that Gavin Newsome, the governor of

California, might want to run for

president someday. That's been widely

believed for a long time.

That Gavin Newsome would have a chance

if he ran for president someday. That

was less widely believed. Liberal white

guy from a [music] state the country

considers badly governed. Just didn't

seem like the profile that either the

Democratic Party or the country was

looking for. Well, things change.

[music] If you look at the polyarket

betting odds on who will be the 2020

Democratic nominee, Newsome is [music]

far ahead of anyone else. Jonathan

Martin, Politico's senior political

columnist. [music] He wrote a piece

entitled, "Amit it Gavin Newsome is the

2028 [music] front runner." Look, I know

it's all very early to be talking about

2028. [music] And in this episode, I try

not to. But even putting the future

aside, Newsome has become, [music]

without any doubt, one of the Democratic

Party's leaders at a time when the

[music] party is desperately looking for

leadership.

>> Where the hell is my party? Where's the

Democratic Party?

>> And as a Californian, someone who has

watched and covered Newsome for a long

time, [music] he has surprised me.

taking risks, trying new things. He has

a feel for this moment, not just in

politics, but in attention and in how

attention now works. In a way that very

few other Democrats have demonstrated.

[music]

>> Welcome to Fortnite Friday, Governor.

>> Hey, it's good to be with you. This is

my kind of Friday.

>> You got some pretty good merch here,

too.

>> Thank you for that.

>> I like this one.

>> That's right. Yeah.

>> You're good at this. Hey, I have a fail.

>> And he just doesn't seem in the [music]

way so many Democrats seem afraid. He

doesn't seem afraid of trying things and

failing. Doesn't seem afraid of making

his own side angry. Doesn't seem afraid

of experimenting. It's working for him.

It began right after the election when

Newsome [music] launched a podcast where

he began interviewing people like

Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, Nuke

Gingrich, Michael Savage. I mean, that

podcast [music] pissed Democrats off. if

I heard from any of them, but I watched

him in those episodes. I thought, he's

listening and I wonder what he's

learning from them. And at the same

time, Nim turned himself into the leader

of the resistance. How Donald Trump is

trying to rig the midterm elections and

how I fear that we will not have an

election in 2028 unless we wake up to

the code red what's happening in this

country. He began trolling Trump on

social media, talking about the

president in the terms of president

talks about everyone else. Then when

Texas began its midcycle redistricting,

Newsome did something many found

shocking.

>> Governor Gavin Newsome and supporters of

the ballot measure believe that

redrawing congressional districts is the

only way to protect democracy. People

against it think it's a power grab.

>> Some top Democrats had historically been

opposed to the idea of redistricting.

Two

bad behaviors don't make a right

behavior.

>> And that ballot initiative, which could

have failed and would [music] have

looked terrible if it failed, passed

overwhelmingly.

But Newsome's [music]

problem as a leader for the Democratic

Party is what it has always been. Look,

California, in my view, is the greatest

state in the nation, [music] the place I

love more than anywhere else on earth.

But at a time when the politics of

affordability are paramount, [music]

California routinely ranks as the least

affordable state in the nation. [music]

Nuome has signed many good bills, done

many good things, but he has not fixed

[music] that. So I want to have Newsome

on the show to talk through what he's

learned from the right, what he believes

must be the future of the Democratic

party, and how he answers California's

manifold critics. As always, my email as

reclin times.com.

Governor Gavin Newsome, welcome to the

show.

>> It's great to be with you.

>> Can't believe I was on your podcast

before you were on.

>> Well, that's the way it should be. I

mean, I you know, I needed I needed some

numbers. I needed some audience. So,

thank you for providing that. I'm

grateful.

>> I'm I'm happy to help. So, I've been

watching interviews with you recently.

Everybody starts by asking you about the

Democratic Party. I want to ask you

about the right. I am always struck by

how much of the modern right comes out

of California. Se Breitbart, California.

>> Interesting.

>> You have uh Ben Shapiro and the Daily

Wire begin in California. Steven Miller

>> grows up in California. Peter Keel,

Curtis Yarvin was based in California.

The Claremont Institute, the

intellectual home of Trumpism.

>> Why do you think that is that California

is birthed so much of the

>> I mean, look, it's the size of 21 state

populations combined. Um so you have to

put it in perspective. I mean there's

nothing like it in scale and size and

scope. You have more Republicans in

California than most states have

population. Uh so you have to put all of

that in perspective. So by definition in

a very pluralistic state uh that you

know politics is very diverse even

despite the fact of its perception of

being a big blue state. You look at a

map twothirds of that state is deeply

red. You have some of the most

conservative counties in America and you

have some of the most historically

conservative counties going back decades

and decades like Orange County that

really forged

>> my county,

>> your county forged sort of the modern

construct of of you know sort of

Reaganism and Nixon these guys that came

uh from that frame. So in that respect

it's not surprising but the Steven

Miller I think that's interesting

because there's this dialectic right

there's sort of that that push back to

sort of orthodoxy and that friction uh

that emerges and people that emerge from

that uh emerge with a very strong point

of view. Do you think there's something

too about the I know some of these guys

I don't know some of the others but the

way they end up feeling embattled on the

wrong side of history. Everybody says,

and I believe California is a place

where the future happens first.

>> Yeah.

>> And a lot of them felt like they were

watching what they believed in get

encircled. And it seems to me it created

a kind of conservatism that is much more

apocalyptic, much more ethnationalist.

>> It's certainly ethnationalist,

>> much more about where about trying to

stop where things are going rather than

preserve like the best of

>> Yeah. I mean, Ron Brownstein's written a

lot about the the forces of restoration

in in that context versus the forces of

transformation. Uh, these guys want to

put America in reverse. They want to

bring us back many ways to pre-960s

world on voting rights, civil rights,

LGBTQ rights, women's rights, etc. And

look, you think about that in the

context or I think about in the context

of California and your question. Uh to

me that peaked in my sort of modern

construct meaning in terms of

contemporary space in 1994 with Pete

Wilson the Republican governor.

>> One of the hardest fought state races is

in California where incumbent Republican

Governor Pete Wilson is facing

Democratic challenger Kathleen Brown and

where the issue of illegal immigration

could be a decisive one.

>> Wilson believes he has touched a nerve.

He is backing Proposition 187 which

would deny illegal immigrants services

like health care and public education

for their children. And on that same

ballot was the end of affirmative action

at least the beginning of the end of

affirmative action which occurred at the

UC regions uh shortly thereafter. But

Prop 187 was all about push back, you

know, was xenophobia and the nivism, the

push back against immigration peak 1994.

They keep coming. 2 million illegal

immigrants in California. The federal

government won't stop them at the

border, yet requires us to pay billions

to take care of them. Enough is enough.

>> Governor Pete Wilson.

>> Those against 187 were heard in the

streets, but not at the polls.

>> And of course, his ascendancy running

for election, re-election, was all about

his presidential aspirations as well. I

am seeking the presidency of the United

States.

[cheering]

The values that guided us for 200 years

are suddenly under siege and so is

America.

