A Law. It's that even in a very blue state, the aesthetic of progressivism often runs way ahead of the willingness to allow the change needed to achieve progressive priorities and ideals.
For the reasons Dave points out, I want California to be a model for governance nationwide, and worldwide. We're doing some genuinely great things.

But until we get the basics right, people aren't going to listen to us on the longer-term stuff.
And this isn't just about the politicians. It's us, the voters, the people who live here, the people who think of ourselves as progressive. The politicians can only do so much. There needs to be a higher bar to believe you're fighting the good fight than a yard sign.
It's a trope of conservative politicians in other states that "they don't want to become California." I want that to be laughable. I want everyone to want to become California.

More from Ezra Klein

What we're seeing from Trump and his allies today is an autocratic attempt. It's not a competent one, and it probably won't be an effective one. But that's what it is. And far worse would follow if it succeeded.


As @mashagessen explained in this interview, using Balint Magyar's framework, an autocratic attempt is "the first stage when autocracy is still reversible by electoral means."

The point is to make the regime's rule irreversible by electoral means, which is explicitly what Trump, et al, are trying right now.

"Then, at some point, there comes the autocratic breakthrough when you can no longer use electoral means to reverse that autocracy."

"Then autocratic consolidation, where it’s just consolidating ever more power and money, making it ever less possible to change."

There is an element of farce to Trump's tweets, his actions, his cronies. It makes it easy for many to discount what he's actually saying, and trying. https://t.co/GwC3KGbpkC

It's fitting for the internet era, when the worst ideas and figures come layered in irony.
This is a good @mattyglesias post about techno-politics but I want to quibble with the part of it that’s about my essay on the policy feedback loops you can build by Just Helping People Fast. Matt writes: https://t.co/MuBlgQV6LW


Over at Mischiefs of Faction, @Smotus makes a similar point:
https://t.co/al6fS5tZXP


I want to be clear here: I’m saying that the Affordable Care act was, from a political perspective, badly designed, and that *a different health care plan* might’ve led to a better Dem performance in 2010. But these arguments don't grapple with that.

To @Smotus’s point, Pelosi released those House Democrats at the end, not the beginning. Having covered the beginning of this, I can tell you a lot of those Democrats thought a bipartisan health care bill would be great politics for them!

But they didn’t get that.

This is key. The ACA was built on the political theory that:

1. Bipartisan policy is easier to pass — and more popular once passed.

2. Working off of the Heritage Foundation/Romney template could get you a bipartisan health bill.

1 was probably right. 2 was utterly wrong.
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

More from Business

You May Also Like