Connect with us

Politics

Commentary: How can Newsom stay relevant? Become the new FDR

Published

on

Commentary: How can Newsom stay relevant? Become the new FDR

Proposition 50 has passed, and with it goes the warm spotlight of never-ending press coverage that aspiring presidential contender Gavin Newsom has enjoyed. What’s an ambitious governor to do?

My vote? Take inspiration from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who not only pulled America through the Depression, but rebuilt trust in democracy with a truly big-tent government that offered concrete benefits to a wide and diverse swath of society.

It’s time to once again embrace the values — inclusiveness, equity, dignity for all — that too many Democrats have expeditiously dropped to appease MAGA.

Not only did FDR make good on helping the average person, he put a sign on it (literally — think of all those Work Projects Administration logos that still grace our manhole covers and sidewalks) to make sure everyone knew that big, bold government wasn’t the problem, but the solution — despite what rich men wanted the public to believe.

As he was sworn in for his second term (of four, take that President Trump!), FDR said he was “determined to make every American citizen the subject of his country’s interest and concern,” because the “test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

Advertisement

Roosevelt created jobs paid for by government; he created Social Security; he created a coalition that improbably managed to include both Black Americans everywhere and white Southerners, northern industrialists and rural farmers. In the end, he created a United States where people could try, fail and have the helping hand to get back up again — the real underpinning of the American dream.

The similarities between Roosevelt’s day and now aren’t perfect, but they share a shoe size. FDR took office in 1933, when the Great Depression was in full swing. Then, like now, right-wing authoritarianism was cuddled up with the oligarchs. Income inequality was undeniable (and worse, unemployment was around 25%) and daily life was just plain hard.

That discontent, then and now, led to political polarization as need sowed division, and leaders with selfish agendas channeled fear into anger and anger into power.

Like then, the public today is desperate for security, and unselfish, service leadership — not that of “economic royalists,” as FDR described them. He warned then, in words sadly timeless, that “new kingdoms” were being “built upon concentration of control over material things.”

“They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction,” FDR said when accepting the presidential nomination for the second time.

Advertisement

“We’re in a similar moment now,” said New Deal expert Eric Rauchway, a distinguished professor of history at UC Davis.

But Roosevelt wasn’t just fighting what was wrong, he pointed out. He “wanted to show people that he was going to not put things back the way they were, but actually make things better.”

Like then, America today isn’t just looking to overcome.

Despite the relentless focus on cost of living, there is also hunger for a return to fairness. Even cowed by our personal needs, there is still in most of us that belief that Ronald Reagan articulated well: We aspire to be the “shining city upon a hill … teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace.”

Washington, D.C., resident Sean Dunn distilled that sentiment for the modern moment recently, standing outside a courthouse after being found not guilty of a misdemeanor for throwing a turkey sandwich at an immigration officer.

Advertisement

“Every life matters, no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify,” Dunn said. “You have the right to live a life that is free.”

But America needs to pay the bills and affordability is fairly the top concern for many. Voters want a concrete plan for personal financial stability — like FDR offered with the New Deal — grounded in tangible benefits such as healthcare, housing, jobs and affordable Thanksgiving turkeys that do not require lining up at a food bank.

The Republicans understand only part of this complicated mix — the affordability angle. Though, like the robber barons of the Roaring ‘20s, MAGA elite are finding it increasingly difficult to dismantle government and strip the American people of their wealth while simultaneously pretending they care.

Trump made a big to-do about the price of Walmart’s Thanksgiving meal this year, about $40 to serve 10 people (though it comes with fewer items than last year, and mostly Walmart house brand instead of name brands).

Walmart “came out and they said Trump’s Thanksgiving dinner, same things, is 25% less than Biden’s,” he said. “But we just lost an election, they said, based on affordability.”

Advertisement

Billionaire-adjacent Vice President JD Vance summed up that Republican frustration on social media after Democrats won not just Proposition 50, but elections in New Jersey, Virginia and even Mississippi.

“We need to focus on the home front,” Vance said, using weirdly coded right-wing nationalist language. “We’re going to keep on working to make a decent life affordable in this country, and that’s the metric by which we’ll ultimately be judged in 2026 and beyond.”

Vance is partially right, but FDR ultimately succeeded because he understood that the stability of American democracy depends not just on paying the bills, but on equality and equity — of everyone having a fair shake at paying them.

Despite all the up-by-the-bootstraps rhetoric of our rich, the truth is healthy capitalist societies require “automatic stabilizers,” such as unemployment insurance, access to medical care and that Social Security FDR invented, said Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School and another expert on the New Deal.

Left or right, Republican or Democrat, Americans want to know that they won’t be left out in the cold, literally, if life deals them a bad hand.

Advertisement

Of course, Newsom isn’t president so all he can do is give us a vision of what that would look like, the way FDR did as governor of New York in the early years of the Great Depression, before moving to the Oval Office.