>> So it was directional not just in

California but growing across the United

States. So we've had this for decades. I

mean there's a familiarity here. Uh but

you know the response to that is also

interesting and I think in many respects

the response to Prop 187 and P Wilson's

success has a lot of clues in terms of

how the Democratic Party responds to

this moment and reasserts our success

moving forward in terms of rebuilding

the party. Um

>> it was about grassroots. It was about

building movements. Uh it was about

connecting communities. It was about

NOS's. It was about community

organizers. uh it was truly bottom up

and it forced a discipline that led to a

lot of organizations that are thriving

today that quite literally came out of

what they perceived as a chaos uh of

1994 1995. I, you know, I think about it

now in the context of where we were in

2004 as well. Um, in terms of where our

party is, where we got shellacked, we

lost the Senate, we lost the House, we

lost the presidency. Uh, and then we

built Media Matters, we built Center for

America Progress, we built, you know,

Democracy Alliance, we started

organizing millennials, uh, we started

organizing Hispanics, we started

focusing on mobile, local, social,

cloud, cloud meaning technology. and we

built this bottomup movement that

brought us back into the majority with

Nancy Pelosi two years later and then

2008 we had 53% popular vote uh most

since 1964 to get Barack Obama into the

White House. So it was a remarkable

story of resilience but it was also the

hard work in 2005 and six that set that

course. So I I often think about the '

04 analogy. I don't think I think

probably the Democratic party was more

shattered and broken after 2024, but I

think people who don't remember 2004 and

how bad that felt

>> can miss and in the sense the Democratic

party lost touch with the heartland. It

had to be a completely different thing.

>> We were I was reading books about going

to Applebees, Applebee's America. It was

all about, you know, it was about

appearing less frank. We can't have, you

know, Hermes ties anymore. I mean, it

was all about the heart. It was I mean,

it's so familiar. So many of this stuff,

all this stuff echoes over and over and

over and over again. But so you've

actually been trying to figure out

different parts of America. So I I was

struck after the election to see you

start a podcast

>> horning in on our territory here. I I

got to say I didn't.

>> You really didn't. Well, you didn't

expect my guests.

>> Well, you've actually had a podcast

before with

>> with March,

>> man. What's happening, man? You got

Marshmallow [music]

Lynch,

>> Doug Hendrickson,

>> and Gavin Newsome, and you're listening

to politic.

>> So, talk about podcast. I didn't expect

you to have that probably beat this one.

>> But I would not have expected you to

start with Charlie Kirk as your first

guest.

>> Dr. [clears throat] Michael Savage.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> Steve Bannon.

>> Yeah.

>> I mean, I've watched you in these

interviews.

>> You're listening.

>> Yeah.

>> You're looking for threads of of

interest and agreement. I've watched

Steve Bannon tell you repeatedly how the

2020 election was stolen. You just let

the pitches go, right?

>> Because I mean, how many how many

debates have we had about

wrong and we've it's exhausting.

>> I want to I want to ask what has stayed

with you from these conversations? What

you have been learning uh across a

couple of them. So let's start with with

Kirk. What for you was the most resonant

point Charlie Kirk made and I don't mean

her that you have to have agreed with

it. Just something appreciate

>> has made the way you think about the

world a little bit different. Um, I

thought there was a sincerity, a deeper

sincerity than I anticipated in terms of

his point of view and his perspective.

Um, I don't [clears throat]

I, you know, I I'm

perhaps almost a humility in this

respect, a willingness to engage with

people he disagreed with, a willingness

to debate um to the extent that he

thought in a fair and balanced way. Um,

I think there's grace in that. um

someone deeply focused on organizing in

a deeper way than I expected or

understood.

>> Um right around I'd say 2021

uh we had a goal. Could we move the

youth vote 10 points over 10 years? And

we

>> was it literally you sat down and put

that numerical together?

>> Yeah. Like can we move it 10 points over

10 years? Because our whole hypothesis

was and we you know we did this

alongside President Trump and his great

team was that this demographic is

disproportionately to the Democrat side.

We believe Democrats were taking them

for granted and someone that understood

more deeply the the pain that young men

are facing and struggling with.

>> They are the most alcohol addicted, most

drug addicted, most suicidal, most

depressed, most medicated generation in

history.

>> And the message that was largely being

fed to a lot of young people was lower

your expectations. you're not going to

have the same American dream that that

your parents would have. And we saw this

as an opportunity especially with young

men.

>> Uh and was able to do something about it

and give them hope and recognize the

society is failing young men and uh and

someone that clearly was playing an

outsiz influence even greater than I

fully understood in terms of supporting

the base of the mammoo. part of his

perspective on how society is failing

young men felt

reasonable to you, recognizable to you.

And which part I mean look I mean we all

know I mean everybody knows the stats

you if you're 30 years old you're the

first generation living that's not doing

better than your parents. This is and

there's a sense of nihilism that's

growing. And I had a number of other

interesting guests, Atriarch and others,

went down to TwitchCon and was there

with a lot of gamers and really sort of

trying to get into the the the belly of

the beast of understanding where young

men are and this pain and suffering,

this isolation that's turning

increasingly to grievance that they're

never going to do better than their

parents. They're never going to get out

of that room with three roommates.

They're never going to get uh even they

can't even afford rent because they

can't even afford the first two months

payment uh on the rent, let alone buy a

home. in this nihilism he understood and

he understood it in the context I don't

think he and certainly Trump understood

it as well he took advantage of it but

they have no prescriptions to address it

and deal with it so where it fell short

of course I only had an hour and a half

conversation with Charlie but where it

seems to me I've fallen short with

turning point USA and the and MAGA

movement is they don't have a

prescription to actually address the

real and substantive issues but they

sure as hell identify the

>> problem prescription And I think if I

were to try to boil it down,

tariffs a closed border on Christianity.

Christianity is a big part. That was

that was also telling um you know I I I

lazily said you know Jesus to and he got

offended [clears throat] and then I said

it again and I realized boy I really are

offended. forgive me for being and I

didn't understand how deeply held his

faith was and how much of an organizing

principle it is for them as well and how

these rallies and everything that's

interesting just that merger in terms of

creating community sense of belonging

meaning identity it's hard to break

>> he was trying to build the new Christian

right

>> yeah and Trump understands that it gives

people meaning and purpose it's powerful

I mean I imagine it's like you I haven't

been to a Bernie rally necessarily but

it seems you know not dissimilar but

even more I mean there's a religious

construct to it. That's powerful. Faith,

community, uh belonging. These are we're

desperate for that. And those are

universal. Those are not right.

>> Are you religious or spiritual at all?

>> Yeah. Spiritual perhaps more than

religious. I'm uh as my dad would say

about I went to Catholic schools and uh

went to a Jesuit university. I'm I'm

Catholic of kind of the distance distant

kind. I'll go to church on Christmas. Uh

you know, I'm one of those. Uh but I

feel deep connection to my faith beyond

that in a spiritual sense. um in Jesuit

upbringing really has defined me. The

St. Francis, my our patron saint in San

Francisco, many parts one body. When one

part suffers, we all suffer. This notion

of social justice, racial justice,

economic justice is deeply ingrained in

me. Uh and it's kind it's it's really

shaped me in in that respect. So I I

attach that. I don't dismiss that when I

talk to someone like Charlie. I respect

that deeply. I admire that. But look, I

think there there's a lot of grievance

there, but there's also a lot of

grievance I have in this space that my

party's completely neglected this space

that we haven't been organizing the

campuses, but we haven't been organizing

young men. We haven't been addressing

their societal screams, their concerns,

they're legitimate suicide rate, 4x that

of women, dropout rates, the deaths of

despair. I mean, we we have men that are

suffering and it's hurting women. Any

[clears throat] mother understands this.

I've got two boys and one of them, as

you know, if you listen to that podcast,

was so excited. Charlie Kirk was coming

on because his algorithms are saying

that Andrew Tate is innocent. Uh, and

Sky Peterson is an unbelievable thought

leader up in Canada and Joe Rogan is the

best and you know, and Charlie Kirk, you

really get to need to know him, Dad.

And, uh, start to wake up to this

reality that Democratic Party needs to

wake up to. And that's again that's the

entry into why I did this podcast and

had those folks on as first guests.

>> I thought one of the most interesting

shows you did was with the streamer

Atriarch.

>> Yeah. Thank you.

>> Yeah. What did you take from that

conversation?

>> You know what was so interesting? Uh he

was wonderfully combative with me. I

kept wanting to talk about his history

as a streamer and a gamer.

>> He had no interest.

>> I I do want to start talking about Gen Z

men.

>> Yeah. And uh the issue I'm seeing and

not all of them are like this. It's a

broad diverse group of course and and

it's a huge point of my audience and I'm

hearing them I'm hearing their their

thoughts a lot. They range from angry to

openly nihilistic. He said, "I'm coming

on because my audience is pissed off.

Pissed off with you, pissed off with

everybody. Democrats and Republicans.

You're not listening to us. They're

struggling. They're suffering. And

you're not listening to us. It's not

about gaming. It's not about Discord.

It's not about Twitch. It's about what

the hell you guys haven't done to

address the crisis for so many young

people and how they're feeling today. If

I could boil it down to one word, it's

like radicalism is when no house.

[laughter]

If you can't get a house, if you don't

see a path to get a house, and I hear

this all the time, they're they're some

of them are working. They're working

decent jobs. They're working hard. It's

not even feasible in a lot of these

cities to ever get a house. Uh, and it

was remarkable. He kept coming over and

over and over. Once you feel like you

can get on that ladder, you're okay. You

can you can calm down. You can find a

party. You can vote. But if you can't

see that, it's what's the point? Why why

am I doing it? Why am I working this job

for a boss I hate for wages that are

only okay? I'm never going to get

another step up. So, yeah. Yeah. I I

feel like I've said that enough. I

>> And it was not just illuminating. Um, it

woke me up. Wake up. Wake up Democratic

party. Wake up everybody. People are

suffering and struggling and and look

it's a Trump understood that in a

contemporary term. I didn't understand

that in this terms. I was out there

making a case and I was one of the last

men standing for Biden. I was out there

literally up right and I was talking

about the economy in the aggregate. 15.4

million jobs, eight times more than the

last three Republican administrations

combined. the best jobs market since the

1960s. Uh all of these things that were

true. All that said, uh I missed the

obvious point. Uh [clears throat] that's

in the aggregate. We're talking about

the economy. We're not talking about the

American people. We're not talking about

people's lived experience. And we miss

that. And with Atriarch, he kept

bringing that back. That systemically

for decades, this economy has not been

working. 10% of people on twothirds the

wealth. half the consumer spending is

that top 10%. this thing the mags the

whole the stock market is seven damn

stocks maybe 10 but primarily seven

mostly in California and so that reality

[clears throat]

he burst in a way that pierced me even

more than all the intellectual pundantry

the things you've written and other

people have written uh because

>> make it personal [laughter]

>> but it's not nourishing the economy for

enough people are living on edge

>> and I [clears throat] saw that at home I

live that reality but it's deeper than

that now I mean we were able to finally

afford.

>> But you needed to I think somebody

listening to this could say, "Look,

you're the governor of California.

>> Nobody was unaware that inflation was

punishing people that

>> that homes be had become extremely

unaffordable for for for young people.

Nobody was unaware that there was pain.

I mean, what when you say it burst a

bubble for you? How was that?"

>> On my own rhetoric, I was so stubborn.

I'm talking about sort of my rhetorical

posture, not my understanding. I mean,

look, I'm the guy that did $20 minimum

wage for fast food workers. No other

government in the country's done that.

25 for healthcare workers,

>> doubled the earned income tax credit, uh

that has universal healthcare regardless

of pre-existing condition, ability to

pay, and immigration status. I'm deeply

mindful of the imperative to address

these underlying issues. So, I'm I'm not

naive in that respect. Quite the

contrary, but my rhetoric did not match.

And I think that rhetoric that was so

much part of the rhetoric this sort of

defensive posture that inflation was

cooling from that 9.1%

and jobs [clears throat] market was

growing. We were the envy of the world

economist magazine everybody else GDP

growth. It just landed flat.

>> America's already great.

>> Yeah. And Trump understood. So it was

the rhetoric not the reality that I'm

trying to but let me get at this

rhetoric reality landing flat because I

do think there's something pretty deep

here. When you used to defend Biden to

me and to others, the the word you would

use about his governance, not

necessarily his communication is a

master class. I agree.

>> Right. You you and you were, I think,

probably the most effective at making

the case people wished he would have

made.

>> If these policies were so good, if the

policies in California were so good,

then what is the disconnect? Because

ultimately this whole thing is supposed

to work on a feedback loop between

policy,

reality, voting,

which was the policy not actually that

good? Was it just unable to overcome the

reality? What broke? Well, I thought the

policy was extraordinary, but so why

then did it not make people happier?

Because program passing is not problem

solving. So you have to establish that

as a framework. When you pass a piece of

legislation, that's day one. Mhm.

>> Now you you start at the beginning of a

new process which unfolds over the

course of period of time and it unfolds

in ways that no one understands better

than Eler Klein that no one understands

better than the person sitting across.

>> I'm sure you say that to all the

podcast. But it's a fundamental fact of

the frame of reference that we have

together in terms of your abundance

agenda, understanding process,

understanding the labyrinth of

governance, understanding jurisdictions,

understanding the sort of the

pluralistic realities of how you

actually manifest and implement these

ideals. And that's challenging and that

plays out in 50 states. It plays I mean

I just think about my own you you living

in the Bay Area. There's 101

jurisdictions in the Bay Area alone.

There's hundreds of special districts,

JPAs and transit districts in addition

to that to get anything done. How you

break that down. You imagine from the

presidential perspective, chips and

science act and the IRA and the tax

credits etc. uh having that framework.

Localism is still determinative and now

you can drive a lot of reforms on NEPA

squa and California etc. But localism

still outweighs so much of that. And so

from a communication perspective that

should have been perhaps communicated

more effectively. Um but also it needs

time to gestate. Trump's success is

destroying not building. That's easy and

you can destroy in nanconds

the symbolism and the substance of the

east wing. That's destruction. Doge

destruction. And that kind of

destruction somehow satiates people in

this respect. They feel like, "Oh,

there's something actually happening.

There's real action here." But to be a

builder, that's where greatness is.

That's where greatness lies. And that's

what I believe was the master class of

the administration was able to create a

framework to build again at scale $1.2

trillion infrastructure package, the

IRA, so we can compete against our most

fierce competitor, China, in lowcarbon

green growth. They delivered $369

billion. The reality though obviously is

that Trump will take advantage of a lot

of those investments,

>> but he's also taking advantage of the

narrative of destruction. A view I hold,

I think even more strongly now than I

did when I was writing the book, which

was mostly before the election, is

liberal democracy will not work if

policy cannot deliver at the speed of

elections. at the speed of elections.

