ReportWire

Tag: chabria

  • Commentary: America tried something new in 2025. It’s not going well

    [ad_1]

    Is there a dumpster somewhere to torch and bury this year of bedlam, 2025?

    We near its end with equal amounts relief and trepidation. Surely we can’t be expected to endure another such tumultuous turn around the sun?

    It was only January that Donald Trump moved back into the White House, apparently toting trunkloads of gilt for the walls. Within weeks, he’d declared an emergency at the border; set in motion plans to dismantle government agencies; fired masses of federal workers; and tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.

    Demonstrators at a No Kings rally in Washington, protesting actions by President Trump and Elon Musk.

    (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

    By spring, the administration was attacking Harvard as a test case for strong-arming higher education. By June, Trump’s grotesquely misnamed Big Beautiful Bill had become law, giving $1 trillion in tax cuts to billionaires and funding a deportation effort (and armed force) that has fundamentally reshaped American immigration law and ended any pretense about targeting “the worst of the worst.”

    Fall and winter have brought questionable bombings of boats in the Caribbean, a further backing away from Ukraine, a crackdown on opposition to Trump by classifying it as leftist terrorism and congressional inaction on healthcare that will leave many struggling to stay insured.

    That’s the short list.

    It was a year when America tried something new, and while adherents of the MAGA movement may celebrate much of it, our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak have a different perspective.

    Here, they renew their annual tradition of looking at the year past and offering some thoughts on what the new year may bring.

    Chabria: Welp, that was something. I can’t say 2025 was a stellar year for the American experiment, but it certainly will make the history books.

    Before we dive into pure politics, I’ll start with something positive. I met a married couple at a No Kings rally in Sacramento who were dressed up as dinosaurs, inspired by the Portland Frog, an activist who wears an inflatable amphibian suit.

    When I asked why, the husband told me, “If you don’t do something soon, you will have democracy be extinct.”

    A woman standing before an American flag during an anti-Trump protest in downtown Los Angeles.

    Crowds participate in No Kings Day in downtown Los Angeles in October.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    I loved that so many Americans were doing something by turning out to not just protest policies that hit personally, but to rally in support of democracy writ large. For many, it was their first time taking this kind of action, and they were doing it in a way that expressed optimism and possibility rather than giving in to anger or despair. Where there is humor, there is hope.

    Barabak: As in, it only hurts when I laugh?

    In 2024, a plurality of Americans voted to reinstall Trump in the White House — warts, felony conviction and all — mainly in the hope he would bring down the cost of living and make eggs and gasoline affordable again.

    While eggs and gas are no longer exorbitant, the cost of just about everything else continues to climb. Or, in the case of beef, utility bills and insurance, skyrocket.

    Workers adding Donald Trump's name to the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts

    The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts is another of the long-standing institutions Trump has smeared his name across.

    (Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

    Meantime, the president seems less concerned with improving voters’ lives than smearing his name on every object he lays his eyes on, one of the latest examples being the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

    (The only place Trump doesn’t want to see his name is in those voluminous Epstein files.)

    I wonder: Why stop there? Why not brand these the United States of Trump-erica, then boast we live in the “hottest” country on Planet Trump?

    Chabria: Stop giving him ideas!

    You and I agree that it’s been a difficult year full of absurdity, but we’ve disagreed on how seriously to take Trump as a threat to democracy. As the year closes, I am more concerned than ever.

    It’s not the ugly antics of ego that alarm me, but the devastating policies that will be hard to undo — if we get the chance to undo them.

    The race-based witch hunt of deportations is obviously at the top of that list, but the demolition of both K-12 and higher education; the dismantling of federal agencies, thereby cutting our scientific power as a nation; the increasing oligarchy of tech industrialists; the quiet placement of election deniers in key election posts — these are all hammers bashing away at our democracy.

    Now, we are seeing overt antisemitism and racism on the MAGA right, with alarming acceptance from many. The far right has championed a debate as dumb as it is frightening, about “heritage” Americans being somehow a higher class of citizens than nonwhites.

    Vice President JD Vance speaks at a college campus event in front of a poster reading "This Is the Turning Point."

    Vice President JD Vance speaks at the University of Mississippi in Oxford.

    (Gerald Herbert / Associated Press)

    Recently, Vice President JD Vance gave a speech in which he announced, “In the United States of America, you don’t have to apologize for being white anymore,” and Trump has said he wants to start taking away citizenship from legal immigrants. Both men claim America is a Christian nation, and eschew diversity as a value.

    Do you still think American democracy is secure, and this political moment will pass without lasting damage to our democratic norms?

    Barabak: I’ll start with some differentiation.

    I agree that Trump is sowing seeds or, more specifically, enacting policies and programs, that will germinate and do damage for many years to come.

    Alienating our allies, terrorizing communities with his prejudicial anti-immigrant policies — which go far beyond a reasonable tightening of border security — starving science and other research programs. The list is a long and depressing one, as you suggest.

    But I do believe — cue the trumpets and cherubs — there is nothing beyond the power of voters to fix.

    To quote, well, me, there is no organism on the planet more sensitive to heat and light than a politician. We’ve already seen an anti-Trump backlash in a series of elections held this year, in red and blue state alike. A strong repudiation in the 2026 midterm election will do more than all the editorial tut-tutting and protest marches combined. (Not that either are bad things.)

    A poll worker at Los Angeles' Union Station.

    A stressed-out seeming poll worker in a polling station at Los Angeles’ Union Station.

    (Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

    The best way to preserve our democracy and uphold America’s values is for unhappy citizens to register their dissent via the ballot box. And to address at least one of your concerns, I’m not too worried about Trump somehow nullifying the results, given legal checks and the decentralization of our election system.

    Installing lawmakers in Congress with a mandate to hold Trump to account would be a good start toward repairing at least some of the damage he’s wrought. And if it turns into a Republican rout, it’ll be quite something to watch the president’s onetime allies run for the hills as fast as their weak knees allow.

    Chabria: OMG! It’s a holiday miracle. We agree!

    I think the midterms will be messy, but I don’t think this will be an election where Trump, or anyone, outright tries to undo overall results.

    Although I do think the groundwork will be laid to sow further doubt in our election integrity ahead of 2028, and we will see bogus claims of fraud and lawsuits.

    So the midterms very well could be a reset if Democrats take control of something, anything. We would likely not see past damage repaired, but may see enough opposition to slow the pace of whatever is happening now, and offer transparency and oversight.

    But the 2026 election only matters if people vote, which historically is not something a great number of people do in midterms. At this point, there are few people out there who haven’t heard about the stakes in November, but that still doesn’t translate to folks — lazy, busy, distracted — weighing in.

    If proposed restrictions on mail-in ballots or voter identification take effect, even just in some states, that will also change the outcomes.

    But there is hope, always hope.

    Barabak: On that note, let’s recognize a few of the many good things that happened in 2025.

    MacKenzie Scott donated $700 million to more than a dozen historically Black colleges and universities, showing that not all tech billionaires are selfish and venal.

    The Dodgers won their second championship and, while this San Francisco Giants fan was not pleased, their seven-game thriller against the Toronto Blue Jays was a World Series for the ages.

    And the strength and resilience shown by survivors of January’s SoCal firestorm has been something to behold.

    Any others, beside your demonstrating dinos, who deserve commendation?

    Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the annual Christmas blessing.

    Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the Christmas Day blessing from the main balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.

    (Gregorio Borgia / Associated Press)

    Chabria: Though I’m not Catholic, I have been surprisingly inspired by Pope Leo XIV.

    So I’ll leave us with a bit of his advice for the future: “Be agents of communion, capable of breaking down the logic of division and polarization, of individualism and egocentrism.”

    Many of us are tired, and suffering from Trump fatigue. Regardless, to put it in nonpapal terms, it may be a dumpster — but we’re all in it together.

    Barabak: I’d like to end, as we do each year, with a thank you to our readers.

    Anita and I wouldn’t be here — which would greatly please some folks — but for you. (And a special nod to the paid subscribers out there. You help keep the lights on.)

    Here’s wishing each and all a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

    We’ll see you again in 2026.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria, Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Commentary: Front-runner or flash in the pan? Sizing up Newsom, 2028

    [ad_1]

    The 2028 presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, but you’d hardly know it from all the speculation and anticipation that’s swirling from Sacramento to the Washington Beltway.

    Standing at the center of attention is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, fresh off his big victory on Proposition 50, the backatcha ballot measure that gerrymandered the state’s congressional map to boost Democrats and offset a power grab by Texas Republicans.

    Newsom is bidding for the White House, and has been doing so for the better part of a year, though he won’t say so out loud. Is Newsom the Democratic front-runner or a mere flash in the pan?

    Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak disagree on Newsom’s presidential prospects, and more. Here the two hash out some of their differences.

    Barabak: So is the presidential race over, Anita? Should I just spend the next few years backpacking and snowboarding in the Sierra and return in January 2029 to watch Newsom iterate, meet the moment and, with intentionality, be sworn in as our nation’s 48th president?

    Chabria: You should definitely spend as much time in the Sierra as possible, but I have no idea if Newsom will be elected president in 2028 or not. That’s about a million light-years away in political terms. But I think he has a shot, and is the front-runner for the nomination right now. He’s set himself up as the quick-to-punch foil to President Trump, and increasingly as the leader of the Democratic Party. Last week, he visited Brazil for a climate summit that Trump ghosted, making Newsom the American presence.

    And in a recent (albeit small) poll, in a hypothetical race against JD Vance, the current Republican favorite, Newsom lead by three points. Though, unexpectedly, respondents still picked Kamala Harris as their choice for the nomination.

    To me, that shows he’s popular across the country. But you’ve warned that Californians have a tough time pulling voters in other states. Do you think his Golden State roots will kill off his contender status?

    Barabak: I make no predictions. I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to know. And, after 2016 and the election of Trump, the words “can’t,” “not,” “won’t,” “never ever” are permanently stricken from my political vocabulary.

    That said, I wouldn’t stake more than a penny — which may eventually be worth something, as they’re phased out of our currency — on Newsom’s chances.