There’s the evergreen refrain that as governor Newsom should stay in his lane and focus on the state, instead of his ambitions. To which I say, that’s like shaking your fist at the rear of a bolting horse. Newsom is running for president like Secretariat for the Triple Crown. And since we do in fact need a president, why shouldn’t he?

Next is the equally tired, “Republicans can’t wait for him to run because everyone hates California. Wait until Newsom hits Iowa!” But regular people hate despair, poverty and Nazis far more than they hate California. And the people who actually hate California more than they hate despair, poverty and Nazis are never going to vote for any Democrat.

For once, thanks to MAGA’s fascination with California as the symbol of failure and evil, the Golden State is the perfect place to make an argument for a new vision of America, FDR-style. In fact, we already are.

At a time of increasing hunger in our country, California is one of a handful of states that provides no-questions-asked free school lunches to all children, a proven way to combat food insecurity.

Advertisement

With Trump not only destroying the scientific institutions that study and control environmental and health safety, California is setting its own standards to protect people and the planet.

California has fought to expand access to affordable healthcare; stop the military on our streets and push back against masked police; and it leads our country in livable wages, safety nets, social equality and opportunities for social mobility. The state is doing as much as one state can to offer a new deal to solve old problems.

What if Newsom built off those successes with plans for Day One executive orders? Expansion of trade apprenticeships into every high school? A pathway for “Dreamers” to become citizens?

How about an order requiring nonpartisan election maps? Or declaring firearm violence a public health emergency? Heck, I’d love an executive order releasing the Epstein files, which may be America’s most bipartisan issue.

But, Rauchway warns, Newsom needs to be more like FDR and “put a sign on it” when he puts values into action.

Advertisement

“That investment has to be conspicuous, positive and very clear where it came from,” he said.

We are not a nation of subtlety or patience.

If Newsom wants to stay relevant, he has to do more than fight against Trump. He needs to make all Americans believe he’s fighting for them as FDR did — loudly and boldly — and that if he wins, they will, too, on Day One.

Advertisement

Politics

Cause of death confirmed for Mitt Romney’s sister-in-law

Published

on

Cause of death confirmed for Mitt Romney’s sister-in-law

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This story discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please contact the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or 1-800-273-TALK (8255).

The death of former Sen. Mitt Romney’s sister-in-law has been confirmed to be a suicide, the Los Angeles County medical examiner’s office announced Tuesday.

Carrie Elizabeth Romney, 64, died of “blunt traumatic injuries” after plunging from a five-story parking garage in California in early October. She had been married to Mitt Romney’s older brother, George Scott Romney, 81, and the pair had been going through a months-long divorce.

“Our family is heartbroken by the loss of Carrie, who brought warmth and love to all our lives,” Mitt Romney said in a statement after Carrie’s death.

Advertisement

FETTERMAN’S BRUTALLY CANDID ACCOUNT OF BATTLING DEPRESSION, FEELING SUICIDAL, BEING THROWN OUT OF HIS HOUSE

Sen. Mitt Romney’s sister-in-law died in October. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

“We ask for privacy during this difficult time,” he added.

Carrie and George had been married since 2016. They had been separated since late May, and George filed a divorce petition in early June.

FLASHBACK: MITT ROMNEY MOCKED IN 2012 FOR SELF-DEPORTATION CONCEPT THAT HAS NOW BECOME A REALITY

Advertisement

George Scott Romney stands during the Pledge of Allegiance during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on August 30, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Mitt Romney served as a Utah senator until 2024, when he decided not to run for re-election. 

“I have spent my last 25 years in public service of one kind or another. At the end of another term, I’d be in my mid-eighties. Frankly, it’s time for a new generation of leaders. They’re the ones that need to make the decisions that will shape the world they will be living in,” Romney said at the time.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We face critical challenges — mounting national debt, climate change, and the ambitious authoritarians of Russia and China. Neither President Biden nor former President Trump are leading their party to confront them,” Romney said.

Advertisement

“It is a profound honor to serve Utah and the nation, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court poised to strike down Watergate-era campaign finance limits

Published

on

Supreme Court poised to strike down Watergate-era campaign finance limits

The Supreme Court’s conservatives signaled Tuesday they are likely to rule for Republicans and President Trump by throwing out a Watergate-era limit on campaign funding by political parties.

The court has repeatedly said campaign money is protected as free speech, and the new ruling could allow parties to support their candidate’s campaigns with help from wealthy donors.

For the second day in a row, Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down a law passed by Congress. And they appeared to have the support of most of the conservatives.

The only doubt arose over the question of whether the case was flawed because no current candidate was challenging the limits.

“The parties are very much weakened,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “This court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”

Advertisement

He was referring to rulings that upheld unlimited campaign spending by wealthy donors and so-called super PACs.

In the Citizens United case of 2010, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and four other conservatives struck down the long-standing limits on campaign spending, including by corporations and unions. They did so on the theory that such spending was “independent” of candidates and was protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.

