The Atlantic Sharply Critiques Gavin Newsom’s Record. Then Stops Short

⏱️ 6 min read

What The Atlantic Just Admitted

This week, The Atlantic published a rare piece ($): a sharply critical look at Gavin Newsom’s record as governor and what it could mean for a possible 2028 presidential run. Marc Novicoff and Jonathan Chait, the authors, state clearly and in detail that California under Newsom has become a showcase for the Democratic Party’s most politically damaging policy instincts.

That fact alone makes the article stand out. For years, the same group of thinkers treated these now-problematic policies as either positive or at least as experiments worth trying. The Atlantic’s decision to say openly that these choices have made Newsom vulnerable is a long-overdue change.

But the article ultimately pulls its punches. More importantly, it rests on a premise that does not withstand scrutiny: the idea that Newsom has meaningfully moved to the political center.

Where The Critique Is Right—And Important

The Atlantic is correct to focus on Newsom’s record instead of his words. His recent shift in tone might help him in a Democratic primary, but it does not erase almost a decade of left-leaning results from his time as governor of the country’s largest blue state.

Affordability is the clearest example. California’s housing costs are among the highest in the country, with median home prices approaching seven figures. Construction remains slow, expensive, and burdened by regulation. Population decline is no longer theoretical; residents have been leaving the state since 2020, often citing the cost of living as the reason.

Homelessness has risen sharply during Newsom’s tenure and is no longer an abstract policy failure. It is a daily, visible feature of public life. As the article notes, Republicans will not need to invent attack ads. The footage already exists.

Where The Atlantic Still Pulls Its Punches

The article falls short by failing to address the causes. It treats our problems here in California as a string of mistakes instead of the expected result of a government that put ideology ahead of real-world results.

On immigration, the article rightly points out that giving Medicaid to people in the country illegally is very unpopular across the country. Still, it mostly treats this as a political problem rather than a policy mistake with real financial and social effects. The idea that these policies might weaken the rule of law or increase illegal immigration is only hinted at.

Education gets the same kind of coverage. The article calls California’s focus on equity in teaching and dropping standardized tests a mistake, but then quickly moves on. It does not say outright that these decisions lowered academic standards and hurt the students they were supposed to help. The difference between what is said and what is done is clear. While Newsom has questioned the fairness of letting biological males compete in girls’ sports in national interviews, he has still signed laws that keep this policy in place in California schools.

Even in climate policy, the criticism is mild. The article mentions California’s many gas taxes and regulations, but downplays their overall political impact. For voters, these policies are not just ideas—they feel them every time they buy gas.

The Myth Of A Substantive Pivot

The Atlantic also notes that Newsom has embraced limited housing reforms and acknowledged some failures. That matters politically. But what the article calls “reforms” largely preserve the same progressive framework that created the problem. Newsom is not promoting the traditional American path to homeownership through single-family housing. Instead, he favors dense, multistory construction layered with rent subsidies, affordability mandates, and prevailing-wage requirements—policies that raise costs and constrain supply.

More broadly, the article’s main point is that Newsom has moved to the center. But even the evidence in the article does not support this. What has changed is how Newsom talks, not how he governs.

Quiet retreats from controversial initiatives without clear reversals are not ideological evolution. They are a political adaptation. Voters are not being asked to evaluate a new agenda. They are being asked to forget an old one.

So, Does It Matter?

The Atlantic should be recognized for publishing a critique that many Democratic-leaning groups have avoided. Admitting that California’s policy record is a problem for a national candidate is an important move toward honesty.

But in the end, the article shows a deeper problem that it only partly addresses. The Democratic Party’s biggest state-level experiment put ideology ahead of results, and Gavin Newsom is closely tied to that. Changing the way he talks cannot undo years of decisions that changed California’s economy, culture, and daily life.

There is also a basic political problem that the article does not mention. It is hard to present yourself as a practical national moderate when your state is the most expensive place to live in the country. Now that Donald Trump is president of all 50 states, blaming Washington does not work anymore. California’s affordability crisis is Sacramento’s responsibility.

This is not just about messaging. It is about credibility. Those of us here in California know that there is a complete disconnect between Newsom’s spin on our state and the reality.