>> When Democrats get to the point where

they are endlessly justifying why

everything is so slow,

>> my favorite example of this is that when

Medicare passed, it took one year for

the Medicare cards to go out. When

Biden, in what was arguably the most

popular single thing he passed during

his presidency, certainly one of them,

passed negotiating down Medicare drug

prices, the way it was designed, the And

you can blame corporate influence on all

kinds of things,

>> right? But it's still not those 10

drugs. I think the first time people

will pay those lower prices is [snorts]

next year.

>> Yeah.

>> And so just in time for Donald Trump to

take advantage of it. If you break the

cord

>> between the things that Gavin Newsome is

doing and Joe Biden is doing and what

people can feel,

>> how are voters supposed to make

>> Well, I think it's why they have turned

to Orban and you've got, you know, more

authoritarian leans. I mean, it's why we

were all just reverential a decade ago

and Freeman and others writing

breathlessly about the China model and

how they're going to clean our clock.

People, yeah, they want action. They

want to see results immediately. I get

that. But we also believe in due

process, believe in civil service,

believe in the rule of law, not the rule

of dawn, not the law of the jungle. Uh

we believe in oversight, you know, vise

and consent. Uh we believe uh in due

process and and transparency. U we don't

believe in cronyism where perhaps we

don't. Yeah, I'm not saying we need to

believe in Trumpism,

>> but the point I guess the point is

>> I'm saying what do you do to reconnect

people to the fruits of governance?

>> So, look, I'm trying to do that in real

time. I I think one of the things that I

look back on my term is is um if there

was if there were a mistake um I there's

policy things I certainly should have

couldn't do but this notion of

compromise

um and being complicit in that process

as you suggest um where we're just you

know all these interest groups

everything else and we just want to work

through and we're making progress feels

good uh but we you know so we went 80%

of the way uh we're going to come back I

have lost all patience for because I

agree with you, the public has as well.

They want to see results and that was

reflected in 13 housing bills that I

disproportionately

had to assert uh well number of them I

had to put in the budget in which you

just don't do because it couldn't get

out of the legislature otherwise in

order just to assert and deliver with a

mindset that is aligned with your

critique and your observation. But but

again there's a balance there because I

don't want crony capitalism. I don't

want state capitalism. I don't want

command and control. I don't want to

blow up the procurement. I don't want to

just pick winners and losers.

>> Let's take as a premise.

>> Yeah.

>> That the model where you walk in and you

hand Donald Trump sometimes

non-metaphorically

a gift made of gold to get good deals

from him.

>> Yeah. It's I think it's uh it's

>> it's bad.

>> It's not bad. It's it's it's

corrosive beyond words. It's

extraordinary what's happening.

>> We'll go with that.

>> Yeah.

The model where

government doesn't deliver is also

corrosive. You have you have a great

metaphor in your book Citizenville

>> where you say that people treat

government like a vending machine.

>> Yeah.

>> And they go and they put their tax

dollars into it and when nothing comes

out they begin shaking the machine.

>> Yeah. You kick the machine.

>> If Gavin Newsome or somebody Gavin

Newsome likes was doing

Doge but the thing Doge claimed to be.

We have been doing it. I started Doge.

We spell doge ODI. I started in 2019.

Sort of worse than Doge.

>> I agree. It's Office of Digital

Innovation. Now it's Office of Data

Innovation. So, it's I made it even

worse. Again, we've reformed our

procurement. We've reformed our civil

service system. Uh we have advanced more

Gen AI uh pilots than any other big

state in the country. We continue to

innovate in that space. But I didn't try

to do things to people. I tried to do

things with people. So, it didn't get

the kind of attention uh that running

around on stage with a you know uh uh I

[clears throat] don't know uh with uh

who was that guy. Yeah. Chainsaw with

with our Argentinian president or our

dictator and chief would have generated.

I'll give you a specific.

>> We've installed more green energy

projects this last year than any other

time in history. 7,000 megawws. We just

had the largest solar in Fresno County

$5 billion 2300 megawatt project.

Darden, the largest battery solar

project, one of the largest in the

world, done in record time because of

the new processes we've put in place. We

also did the same thing with

fasttracking uh around permits for an

above ground storage facility the first

in half a century in California. We're

doing the same with housing. 42 SE

reform bills I've signed infill housing

reforms, ADU reforms. We can get into

all that as it relates to single family

housing reforms, everything that you

have wrote and written about. And we

have moved to a degree. I don't know

that many states have. So, I'm

completely aligned with you in terms of

having to deliver. And I'll tell you, if

nothing else, Trump has, I think, woken

better wake our party up to that's what

people want to see. But for good, not

for destructive purposes. I want to move

to to Michael Savage. I think it is hard

for people who didn't grow up in the era

of Limba and Savage to sort of

understand what Savage culturally

represented and why it was so surprising

to see him on your show. So, how would

you describe who Savage was in his

heyday?

>> I mean, Savage was I mean, this guy was

at peak back in the day. Rush Limba and

Michael Savage dominating right-wing

radio. He was an outsider in the Bay

Area

>> in San Francisco. You talk about, you

know, someone who was, you know, who was

sitting there in the heart of the region

and attacking 24/7 the culture and the

community and the values. And remember

the modern MAGA movement, you could

trace back, you could deeply argue,

started with Michael Savage. That's why

we thought he was an important guest. If

I were running, I would run in a

campaign of borders, language, and

culture. Say, well, what do you stand

for, Mr. Savage? Borders, language, and

culture. The Republicans are having

meetings now what they should stand for.

You hear this? They're still trying to

determine what their motto is. Duh.

Language, borders, and culture. That was

his mantra for decades and decades. And

so for me that was I thought perhaps one

of the most interesting interviews is

sort of mind his consciousness of where

we are today.

>> And then what did you actually take away

from the conversation with him that you

thought was interesting?

>> Well, you know, his I think it's just

his history. I mean, he's a he's a big

environmentalist.

Um he's got a lot of deep opinions. um

very critical of the current

administration as it relates to

endangered species as it relates to

natural uh and working lands, as it

relates to animal rights more broadly

defined. He's got an interesting

progressive background that evolved or

devolved depending on your point of view

uh through his own experiences. Um and

uh and he's a family man. Unbelievable

relationship with his son who's

unbelievably successful interestingly uh

and his wife which I admire. I just

family.

>> You're really connecting Kirk and Savage

to to the fact that they're human

beings. I know they're human beings.

>> And I think it's

>> So you're talking to people on the right

who have a very different

>> Yeah. But I'm also talking about But

it's not about right or left. It's about

there's univer at the the one thing and

it's a great irony talking to me because

I'm fighting fire with fire and I'm

pushing back and I'm being criticized

for that by being very aggressive and

I'm not I'm not holding punches.

>> At the same time, I say this all the

time, divorce is not an option. We have

to live together and advance together

across our differences. And so I want to

find those areas. I want to find the

humanity. I want to find the love. I'll

use that word. We all need to be loved.

We all need to love. Savage's view is

that California is a kind of hellscape.

>> Yeah.

>> About 5 years ago, I had a heart attack.

Okay. Here in Marin County,

>> so I'm rushed to Marin General.

>> I have to wait online. It's filled with

illegal aliens. It's a perfect

>> geographical location for me, but

there's a point at which I will leave

this thing and that will be taxation

without representation. So Gavin, the

homeless thing is the turning point when

that man defecated outside the window.

That was the beginning of the end of San

Francisco for not only for me but for

the whole city.

>> And my point is not to have you uh agree

or even disagree with that. But when you

sit there and you listen to him and he

lays it out, which part of it do you

think there is something to respond to

here? Not the way he would respond to

it, but there is some set of problems

that from his perspective are visible.

Yeah.

>> That from your perspective are harder to

see. I mean, the affordability crisis.

He's 100% right.

>> The uh poster child of our failure as a

state is the issue of of of poverty

that's out on the streets and sidewalks

as it relates to encampments and

homelessness. But look, he loves our

state. It's why he's living in the

state, California. The vast majority of

these guys that attacked the state grew

up in the state, made their wealth in

the state, still have businesses in the

state. Elon Musk put his R&D

headquarters back, world headquarters

back in California. His AI company's in

California. SpaceX was launched in

California. Tesla exists because of

California. He's a billionaire because

of the state's regulatory posture. So

many of these folks that are attacking

the state all come from the state of

California. What they don't like is the

progressive tax. Tell me about it.

>> Yeah, you [clears throat] understand it.

[laughter] But it's the progressive t

they want to take their capital gains

someplace else, which I deeply

understand. It's homeless and housing

and transportation problems are

legendary. It's a mass exodus. The

California derangement syndrome is not

new is my long-winded point.

>> When I talk to people about you as a

leader of the Democratic party and

you're a leading voice, let's do call it

that for the moment.

>> For the moment, you what are you

suggesting? It won't be for long.

>> I read between the lines.

>> I'm not going to ask you seven different

ways of your run into 2028.

>> God bless you. Yeah.

>> Uh what I am going to ask you is this.

>> The big political issue of the day is

affordability.

>> Period. California on US News and World

Report on Wallet Hub. Look at all these

different rankings. It ranks 50th on

affordability. Yeah. These measures

combine housing costs and other measures

of cost of living.

>> Why? And what is the affordability

agenda that is credible coming from the

governor of California?

>> It's interesting. You wal also talks

about the happiest city index. Five of

the top 10.

>> Listen, man. I got tattoos and I got I

got redwoods tattooed on my arm. I

grieve every day I'm not in California.

You don't need to tell me it's a

>> in terms of taxes, which is interesting.

Wallet Hub comes out with their annual

survey on taxes, saying we're slightly

above average on taxes. Total mythology

there. It's the highest tax rate in the

country, but not the highest taxes

across the board when you add everything

in. That said, the affordability issue

in California is real. It's been the

original sin going back decades and

decades. Housing, period, full stop.

More things in more ways on more days

explains everything. It's the original

sin in California. Nimism. We haven't

gone out of our own way. We haven't

produced enough housing stock. It's econ

101. Supply demand. It's not very

complicated. And when I started as

governor, there was no housing agenda.

There was no homeless agenda. Was not

the responsibility role of the state. It

was assigned to cities and counties and

regional COC's. And we changed all that.

In fact, I put a marker down within the

first few days when I got into office by

suing some cities in my state. put 47 on

notice, sued Huntington Beach, have and

have changed radically our approach to

accountability, creating a housing

accountability unit, looked at state

excess land sites, which has unlocked

over 5,000 units, began a process of

working with carrots and sticks to move

from nimism to a yimus mindset, which I

think we have demonstrated in meaningful

ways, and substantive ways. 110,000

housing units were completed last year.

It's completely

completely underwhelming

and so we have more work to do.

>> Why is it so hard? Because you've wanted

to do this. You put a 3.5 million

housing production goal.

>> It was that was the aspirational goal

and then the the legal goal 2.5 million

by 2030. So under our re regional what

we call the arena goals and that is the

established legal fire and by the way

it's first time we had goal setting that

was this.

>> But you're not on track for either goal.

Not well no one is no one is but

>> across the country and that's by the way

that's a macro you got 1.2 2 million,

>> but other places are I mean, look, I I

spend because I'm a nerd a fair amount

of time looking at statistics on housing

starts in

>> Houston

having now a big downturn in terms of of

of costs because of some of the

overbuilding. But it's interesting,

>> right? Listen, I think of California

having a big downturn in rents because

over I would I think that would be a

welcome change of problem.

>> I get it. But no, no, we have to take

genuinely serious. I've seen how many

bills you've passed. I've covered a

bunch of them. What makes this so

>> you got 470 cities, you have 58

counties. I mentioned just the 101

jurisdictions in the cities and counties

just around the Bay Area. I haven't even

gotten to LA County. There's 88 cities,

88 leaders, COC's. I mean, everybody is

participatory in this and and and so

that's the challenge. It's that

labyrinth. By the way, uh these folks

aren't happy. League of Cities not

happy. Our county partners are not

happy. I mean, we are asserting

ourselves in ways that the state has

never asserted ourselves into local

planning decisions in order to break

down those barriers. And we've been

breaking down those barriers. What we

need is to break down the costs of

borrowing. It's the last piece that's

missing right now. I think we have

shifted the dialogue. We have won the

debate. We're on the other side of this.

And the proof point will be when we see

the borrowing costs red. So I think you

can think about what it takes to build

housing as having three buckets. One is

land use, zoning, permitting, etc. The

the sort of legal traps you have to run

in order to get started.

>> Y

>> then there's financing of construction,

interest rates, things like that.

>> And cost of construction, which is

related, but but has to do with the cost

of materials, labor, all the rest of it.

And as you say, I think in in a lot of

blue states, the fight on land use and

zoning is intellectually won. Whether or

not it's been totally policy one, that's

harder. But I do think that's one.

>> The financing

and the cost of construction, which by

the way, with Trump's tariffs and

deportations is getting worse on a bunch

of levels.

>> Tell me about those because I actually

think those are harder to talk about.

Well, and you didn't even bring up

productivity, which is down about 30%

since 1970 to 2020 in the housing

sector.

>> In the housing sector and and let's

establish situationally the tariffs

environment has impacted the cost of

goods. So, material supplies has gone

up. It's made it worse. Donald Trump,

the labor shortages are real. Today,

there was a Wall Street Journal article

showing 300 or 400 plus thousand uh uh

construction worker shortage and they

can't even get enough data center

workers uh to address some of the energy

needs for AI, etc. and that's been

exacerbated by the mass deportation

efforts etc. So those two things are

important but issue of productivity goes

to deeper questions now around can we

look at new styles of construction. Are

we going to promote at scale modular

housing prefab housing

>> is offsite you're building houses like

you would build a car and then

assembling them on site

>> and and it's also 3D printing which is

really interesting. And there's some

interesting companies in can uh in in

Texas. Uh they're actually working with

NASA uh in terms of some opportunities

there in terms of new materials. AI as

it relates to material space is also

interesting in relationship to this

conversation. So look, I do think we're

about to experience a completely

different shift on the productivity side

because of necessity, because of the

reality, because of the crisis of

affordability. And this holds a lot of

promise. It holds a lot of political

peril in the context of the politics

within labor and that has to be

accommodated and dealt with. By the way,

if there's a big preview for California,

my last year, it's in this space

legislatively to take it to the next

level. But we have to accommodate

because there's a lot of unions within

>> I want to slow down what you just said

here because I I know but just for

people who are not as into the modular

housing debate as you as you and I. So

right now building housing is you know

guys show up with hammers

>> same way they have been since the

beginning of time.

>> This is why productivity is down.

>> Yeah.