They said the limits on contributions to candidates were not affected. Those limits could be justified because the danger of corruption where money bought political favors. This triggered a new era of ever-larger political spending but most of it was separate from the candidates and the parties.

Last year, billionaire Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to support Donald Trump’s campaign for reelection. He did so with money spent through political action committees, not directly to Trump or his campaign.

Meanwhile the campaign funding laws limit contributions to candidates to $3,500.

Advertisement

Lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointed out this trend and told the Supreme Court its decisions had “eroded” the basis for some of the remaining the 1970s limits on campaign funding.

At issue Tuesday were the limits on “coordinated party spending.” In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress added limits on campaign money that could be given to parties and used to fund their candidates. The current donation limit is $44,000, the lawyers said.

Washington attorney Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general during his first term, urged the court strike down these limits on grounds they are outdated and violate the freedom of speech.

“The theory is that they’re needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000 donation through the party to a particular candidate in exchange for official action,” he said.

If a big-money donor hopes to win a favor from a congressional candidate, the “would-be briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate’s favorite super PAC,” Francisco said.

Advertisement

The suit heard Tuesday was launched by then-Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and other Republican candidates, and it has continued in his role as vice president and possibly a presidential candidate in 2028.

Usually, the Justice Department defends federal laws, but in this instance, the Trump administration switched sides and joined the Republicans calling for the party spending limits to be struck down.

Precedents might have stood in the way.

In 2001, the Supreme Court had narrowly upheld these limits on the grounds that the party’s direct support was like a contribution, not independent spending. But the deputy solicitor general, Sarah Harris, told the justices Tuesday that the court’s recent decisions have “demolished” that precedent.

“Parties can’t corrupt candidates, and no evidence suggests donors launder bribes by co-opting parties’ coordinated spending with candidates,” she said.

Advertisement

Marc Elias, a Democratic attorney, joined the case in the support of the court limits. He said the outcome would have little to do with speech or campaign messages.

“I think we’re underselling the actual corruption” that could arise, he said. If an individual were to give $1 million to political party while that person has business matter before the House or Senate, he said, it’s plausible that could influence “a deciding or swing vote.”

The only apparent difficulty for the conservative justices arose over questions of procedure.

Washington attorney Roman Martinez was asked to defend the law, and he argued that neither Vance nor any other Republicans had legal standing to challenge the limits. Vance was not a current candidate, and he said the case should be dismissed for that reason.

Some legal observers noted that the limits on parties arose in response to evidence that huge campaign contributions to President Nixon’s reelection came from industry donors seeking government favors.

Advertisement

“Coordinated spending limits are one of the few remaining checks to curb the influence of wealthy special interests in our elections,” said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president for litigation at Common Cause. “If the Supreme Court dismantles them, party leaders and wealthy donors will be free to pour nearly unlimited money directly into federal campaigns, exactly the kind of corruption these rules were created to stop.”

Daniel I. Weiner, an elections law expert at the Brennan Center, said the justices were well aware of how striking down these limits could set the stage for further challenges.

“I was struck by how both sides had to acknowledge that this case has to be weighed not in isolation but as part of a decades-long push to strike down campaign finance rules,” he said. “Those other decisions have had many consequences the court itself failed to anticipate.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Trump Calls Europe ‘Decaying’ and ‘Weak’

Published

on

Video: Trump Calls Europe ‘Decaying’ and ‘Weak’

new video loaded: Trump Calls Europe ‘Decaying’ and ‘Weak’

transcript

transcript

Trump Calls Europe ‘Decaying’ and ‘Weak’

President Trump criticized his European counterparts over their defense and Ukraine policies during an interview with Politico. The president also suggested that it was time for President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to compromise in the cease-fire talks.

“Europe is not doing a good job in many ways. They’re not doing a good job.” “I want to ask you about that—” “They talk too much, and they’re not producing. But most European nations, they’re decaying. They’re decaying.” “You can imagine some leaders in Europe are a little freaked out by what your posture is. And European —” “Well they should be freaked out by what they’re doing to their countries. They’re destroying their countries and their people I like.” “Russia has the upper hand, and they always did. They’re much bigger. They’re much stronger in that sense. I give Ukraine a lot of — I give the people of Ukraine and the military of Ukraine tremendous credit for the bravery and for the fighting and all of that. But at some point, size will win, generally.” “Is Zelensky responsible for the stalled progress or what’s going on there?” “Well, he’s got to read the proposal. He hadn’t really. He hasn’t read it yet.” “The most recent draft.” “That’s as of yesterday. Maybe he’s read it over the night. It would be nice if he would read it. A lot of people are dying. He’s going to have to get on the ball and start accepting things. When you’re losing, cause he’s losing.”

Advertisement
President Trump criticized his European counterparts over their defense and Ukraine policies during an interview with Politico. The president also suggested that it was time for President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to compromise in the cease-fire talks.

By Chevaz Clarke

December 9, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending