Gavin Newsom's Podcast Is The First Of Many Half-Hearted Democratic Rebrands, And It's Not Going Well
California Governor Gavin Newsom sent shockwaves through both left and right wing coded social media feeds with an unexpected guest on his new podcast “This Is Gavin Newsom.” His decision to feature Charlie Kirk as the first guest was no accident. It was strategic, and he admits as much during the conversation. Newsom seems intent on not only a self rebrand, but a party-wide rebrand. He’s set his sights on Charlie Kirk as the blueprint, likely motivated by presidential aspirations.
Newsom opens the conversation with an anecdote about his son’s excitement over Kirk’s visit. As governor of the largest Democratic state in the country, if his own son is being influenced by Kirk’s political advocacy and social media outreach, he knows he has something to learn from him. They may be worlds apart ideologically, but Newsom can’t deny the fundamental vibe shift that’s taken place as a result of Kirk’s optics: showing up to college campuses initially with nothing more than a card table and a sign that read “Debate me.” It took a few years for the project to bear its fruits, but its mission to transform college campuses from an intellectually stifling environment to one where heterodox ideas are more welcome were eventually achieved.
This is undeniably in large part thanks to people like Kirk and his organization Turning Point USA. Newsom has taken notice, and has voiced his disagreement with James Carville’s call for Democrats to “roll over and play dead” in The New York Times after getting crushed in the last election. He says after reading the article, he thought about Kirk, who's "24/7 flooding the zone, owning this space, every day getting a convert, every day picking up one, two, 10,000 folks, continuing the momentum, coming out of this damn election." It forced him to question the utility of sitting back and watching conservatives like Kirk run circles around them for months to years, waiting for the moment to strike.
Newsom was nearly frothing at the mouth to learn his secrets. Kirk shared that things really took a turn in 2021, when they came up with a goal to move the youth vote ten points in ten years. “Our whole hypothesis was, and we did this alongside President Trump and his great team, was that this demographic is disproportionately to the Democrats' side. We believe Democrats were taking them for granted. We think that your side had no message whatsoever and an ideological monopoly. We saw some of the fault lines there,” Kirk said. Then, he teased, “We did it in four years, not 10, in large part, thanks to you guys.” He wasn’t wrong.
While Newsom seems receptive to the reality that the American people are no longer buying what the Democrats are selling, he can’t seem to identify that Americans can no longer be placated with lip service. It’s no wonder that Newsom was perplexed by Kirk’s thirst for debate on college campuses, misguidedly questioning whether the inclination to debate anyone, anywhere, at any time might be a reflection of his narcissism. If Newsom had actually understood just how intellectually stifling these campuses were, he’d recognize that the endeavor was to actually “stress test” ideas—something most liberals never had to do, since they merely parroted talking points that were fed to them from four year institutions with virtually zero pushback.
Newsom ironically continually refers to the desire to “stress test” the various contentions Kirk and the broader right wing movement have with Newsom and the Democratic party, but the second they get into the weeds of the issues, Newsom immediately waves the white flag and retreats. He does so by stringing together meaningless word salad, lying, attempting to distract with flattery, or even just straight up saying he doesn’t want to talk about it any further.
Kirk toyed with him throughout the interview, throwing playful jabs here and there, which Newsom was a good sport about, but ultimately had few substantive rebuttals for. He distanced himself from woke talking points, calling the term LatinX ridiculous and insisting no one in his office has ever used the term, despite himself tweeting it multiple times. He denounced the defund the police movement, conceded that the top Black Lives Matter that capitalized on the George Floyd summer of racial justice was a racket, and made fun of Kamala Harris’ endorsement of funding transgender operations of illegal aliens.
When discussing the downstream effects of wokeness, Newsom, in his attempt to be more open minded and moderate, revealed a damning cluelessness. He downplayed the significance of gender identity pronouns, insisting he’s only encountered it once during his tenure as governor. In reality, Newsom has signed gender recognition acts that enable residents to select nonbinary gender markers on state-issued documents.
He condemned the notion that eight-year-old white kids should be made to feel like they’re racist, but tried to downplay the push for DEI as nothing more than decades-old hiring practices already in place. He attempted to dismiss the idea that Critical Race Theory is being taught in K-12 education because the classes aren’t literally named “Critical Race Theory.” That doesn’t negate the fact that its central premises are funneling through traditional teachings. Kirk held him accountable for his sudden evolution in policy positions, citing his support for Prop 16, which would reinstate affirmative action in the public sector.
By far the most clippable viral moment of the podcast was when Newsom diverged with his party on the issue of biological men in women’s sports. Kirk got Newsom to admit it’s an issue of fairness, but he didn’t say much beyond that. He seemed to tacitly endorse Kirk’s view that it’s completely true that it’s unfair for biological men to have an advantage over women in sports, and asserts that it's an important issue to him.
This answer, cleverly vague and meaningless, was a proper politician’s answer—saying something without saying anything. It’s easily spinnable in whichever direction is most advantageous, yet it pleases no one. The right took his hollow words to task by combing over his voting record, citing support for AB1955 which protected children’s constitutional right to privacy and would in effect prevent teachers from sharing their child’s gender identity with their parents. When Kirk asked him if he would call out the trans athletes who are currently demolishing women in their sports, he sidestepped the issue.
He may recognize that 79% of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, are against biological men participating in women’s sports, but he can’t identify that the rot is a mere extension of the bedrock of Democratic politics. The party has become the face of “that one friend who’s too woke” and left the working class behind. Newsom is savvy enough to course correct, but he doesn’t have the stones to back it up on the policy level. He lacks the unapologetic fervor of the right that speaks to voters, and he doesn’t seem to stand for anything; constantly wavering on policies, dodging questions, or denying his complicity.
Respect to Newsom for opening a dialogue, but in 2025 we’re a little past the shtick of patting ourselves on the back for engaging in the “battleground of ideas.” If this conversation is indicative of what’s to come, I urge conservatives to welcome Democrats wanting to pivot back to a reasonable politic to discuss the issues. It’s obvious all they have are regurgitations of our ideas without a consistent framework or track record to back them up. In effect, all Newsom has done is isolate the factions of his party who would support him, whilst changing no one’s mind on the right. Judging from the left’s reaction, they’re intent on digging that hole even deeper, until moderates are forced to jump ship. Let them.