Gavin Newsom may have the most exquisitely calibrated set of political antenna in America. California’s governor has risen to the top of Democratic presidential polls not only by becoming his party’s loudest and most effective Trump critic, but by expertly surfing the cresting progressive wave from the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez left without forfeiting his Clinton/Obama centrist credentials. It’s an impressive feat of political dexterity that no one in the class of 2028 potential candidates can come close to matching.
Earlier this year, it looked like Newsom might be forced to finally choose an ideological lane. The so-called Billionaire Tax Act, a proposed ballot initiative which would impose a 5% levy on the total wealth of 200-plus Californians whose net worth is $1 billion or more, forced him to choose between Democratic activists (who fiercely love the tax) and his donors (who hate it with equal passion). Newsom quickly came out against the proposal. But it now appears that his office will attempt to negotiate a legislative solution that would provide a mutually and grudgingly acceptable compromise.
That was the easy one. Now comes Israel.
Shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks, Newsom was one of the first American politicians to visit the Jewish state. Less than two weeks after the invasion, Newsom was on the ground meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog, comforting grief-stricken families, and proclaiming solidary and support for a nation still reeling from the tragedy. A few days earlier, Newsom authorized $20 million in state funding to provide physical security enhancements to nonprofit organizations — like synagogues and mosques — that are at high risk for violent attacks and hate crimes.
But that was before Israel became a dirty word in some American political circles. Since then, more than two years of warfare in Gaza caused Democratic support for Israel to dramatically diminish. By last fall, the governor was harshly criticizing Netanyahu and dodging questions about whether he would accept support from AIPAC. But he still made it clear that he would continue to endorse military aid to Israel and opposed “blanket exemptions” that would cut off funding.
Newsom went much further last week after the Iran war began. He suggested that the U.S. should “reconsider” its military support due to the actions of Israel’s current leadership, which he then described as being “appropriately” called an “apartheid state.” He also spoke out much more clearly and harshly against AIPAC than he had previously, declaring that he “never have and never will” accept the organization’s financial support (omitting the fact that AIPAC does not donate to candidates for any of the offices he has sought to date).
Regardless of whether one endorses the coordinated U.S. and Israeli attacks against Iran’s leaders, suggesting that our government cut off funding for an ally during wartime is not an ideal way for a likely presidential candidate to contrast himself with the diplomatic wreckage characteristic of the current officeholder. Newsom is hurriedly aligning himself with his party’s base, which is what most successful presidential candidates other than Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower must do. But his machinations are a warning that the current difficulties for American politicians facing rising voter unhappiness with Israel will only become harder. Future presidents of either party who recognize the value of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship will be facing a formidable sales challenge with skeptical voters for the foreseeable future.
Please note the inclusion of the phrase “of either party” in the previous sentence. While Democratic animosity toward Israel is statistically greater than that of Republicans, neither has a corner on the market on the antizionism and anti-Semitism flourishing in our society. Far-right commentator Tucker Carlson recently skipped the pretense of anti-Israel criticism altogether to engage in unadulterated anti-Jewish hatred by bizarrely accusing the Chabad Lubavitch movement of provoking the war in Iran.
Carlson is not yet running for president. Newsom is. Carlson is an anti-Semite. Newsom is not. He is simply a hyper-motivated politician. But this combination of bigotry and ambition illustrate the challenges that now lie ahead for us.
Dan Schnur is the U.S. Politics Editor for the Jewish Journal. He teaches courses in politics, communications, and leadership at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine. He hosts the monthly webinar “The Dan Schnur Political Report” for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall. Follow Dan’s work at www.danschnurpolitics.com.