>> And modular which there's no place in

America that does a ton of off-site

manufactured housing. But in Sweden I

think more than 80% of single family

homes are now off-site modular or

off-site manufactured.

>> You can have modular build as many

places do uh in unionized factories,

>> right? So it doesn't have to be a non-un

industry but it still means fewer

builders

>> and it means which unions and which

different skills which trades

>> are part of that and therein lies this

is the issue we have to address

>> when you talk about address it right I I

think you're pointing towards there

being some

way that it can be addressed but on some

level uh it will mean fewer people

building on site unless we increase

housing production so much you have a

And that's the and the goal is to do

what we need to do which is the

abundance of gender actually addressing

the demand side of the equation. Uh so I

think we'll be fine for a decade or two

as we work out of this morass this mess

we've created not just in California but

all across this country in today's super

competitive business environment. The

edge goes to those who push harder, move

faster, and level up every tool in their

arsenal. T-Mobile knows all about that.

They're now the best network according

to the experts at UCLA Speed Test. And

they're using that network to launch

SuperMobile, the first and only business

plan to combine intelligent performance,

built-in security, and seamless

satellite coverage. That's your business

supercharged. Learn more at

supermobile.com. Seamless coverage with

compatible device in most outdoor areas

in the US where you can see the sky.

Best network based on analysis by UCLA

speed test intelligence data 125.

>> You had a hell of a conversation with

Steve Bannon.

Um, I thought I was talking to Bernie

Sanders for half of it. It it's

interesting. I mean it. I've had that

experience with him. What What did you

take from that? The the the sort of

strange horseshoe nature of the populism

that he espouses maybe a little bit more

when he's talking to people on the left,

but but that I think is authentic to

him.

>> I think it is authentic. I mean, he has

a point of view. He has a perspective.

>> Here's I think it's important and and

and this is why I think let's get back

to why President Trump won again. You

have basically workingass people in

middle class and particularly lower down

the chains. They've seen the bailouts on

Wall Street. They've seen the oligarchs

be made. They they don't think they have

agency in in a global, you know, global

supply chain. They think they're just a

cog in the machine that their voice is

not heard, right? They're kind of

dismissed culturally. They're considered

and I don't care if you're black,

Hispanic, or white workingass. It's not

a race thing. It's it's or ethnicity.

It's you're just dismissed. He's thought

things through in a deeper way than I

frankly understood. You know, we're so

quick to dismiss, oh, Steve Bannon, uh

trying to light democracy on fire and

January 6 and and the like. Uh and then

you get under the hood and he's making a

rational case for an industrial policy

that's worker centered. He's making a

rational case of critique and reflection

about the WTO and NAFTA. He's making a

reflective case that both parties, not

just the Republican party, but

Democratic party, was complicit in the

hollowing out of our infrastructure and

our manufacturing base. He's making the

case for progressive taxes. I stopped

him in the interview. I said, "You quite

literally made a more effective case for

California's progressive tax policies

than I or others have made." He was

arguing that Trump on the Big Beautiful

bill made a mistake. He should have

increased corporate taxes and increased

taxes on the 1% and lowered them for

working folks on the upper brackets. I

don't want to I don't want to see

extension. I want them to go back to the

old rates and they have to pay the old

rates. And then additionally, if they

can't help us get this under control,

I'm all for increasing uh taxes on the

they they will have a tax increase if

President Trump doesn't extend it, but

then I think we'll have another have

another tax increase. Had he done that,

Democratic party would be in real

trouble right now. If Trump listen, I've

had this experience interviewing and

then listening to Bannon. There are

moments where I'm like, if Trump

actually listened to this guy, the left

would be in real danger. Had he done

that,

>> he would have, I think,

>> created an enduring mega movement. I

don't think there is one after Trump. I

don't I think it's going to fray.

There's no chance JD could keep it

together. Certainly not Rubio or anybody

else. Without Trump, there's no

Trumpism. There's no ideological

framework. But there could have been. He

could have built the structure from a

policy framework. And Bannon, I think,

is the thought leader in that respect.

And I say thought leader, and I know

that offends a lot of liberal minds that

are offended by Bannon and don't want to

attach any thoughtfulness uh to uh what

he promotes. But I think we would be

wise to listen. And that's again there's

got to be some grace. Learn from people.

Success leaves clues. There's power of

emulation. And uh and you've got to get

out of your bubble literally and

figuratively. And you also have to find

humanity. You have to find decency in

other people. Uh for no other reason

that we're all exhausted, polarized,

traumatized. We're exhausted. This has

to end. We can't take this anymore. This

is code red in this country. Just the

humanity that we've lost. The sense of

purpose back to meaning. I That's why I

believe in national service should be

compulsory. That's why I believe in

patriotism. Not just from a party

perspective, but from a unifying

perspective. We have an opportunity. 250

years of this historic project of our

founding fathers to celebrate that sense

of idealism, this this extraordinary

project, 249 years. And I think that's

that's that's what I hope not just our

party does, but we as Americans can do

next year. Well, I watched the reaction

to a bunch of these conversations and

and the thing you know about having

conversations like that with people like

Bannon, like Kirk, like Savage is you

get a lot of frustration from your own

side saying, "Why are you treating them

with so much grace?"

>> Yeah, of course.

>> Why are you listening so openly to them

when they treat us?

>> Yeah.

>> Like this.

>> That's right.

How do you How did you How did you take

in?

>> I I I thought it totally fair

>> and and I was marginally hurt by it, but

it was completely fair. Look, if you

want to, you can go on cable and you can

watch the back and forth. You can watch

me on cable go back and forth. I'm happy

to get into that mode and I will do it.

I'm I take a backseat to no one on being

willing to engage and debate people.

I'll do it on a daily basis, but that's

not the point of the podcast. And so I'm

trying to create a different space and I

think it's important to have that space

as we find the way back together because

this again I I just I'm married in a big

Republican family. You know that and

some may not know that. Um this is not

it's not an academic exercise for me.

It's not about right. It's not about

left. It's not about red or blue. It's

about just the it's about the human

experience is what it's all about. And I

think that that it's all about is kind

of we've lost that in our politics.

>> I think of most of the things I've read

in newspapers this year, maybe the one

that sticks in my mind the most was in

the Wall Street Journal. Uh I apologize

to the the Times, but to read to read

these sentences in the journal was was

striking. The net worth held by the

top.1% of households in the US reached

$23.3

trillion

>> in the second quarter of this year. That

is up from $10.7 trillion a decade

earlier. The amount held by the bottom

50% increased to 4.2 trillion from 900

billion. So the top tenth of a percent

in this country has 23 plus trillion in

wealth. The bottom 50%

4.2 trillion. What does that kind of

wealth inequality which is prevalent in

California? A lot of those rich people

in California,

>> what does it do to a society? Well, I

mean, I I was quoting Plutarch yesterday

who warned the Athenians in I don't know

50 70 AD. Don't quote me. Uh he said the

imbalance between the rich and the poor

is the oldest 2,000 years ago. He said

this is the oldest and most fatal

ailment of all republics. That's what it

means. I mean, it's the end of I say

this all the time. You we've got to

democratize our economy to save our

democracy. This is back to code red. the

governor will tell you we need to we

redistribute the wealth.

>> Well, I mean, and it's so how do you

think about that?

>> Well, in many respects, that's what

progressive tax states do. I mean, you

have regressive tax states do the

opposite. Florida and Texas, by the way,

most of those are taker states.

