♪♪ Scott: 2021 was supposed to be the year where we started a new chapter of life after a very tough 2020.

To many, the year has become a continuation of more of the same.

Where do we go from here?

Joining us today to make sense of it all is The Sacramento Bee's California opinion editor and columnist, Marcos Bretón.

Marcos, respond to those who feel that 2020 never seemed to really leave us, and that this year just seems to be more of the same.

Marcos: For me, the feeling of sameness with 2020, um, really took hold when, um, the COVID numbers began to spike again.

It seemed to me that for about 10 minutes, um, we had turned a corner.

Um, and I even had begun to go to the grocery store again, unmasked, because the-— my-— at my grocery store, they... they had... they had put aside the, uh, the mask mandate to walk in.

Um, uh, and so I felt like-— that we were on our way to living in a city and a region where being outdoors and being among people is part of what we love about Sacramento.

And, um, and that ended when... when the numbers began to spike.

Uh, and, uh, and it... it ended when, um, the numbers began to spike because so many people were refusing to be vaccinated.

And so... Scott: And... and I... and I'm curious about that, Marcos, because it feels almost like-— You know, I want to talk to you about the recall, and it almost feels like this recall is kind of like the collective primal scream of California, um, where it is that, uh, we're angry and not taking any sides on the recall, but, you know, we need someplace to direct all that energy.

Marcos: Well, the problem with that, if we look at our history in California, is when we vote angry, bad things tend to happen.

And the first one that comes to mind for me was in 1994 when then Governor Pete Wilson whipped up anger about immigration to salvage his flagging reelection prospects and tapped into a vein of anger that's with us to this day-— it never really went away-— anger that was, uh, based in ethnic hostility toward Mexican people.

And as a member of that group, I felt in the firing line.

Today, the anger that people feel at Governor Newsom is not, uh, without justification.

He certainly has done enough things to incite anger, but we don't-— We're never at our best when we're angry.

We make rash decisions when we're angry.

When that moment of anger passes, we often look back and think, "Oh, I wish I hadn't done that."

And this... this election has that potential in a big way.

Scott: You... you know though, all that being said, what do you think that the-— this recall is really all about?

Marcos: I think it's about a couple of different things.

I think it's about, uh, anger and fear over things that we can't control.

Um, it's about, um, a step in the wrong direction where, um, uh, people are feeling that, um, they can, um, relitigate an election that took place.

And it's about the anger that people feel toward Governor Newsom.

Not... not only anger, but ambivalence.

Uh, people feel, uh-— A lot of people, I think, just don't like him as a person and so this election becomes a way to... to address that.

Um, and it... and it... and it-— Scott: I...

I want to...

I want to focus on that for a second, Marcos, because when you and your colleagues sat down with the governor, I...

I...

I watched that conversation, great conversation.

And the governor, you know-— who, by the way, came across as, you know, angry, tired, irritated, you know, almost spent, all at the same time-— he was saying it's about immigration.

It's about what he's tried to do on healthcare.

It's about, you know, him trying to address climate and other things.

And, you know, he may really believe that, but this whole personal anger thing about "the people just don't like this guy,"-— What's at the root of all that?

Marcos: Well, so I can speak from my own perspective of... of my feeling toward this governor and that, to me, he seems the embodiment of privilege.

Uh, where he-— Okay.

His family was not rich, but they were connected.

Uh, and he has parlayed those connections into a remarkable career.

Um, a... a career that, uh, is actually, when you look at it, short on... on real substance and is big on... on, um, on... on flash, on... on looking good and sounding good.

And I think that, uh, when-— Scott: Well, wait... wait... wait a minute.

You say that, but, for instance, a lot of people give Gavin Newsom credit as being the first major elected official to just completely, uh, put a line in the sand when it comes to things like, uh, gay marriage, and that he has been on the forefront of issues like trying to, um, at least look at issues of inequal-— income inequality, and things like that.

You say that he's... he's light on accomplishments, but is it more that he is a person that, regardless of what he's done in the past since he's been in the chair, has he proven the notion that California's ungovernable in some ways?

Marcos: Uh, I don't think he's proven it's ungovernable.

I think that he's proven that he's, um, he is a good leader when things are going well.

Uh, and when things are not going well, he struggled.

He struggled when he was the mayor of San Francisco and some really untoward things happen, uh, at that point in time when... when he was under pressure.

And he had the easiest path, I think, to the governor's chair in generations where he didn't even have to name his Republican candidate or Republican opponent by name.

And initially, he inherited a huge surplus, but, uh, leaders are judged by how they respond in crisis.

And, uh, initially, his response to COVID was... was lauded across the country.

Uh, but if anything, um, he began to lose his grip on that reality by, uh, opening up too soon.

Now, admittedly, the people who have-— are most responsible for the... the real-— the recall didn't think that we should ever have had mask mandates or vaccine mandates or... or should have ever shut businesses down.

Uh, and that... that's a... that's a reality in itself, that these, to my mind, these folks are unrealistic about what we're up against.

To this day, even as the bodies continue to pile up.

Uh, and so... so I...

I think that Newsom gets unfairly criticized by... by that constituency.

But he did, uh, he did struggle, uh, when it came time to, um, uh, not just create revenue streams for certain problems, but actually stand up when you... when you had to.

As the... as the... as the father of public school kids, I would have loved it if he had stood up to... to the California Teachers Association when they blocked the schoolhouse door to my own children.

When his children got to go to private school, he didn't do that.

So... so, I think that uh, uh-— Scott: Would you say that it is-— Marcos: his heart is in the right place but that doesn't mean that... that, uh, that there's a... there's a long list of accomplishments.

Scott: Marcos, would you say that... that that same notion is true about, uh, the governor and his, at least thus far, inability to deal with the housing crisis in any substantial way?

Some say that the same lock that the CTA has on education, that the building and trade unions have on coming to grips with the housing crisis in this state.

Marcos: Well, so I think that in-— it's un-— It's an unfair comparison in a sense, but say Jerry Brown in his... in his... in his second eight years in office really held himself above the legislature, uh, as the guardrail, um, which is-— And... and it doesn't seem that Governor Newsom has been able to do that, that he has not been able to really confront, uh-— For example, like, the cities like San Francisco-— wealthy people actively opposing housing ordinances that would make it easier for people to afford to live in San Francisco.

What has the governor done to really turn that around?

What did he do to really talk sense to CTA?

Those things haven't happened.

And when you-— When we talked to the governor, what I really noticed with him is that, uh, accomplishments that he cites tend to... to always come back to money raised and... and... and funding... funding resources raised to attack certain problems.

And... and sometimes people want more than just a governor to write a check, but... but to actually take a stand.

Scott: So, I want...

I want to ask you about "taking a stand" because this is the first election of this significance to take place.

And I realize it's a recall election, but we've got the absence of both the governor and the highest-polling candidate to replace him from the debates that are taking place across the state.

And I'm curious, what does that indicate about the state of the race and what's going on in terms of the ability just to flout coming out in public in a mixed field and have a discourse?

Marcos: Well, that's a function with-— in terms of how this recall is set up.

Remember-— Uh, people, uh, I think, haven't focused enough on this.

There are two questions, right?

One question says, "Are you in favor of the recall?"

And that's the question where, uh, where Newsom is vulnerable because people might vote angry, uh, and just be like, "I'm just tired of this guy."

Uh, and... and the range there runs from Republicans to even, like, centrist Democrats.

Okay?

So, if enough people vote "Yes" on that question, then question number two is a free-for-all.

Question number two, that's just a free-for-all!

It's a food fight!

Uh, and whoever, like, has the most garbage on him or, in... in this sense, garbage votes for people who really don't-— people who really haven't really considered what this means.

Uh, I...

I think...

I think that's what we're talking about.

Scott: Well, look.

The reason I'm raising it is because of what you said before about Jerry Brown being like the "guardrail."

When you say that Newsom hasn't been able to fulfill that role and, in some ways, I'll recast in saying "filling those shoes," that indicates to me that there's a stature gap.

And that, if there's a stature gap, then him, uh, coming out and showing himself in front of this cast of characters who-— not my words, but in... in... in the view of some-— looks like the bar scene at the-— in the first Star Wars movie.

Um, if you have the stature and you got the chops, you'd show up because just your presence and your participation outclasses the field and revalidates the reason that you sit in the chair.

The absence of that really does call that into question.

Marcos: Well, I agree with you.

Um, and... and... and so there's a question of like-— All right, so, like, if you, uh, if you vote "No," what do you do?

Uh, and Newsom and the Democrats have advised people not to vote, not to-— to leave that one empty.

I'm not sure that's-— Scott: Do you think that's a wise... You think that's a wise recommendation?

Marcos: I don't know if that's the right-— I think that... that certainly creates more opportunity for someone really objectionable to get in that role.

Um, and so... so, some of us, um, are arguing, "I'm not thrilled with Newsom either, but we have an election cycle that's just months away that's going to address that."

Scott: Right.