    Look, I yield to no one in my love of California. (And I’ve got the Golden State tats to prove it.) But I’m mindful of how the rest of the country views the state and those politicians who bear a California return address. You can be sure whoever runs against Newsom — and I’m talking about his fellow Democrats, not just Republicans — will have a great deal to say about the state’s much-higher-than-elsewhere housing, grocery and gas prices and our shameful rates of poverty and homelessness.

    Not a great look for Newsom, especially when affordability is all the political rage these days.

    And while I understand the governor’s appeal — Fight! Fight! Fight! — I liken it to the fleeting fancy that, for a time, made attorney, convicted swindler and rhetorical battering ram Michael Avenatti seriously discussed as a Democratic presidential contender. At a certain point — and we’re still years away — people will assess the candidates with their head, not viscera.

    As for the polling, ask Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart or Hillary Clinton how much those soundings matter at this exceedingly early stage of a presidential race. Well, you can’t ask Muskie, because the former Maine senator is dead. But all three were early front-runners who failed to win the Democratic nomination.

    Chabria: I don’t argue the historical case against the Golden State, but I will argue that these are different days. People don’t vote with their heads. Fight me on that.

    They vote on charisma, tribalism, and maybe some hope and fear. They vote on issues as social media explains them. They vote on memes.

    There no reality in which our next president is rationally evaluated on their record — our current president has a criminal one and that didn’t make a difference.

    But I do think, as we’ve talked about ad nauseam, that democracy is in peril. Trump has threatened to run for a third term and recently lamented that his Cabinet doesn’t show him the same kind of fear that Chinese President Xi Jinping gets from his top advisers. And Vance, should he get the chance to run, has made it clear he’s a Christian nationalist who would like to deport nearly every immigrant he can catch, legal or not.

    Being a Californian may not be the drawback it’s historically been, especially if Trump’s authoritarianism continues and this state remains the symbol of resistance.

    But our governor does have an immediate scandal to contend with. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was just arrested on federal corruption charges. Do you think that hurts him?

    Barabak: It shouldn’t.

    There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on Newsom’s part. His opponents will try the guilt-by-association thing. Some already have. But unless something damning surfaces, there’s no reason the governor should be punished for the alleged wrongdoing of Williamson or others charged in the case.

    But let’s go back to 2028 and the presidential race. I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I believe people do very much evaluate a candidate’s ideas and records. Not in granular fashion, or the way some chin-stroking political scientist might. But voters do want to know how and whether a candidate can materially improve their lives.

    There are, of course, a great many who’d reflexively support Donald Trump, or Donald Duck for that matter, if he’s the Republican nominee. Same goes for Democrats who’d vote for Gavin Newsom or Gavin Floyd, if either were the party’s nominee. (While Newsom played baseball in college, Floyd pitched 13 seasons in the major leagues, so he’s got that advantage over the governor.)

    But I’m talking about those voters who are up for grabs — the ones who decide competitive races — who make a very rational decision based on their lives and livelihoods and which candidate they believe will benefit them most.

    Granted, the dynamic is a bit different in a primary contest. But even then, we’ve seen time and again the whole dated/married phenomenon. As in 2004, when a lot of Democrats “dated” Howard Dean early in the primary season but “married” John Kerry. I see electability — as in the perception of which Democrat can win the general election — being right up there alongside affordability when it comes time for primary voters to make their 2028 pick.

    Chabria: No doubt affordability will be a huge issue, especially if consumer confidence continues to plummet. And we are sure to hear criticisms of California, many of which are fair, as you point out. Housing costs too much, homelessness remains intractable.

    But these are also problems across the United States, and require deeper fixes than even this economically powerful state can handle alone. More than past record, future vision is going to matter. What’s the plan?

    It can’t be vague tax credits or even student loan forgiveness. We need a concrete vision for an economy that brings not just more of the basics like homes, but the kind of long-term economic stability — higher wages, good schools, living-wage jobs — that makes the middle class stronger and attainable.

    The Democrat who can lay out that vision while simultaneously continuing to battle the authoritarian creep currently eating our democracy will, in my humble opinion, be the one voters choose, regardless of origin story. After all, it was that message of change with hope that gave us President Obama, another candidate many considered a long shot at first.

    Mark, are there any 2028 prospects you’re keeping a particularly close eye on?

    Barabak: I’m taking things one election at a time, starting with the 2026 midterms, which include an open-seat race for governor here in California. The results in November 2026 will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in November 2028. That said, there’s no shortage of Democrats eyeing the race — too many to list here. Will the number surpass the 29 major Democrats who ran in 2020? We’ll see.

    I do agree with you that, to stand any chance of winning in 2028, whomever Democrats nominate will have to offer some serious and substantive ideas on how to make people’s lives materially better. Imperiled democracy and scary authoritarianism aside, it’s still the economy, stupid.

    Which brings us full circle, back to our gallivanting governor. He may be winning fans and building his national fundraising base with his snippy memes and zippy Trump put-downs. But even if he gets past the built-in anti-California bias among so many voters outside our blessed state, he’s not going to snark his way to the White House.

    I’d wager more than a penny on that.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria, Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link