Progressive states tend to be donor

states like California, states that are

actually producing more wealth for the

American people. You look at at a a

statement that came out about a year ago

from one analysis that showed that Texas

took $71.1 billion more from the federal

government than they provided the

federal government. California at that

same year provided $83.1

billion to the federal government. That

said, California's progressive tax rate

has been criticized, but foundationally

provides me, and you'll see it in my

January budget, the ability to expand

our unprecedented investments into child

care, expand our universal preschool

program, which we have fully implemented

in our after school for all and summer

school for all programs, which are

nationleading uh programs. And that is

part of a redistribution framework. Uh

that I think in many respects was the

model that Bannon was arguing

interestingly for.

>> But we fundamentally tax income not

wealth.

>> Yeah.

>> And difficult to tax wealth.

>> It is difficult to tax. It is not

impossible to tax wealth. I mean

>> we used to have a strong or a stronger

state tax in this country.

>> Yeah.

>> And now it's pretty toothless.

>> It's absurd.

>> And we live in an economy built on

assets.

>> Yeah. And I just don't know how you can

have an agenda for any kind of

democratization as you put it of the

economy that speaking at the national

level because there are are interstate

dynamics that would make a wealth tax at

the state level harder that doesn't

really begin to think about the point

you just made the key point at a

statebyst state. Yes, I understand that.

So from a national prism, uh this is a

conversation that we need to have an

honest conversation about this. But

we're in the how business. Again, this

entire conversation is not an abstract.

It's not an intellectual. I we're

practitioners. I'm a practitioner. I'm

dealing with realities cards that are

actually dealt. Uh and how

>> I just criticize people from sidelines.

>> It's much easier. God bless you, man.

Tell me about it.

>> Yeah. I mean, that's why on behalf of

the

>> That's why you want a podcast. I don't

want to be. Yeah. I'm I'm speaking on

behalf of Joe Biden and his legacy. It's

>> [laughter]

>> uh but but my point is to make this

point. I mean how do you mark tomarket?

How do you determine assets? How do you

determine the sort of

internationalization of ass? These are

I'm not saying these are impossible

things. I'm not making an excuse by

making a point. The big beautiful bill

was the big beautiful betrayal. I mean

this was a disastrous bill for our kids

and grandkids for atrio conversation for

those young kids. This transfer of

wealth this debt burden this debt bomb

that we're placing on them. what we've

done uh to the next generation is a

disgrace. And that's why Bannon was

right and Trump was wrong and the supine

Congress was wrong. And so we've got to

write that wrong as it relates to

reestablishing a progressive construct.

Whether or not we engage in a wealth

tax, by definition, this debate is going

to heat up because of the stat. We need

to have an honest conversation debate. I

know there is a lot of difficulty around

the implementation of something like

this. We both know that. Um, I guess

what I'm asking you is you're here

quoting Plutarch to me.

>> Yeah.

>> Is a society that has that level of

wealth inequality

a politically stable or economically

just

>> and that was the point he was making.

That's why I say if you don't

democratize the economy, you can't save

our democracy. That's where populism is

rising. Authoritarian tendencies,

fascist tendencies are asserting

themselves. Well, then it sounds like

you're saying whatever the structure of

it is, we're going to have to do

something that shifts the structure of

wealth in this country. It brings

>> by definition and I look, I I'm going to

defend our our progressive tax structure

in California. I'm going to defend it

because I think it's the right approach.

I absolutely reject the regressive tax

structures of states like Florida and

Texas. I reject the regressive nature of

the tax structures that were doubled

down on with the big beautiful betrayal.

Absolutely. So, no, I believe in that.

And I promoted, I practiced that.

>> I was listening to talk with Andrew

Alcin, my colleague at Dealbook, uh,

yesterday. And And you talked, you guys

talked a bit about wealth tax and

separately, you talked about baby bonds,

which have always been a proposal I like

a lot.

>> I don't like them. I've done them. I No,

we didn't. I mean, we did 3.4 million

kids entering kindergarten. We put aside

1.9 billion many years ago. It's

interesting. Not everybody signed up for

them, which is remarkable. Even if you

hand something to someone, doesn't mean

they'll necessarily take it, which is a

stubborn fact. But I love this idea.

What about a wealth tax or an estate tax

that simply funds universal basic

>> we're looking at universal we've been

playing around I mentioned yesterday the

mimum we've played around with grant

funding for UBI minimum income in we've

done grants in California at scale and

uh we have a lot of interesting pilots a

lot of feedback but we're also looking

at universal basic capital we're looking

at this notion of a sovereign wealth

framework Trump has talked about this

which is interesting I don't dismiss

this

>> yeah and he's taken cuts of companies

>> and he's taken we can get get into the

10% tithing or 15% tithing from AMD and

Nvidia and the 10% from uh obviously

Intel. But this the opportunities with

those baby bonds, those thousand baby

bonds presents

an entry point for that conversation

that I think is important. And I said it

yesterday, I'll say it to you. That's

hard for me to say. Thank you, Ted Cruz.

Uh but Cory Booker, to his credit, was

one more responsible than anyone as a

thought leader in this space.

>> Here's I think the difficulty on taxes

for Democrats.

people I mean polling on this is clear

including among many Republicans people

want higher taxes on the rich what they

don't necessarily believe is that

Democrats will spend that money well or

effectively that they'll put the money

into the vending machine and get

something out right you've talked a lot

about the California tax structure here

>> uh California ranks according to tax

foundation which is right leaning but

honest

>> second for tax collections per capita at

about $10,000 per person Florida it's

about 5,000 per person when I hear rich

people in California complain. They

don't so much complain, although they do

complain about the level of taxation,

but more about the feeling that when

they go back and forth, they don't see

the public services as so much better.

They don't see the public infrastructure

so much better. They can't ride the

train, right? It's about how do you

rebuild faith that if we do move to

significantly higher levels of taxation,

Nordic levels of taxation, that people

are going to get from that. I get what

they get is a $4.1 trillion economic

output built on the basis of a formula

as Freriedman would say for success with

a conveyor belt. Uh no Tom in this case.

>> Oh Tom I'm staying closer to home to see

what we're talking about some reverence

to to Tom. Uh we have a formula for

success. I mean California success is

not an accident. It's by design.

>> I mean we have 18% of the world's R&D.

We invest in that. Billions and billions

of those tax dollars go back into R&D

tax credits. the UC system. I mean, how

many more engineers, scientists, more

Nobel laureates do we need? We have

13,700 active pending active patents in

the UC system. Those ecosystems have

created these trillion dollar companies,

four trillion dollar companies, created

and minted these billionaires and that

are complaining about California. That's

the benefits that we have provided for

these companies have laid the foundation

for innovation and quantum and fusion

and robotics and space and the future

and dominating that space. We have $180

billion. It's the largest since Pat

Brown. $180 billion. It's build.ca.gov.

You can look it up. Transparent website

that shows the biggest investments in

capital and infrastructure in

California's history that is being

invested as we speak. We dominate in

manufacturing. 2.8% of manufacturing

advanced manufacturing is in place like

Florida. It's 13.9 in California. We

dominate in every critical category

>> of the nation's total total. Yeah. the

nation's total, but we're so we're

number one in every category. So, the

economic opportunities, the growth, the

energy, the daring, the creativity, all

of that is present in California. My

gosh. Uh we have more Fortune 500

companies than we've had in a decade in

California. We have more unicorn

companies we ever had. Look at the

venture capital that's going back into

the state. I mean, it's a remarkable

number one in two-way trade.