But I am wondering, Marcos-— Right now, across the United States, members of his own party are fighting in Congress, you had busloads or... or planeloads of legislators from Texas flying back to DC, all about protecting the right to vote.

Should anybody be telling anyone not to vote on something?

It seems-— Marcos: It's a great question.

It's a great question, but, um, they're telling them not to vote-— I guess the, uh, the difference here is being, um, uh, there's a fight going on to remove barriers from voting.

People are gonna get to vote in this election and no one's going to stop them, but it's like the way that this particular election is structured, if you vote "Yes" on the first question, you-— the... the... the second question then becomes, "Okay, then who?"

Then who?

Who?

If you really believe that... that... that this governor should be removed, there really isn't a good choice on the second question.

Scott: But... but... but again, even if you vote "No" on the recall, shouldn't a voter take the responsibility of voting on somebody's got to replace him.

Shouldn't they... shouldn't they have a voice or shouldn't they exercise their voice for that?

Irrespective of whether they agree with it.

Marcos: Yeah.

So, they should, but I have... have...

I've looked at the ballot.

I don't know if you've looked at the... at the list of names.

Scott: It's a mess.

Marcos: I looked at the list of names.

Scott: It's a mess.

It's so long.

Marcos: It's a mess.

Scott: Yeah.

Marcos: It's a mess.

I don't think there's a single name on that list ready for prime time.

Not one.

Not one!

Uh, and... and... and you-— The... the leading-— I suppose the leader, in terms of experience, would be Kevin Faulconer, the former mayor.

At least he was elected mayor of San Diego, which is one of our larger cities in California.

And at least in that... in that city, a Republican mayor has to-— had to work with Democrats.

Scott: It's true.

However though, um, you know, it-— Most of the smart minds think that even if he was elected and he does have experience, he'd be Schwarzenegger which means he'd be a lone wolf in the middle of a sea of Democrats that control not only every institution in the state, uh, at... at the state level, but have two-thirds of votes in both houses.

So, effectively all of the leverage other than, I guess, the budget itself is out the window.

So, how do you get anything done?

Marcos: Well, you don't.

But... but do you want Schwarzenegger or do you want Trump?

Because there's a... there's a gentleman in the race who's-— who already acts a lot like Trump and would act that way if he was in the governor's chair.

Scott: Which one is that?

Marcos: That, uh, is...is-— His name is Larry Elder.

Scott: Ah, yes.

The talk show host.

Marcos: Yeah, the talk show host.

The talk show host from, uh, Los Angeles who has made a career out of, uh, being a Black person making white racists comfortable with themselves.

Um-— Scott: Uh, he... he-— Marcos: Is that... is that the person we want to be the governor of California?

Scott: Well, uh, it... it will-— It does kind of, uh, raise the issue in terms of qualifications.

I don't want to be too harsh on that.

Uh, but... but it does raise the issue.

I wanna go to, though, the implications of if Gavin Newsom loses this vote.

This doesn't just have statewide implications.

But there is a continuing discussion about the... the current state of Dianne Feinstein and her ability to discharge her responsibilities.

And, God forbid, if something were to happen to her and that, uh, the sitting governor had to name her replacement, if Newsom is removed, it changes the-— not only that seat for the governor's race, but it potentially puts a... a Republican governor in the position to... to appoint a Republican senator who then becomes the vote that completely kills Joe Biden's agenda.

And if there's a Supreme Court vacancy-— people look at Stephen Breyer a lot-— um, it, uh, Mitch McConnell is once again in the driver's seat as to who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.

So there... there are some big stakes at play.

Marcos: There are some big stakes at play and there are possibilities for, um, for, uh, certain powerful Democrats to really get their comeuppance.

It would be the... the ultimate comeuppance for, um, Dianne Feinstein to be unable to discharge her duties and then to be replaced by a Republican senator because she refused to just be reasonable and call it a career, uh, in her... in her 80s, um, uh, and really stifle the careers of other younger California politicians.

And I've been accused of being ageist for really, uh, criticizing her for running the last time.

I'm almost 59 myself.

I think if you look at my face, I'm not exactly a millennial.

Okay?

Um, but it's also a function of... of... of not abusing your power.

And... and so the danger for... for Newsom is that, uh, and the ultimate danger for Feinstein and the people who supported her is that people wanted a more reasonable government and... and the supermajorities in California created, I think, arrogance in governance that... that I think people are responding to.

Uh, people are responding in anger to that.

Um, and, um, and the... the... the... the danger there is that it's not only these elite Democrats who could be hurt, but it could be the state of California badly hurt if the wrong person ends up winning this... this ridiculous race.

Scott: You know, it-— In the-— You've moved on to, well, you've expanded your responsibilities.

I want to talk a little bit-— ask you about your job, your... your new responsibilities, because I want to talk about, uh, what's going on in... in some other parts of the state.

Tell us a little bit about what you're doing now.

Marcos: So, I've gone from being the columnist, uh, at The Sacramento Bee where I was the lone wolf, um, you know, really trying to hold people accountable, powerful people accountable, to now being the... the editor of the opinion pages.

Uh, and... and it's an honor.

Uh, the opinion pages of The Sacramento Bee are more than a century old, um, and some very distinguished people have served in this job.

And so, to be part of that continuum is an honor.

And so, the... the opinion writers in... in Sacramento report to me, as do my colleagues in Fresno, Modesto, and San Luis Obispo.

We've created one-— a single California opinion team.

So, all of us have interviewed the recall candidates, uh, and all of us are... are producing and sharing content, uh, across a huge swath of California.

And I would argue that our editorial board, uh, has a... a... a bigger footprint than any others, uh, in California.

Scott: Let's talk about that footprint for a second because the areas that, uh, that footprint covers includes large parts of the state where it is that the people in those areas don't necessarily agree-— San Luis Obispo may be on the... on the line there, but-— uh, don't always agree with the people on the coastal parts of California that... that tend to be a bit more liberal.

Right now, there is a ongoing discussion about just the viability of California and its ability to hold on to its residents because, um, you know, while wealthy people, uh, and the privileged are doing just fine and they've done just fine through the pandemic, the... the middle class and working class are struggling and, frankly, uh, the children and grandchildren coming up beneath us may not be able to afford to live in California because they're not going to be able to find jobs that pay them enough to be able to buy million-dollar houses.

As you, you know, and your team look at the state, what do you see are the big emerging issues that, frankly, COVID and the recall and other things that pushed off the front pages, but are going to come back inevitably because they've got to be dealt with?

Marcos: Well, so, to me, uh, one area where we need to be commenting a lot is how, uh, these older, affluent people in California are pulling up the drawbridge, uh, on the next generation by, uh, opposing, um, more equitable housing projects at... at every step, at every turn, and using their money and influence to frighten otherwise quote, unquote "progressive" politicians.

Uh, and so... so there really is a wealth and class gap in California that's only growing wider.

Uh, and... and... and... and the... the danger is there that the... the reaction to it is becoming more strident.

Uh, and... and they have a justification for being angry but... but... uh, but, um, our, uh, our wealth, um, is... is such that we-— um, that the peoples have a different interpretation of California and they want to preserve the California that... that is... is best suited for them and, but they're doing it at the expense of young people.

Uh, and if we cut off the pipeline to young people, uh, we will pay a heavy price for it.

Uh, and... and we... we are paying a price for it.

California's population did recede.

There's no doubt about that.

Uh, I...

I personally don't think the metrics show, uh, that... that Florida or Texas or New York have overtaken us in any way, but it's definitely not a positive sign.

Scott: We did lose a congressional seat.

Marcos: We did.

Scott: Or... or I should say the anticipation is we are losing a congressional seat because of exactly the phenomenon you're describing.

Marcos: And... and you see it on the streets of San Francisco and... and in Sacramento and what-— You know, as... as the editorial page editor, I get lobbied all the time about people who-— and it turns out that people were opposing housing being built.

And so, I think that years and years of doing that and not...

Listen, you know, a lot more about building housing than I do, uh, in terms of what-— why it's not being built, but we've-— we reached the point now where we can't wait for it anymore and... and it's exacerbated homelessness.

It's exacerbated flight from California and we... we need to speak clearly, uh, on these issues.

And so, as the opinion page editor, um, you know, we're-— I'm taking a position, we're taking the position that... that we're going to name names and... and call out, uh, politicians who... who go along with the NIMBYs, uh, that we've gotten in a terrible spot in California because of the NIMBYs.

Uh, and... and that the NIMBYs should not have the... the biggest and loudest voice in California at all.

Scott: And I think... and I think that's where we'll leave it.

Thank you for coming on, Marcos, and good luck, uh, with, uh, your new post and, uh, that new footprint that you're in charge of.

Marcos: Thank you.

Scott: All right.

And that's our show.

Thanks to our guest, and thanks to you for watching Studio Sacramento.

I'm Scott Syphax.

See you next time right here on KVIE.

♪♪ ♪♪ Scott Syphax: All episodes of Studio Sacramento, along with other KVIE programs, are available to watch online at kvie.org/video.