>> Number one, I've heard you do this

before.

>> It's not just doing it, but it's all

true. But what people would say that

what your critics on this would say is

that you're sitting on an on an oil

well, right? Silicon Valley was built,

it's an elomeration of of of talent and

>> But how was it built?

>> I agree with you, but it wasn't the last

5 years,

>> but it was built on these investments.

>> These conveyor belts, these these

programs and protocols wellestablished

that we haven't walked away from, we've

reinvigorated.

As a fellow Californian, one thing I I I

hear when I talk to you feel very shaped

to me by the culture specifically of

Northern California

>> and Northern California has become

Silicon Valley, San Francisco,

even compared to what it was 5 or 10

years ago now

as the epicenter of the global AI

revolution

that much more important.

>> Yeah.

And the culture of Silicon Valley has

changed. The politics of it have changed

very rapidly in this period.

When I go back now to San Francisco, I

feel this very strange

tension

of people racing headlong to invent

>> something that even they are not sure

[laughter]

it will be good, who it will be good

for. They hope

>> completely agree with that

>> but they all sometimes see seem like

servants of a thing they are bringing

into being more than Yeah.

>> You know they wouldn't they would not

tell you they understand how it's

working.

>> Yeah.

>> How are you I think AI is going to be a

big part of the next

>> turn of politics

>> dominant dominant

>> what is your before I get to anything

about regulation.

>> How do you feel

about AI? The way I think about AI is um

promise and peril both end because I

think what you said is spoton and I

spent a lot of times with with these

guys the next 3 to 5 years there's

almost universal belief people don't

know what they don't know but there

seems to be some consensus that 3 to 5

years agi super intelligence that we're

on the other side of the unknown that's

uh pretty alarming and so to your point

>> my timeline for superg is longer

>> years may be long on that but I'm you

know

>> but but general intelligence

>> interesting I talked to I talked to some

of the deep mind people they were they

were talking 36 months I don't want to

lay them out specifically um but people

associated with them not from deep mind

obviously the race everybody this bubble

everyone's participating uh in this race

all acknowledge the bubble that's being

built the capex that's been invested

across this country and what's happening

in terms of utility costs across the

country and data center and energy is

the one thing that will slow this down.

How nuclear fision or fusion nuclear

fusion is a big part of that

conversation as well. So, it's going to

shape more things in more ways on more

days in our politics. You're already

seeing the beginning, just the

beginning, I think, of job impacts um

but likely to get more pronounced and

perhaps exponentially so. So, Tech

Geniey's out of the bottle.

You got to deal with the cards that are

dealt. You can't stuff it back in. It's

a global race. our biggest competitor is

China. It's a race to super intelligence

and what that means or what it doesn't

mean. Um, and we have to navigate that

and I think we have to take

responsibility to thoughtfully regulate

it. And that's what California is

pursuing the first regulatory framework

in the nation SB53. that took me two

years to get right and land and we did

it with a lot of the competing parts uh

within the regulatory space meaning

those uh that see this as a dystopian

future those that want a light touch and

we've tried to find some balance in this

space but obviously the state of mind of

the president and guys from California

like David Sachs and others is to let it

rip and to try to vandalize and trip us

up from being able to do Right.

>> I don't think we really know what AI is

going to do to the job market or when or

to whom though,

>> right? I don't think it's clear enough

in the data yet.

>> No.

>> But I think a couple things are worth

assuming will happen. So, one that is

already happening is that the process of

looking for a job has become hellish.

You are

>> I may need to look one a year from now.

So, keep filling [clears throat]

more. I mean, I talked to people and

it's like you're sending endless resumes

to dozens of places. They're being read

by AI. Sometimes you're interviewing

with it's become very dehumanized and

dehumanizing, right? So, and and hard to

find a job and it's

>> it's just endless. Everybody's using AI

to apply. The AIS are reading the AI

applicant, right? It's a circular thing,

but it

>> what I've seen in human beings going

through it is a profound demoralization.

and leave the question of are you

actually going to see what I think will

first be job freezing

>> as places don't hire as much right

>> and you're not going to see a huge it's

not like it won't be like co where

everybody has to stay home all of a

sudden or half the people have to stay

home all of a sudden it's going to be

just a bit harder a bit harder it's

going to be a recession for the young

it's we're not good at handling things

where people are being affected

differentially

>> and the third piece I'll just add into

this uh mix is just the fear.

>> It's real.

>> How many people I know who are

reasonably how many people I know in

school who are reasonably afraid that

they'll be replaced by an AI that that

and they can they can work with the

systems now and they know that at many

things the systems are as good at it as

they are.

>> Yeah.

>> Right. A lot of a lot of jobs are not at

the frontier of creativity. You're doing

something somewhat wrote, somewhat

replicable, some somewhat learnable. And

that's what the middle class and most of

this economy is built on.

>> You got it.

>> And I just think that between the

economic and the psychological

destabilization of this.

I I think I am surprised how much people

know this coming. You can see it in

polling. People know it's coming and

politics seems

at sea.

>> Yeah. And that's what we're trying to

change in California. That's why we're

leading in this space. No other state is

doing more in this space. But let me

reinfor reinforce a few of your points

and then add one additional one. I

completely agree. Anything that gets

repeated gets replaced and AI has moved

out in the physical world. You can see

that physically in California with all

of not just the Whimos that are out

there. You can be seven deep in traffic

with seven cars with no drivers, but

also Zuk and others. You're seeing in

robotics now. You're seeing humanoid

robotics uh that are going to start

moving into place. You're seeing it

already exercised in number of

hospitality settings and in hotels and

hospitals uh that are starting to play

and iterate in this space and you're

seeing mass adoption particularly in

China and elsewhere. So this is real.

It's coming. It's coming fast. As it

relates to that anxiety, I would also

offer that it will also have a gender

component. You look at that gender

displacement in terms of some of those

jobs, those clerical jobs and those, you

know, parallegal jobs and like and the

impacts that will have on women as well.

So I think that's a dynamic we also need

to consider that gender dynamic as well

in this conversation. Um, look, I'm

having advanced conversations as I

mentioned earlier, not on UBI anymore,

but on universal bas basic capital and

looking at those issues back to the baby

bonds, looking at the prospects of mass

displacement, even if it's for a period

of time and on the other side, we have

abundance and how we address that

anxiety in real time, that fear. How do

we accommodate for it? How do we own a

responsibility to address it? And again,

I feel a disproportionate amount of

responsibility coming from California to

lead that conversation.

>> Let me flip something about the

California model, which is

California's success

part reflects the way that growth and

economic energy and activity have become

unexpectedly in the digital era more

concentrated.

And that has been amazing for

California, which as you say is a world

leader in technology and advanced

manufacturing and in all of these things

that are engines of of progress and and

and wealth right now.

It is in a broad sense somewhat

politically destabilizing

>> because so many places have ended up as

we were talking about at the beginning

>> more hollowed out not because of

California but because of these huge

returns to concentration and capital.

And so, you know, back in the '90s,

Democrats won rural and urban counties

at about the same rates, right? Not that

long ago. Now, Democrats dominate cities

really struggle in rural counties

in part because the people in those

county just feel left behind and unseen

by them. So, you're you're Gavin

Newsome, your former mayor of San

Francisco, you're governor of