There’s something about California that has seemingly irked some people right from the historic days of the 2016 election where Hillary Clinton obtained a vote margin of nearly 3 million, contributing significantly towards a loss in the popular vote count for Trump. It seems as though Trump wasn’t exactly happy with California – the state that pushed forward this loss. As a response, Trump as president didn’t exactly jump to help California with a swift aid response when faced with horrifying wildfires; rather, he prolonged his reaction and acted only when pressed to it.
Trump’s resentment for California didn’t stop at delayed wildfire aid responses. He tirelessly pursued to dismantle California’s stringent smog control regulations – an apparent testament towards a seeming disdain for environmental concerns. In an attempt to undermine California’s autonomy, Trump tried overpowering its laws designed to limit offshore oil drilling – a direct assault on state sovereignty and environmental regulations.
Fast forward to the current times, it is Kamala Harris, another Californian, who’s become a roadblock in Trump’s journey towards a second term as president. If he is to win again, that would make him only the second U.S. president to recover from a reelection defeat and later retake the office, the first being Grover Cleveland in the 19th century.
It’s quite clear from Trump and his family statements that if he emerges victorious this fall, Californians should brace themselves for a revived assault on their policies and practices. In stark contrast stands Harris, the previous San Francisco district attorney, state attorney general, and successor to Barbara Boxer, a seasoned California Democrat in the Senate. Harris’s victory implies much more for California beyond just elevated traffic around Brentwood, Los Angeles – her likely Western White House.
The state’s electricity taxpayers are currently ‘loaning’ over a billion dollars to Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to extend the life of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Generating Station by a minimum of five years past its initial closure date of 2030. This money is supposed to be reimbursed by the federal government, which appears more plausible under a President Harris. A second shot at presidency for Trump could cast a doubt on this reimbursement.
Under a Trump administration, the federal government would likely reassert its bid to restrict or abolish California’s unique power over automotive smog, whereas Harris would advocate its preservation. It has also been suggested that a Harris administration may invite Governor Gavin Newsom to a cabinet role, causing a potential early ascension of Lt. Gov Eleni Kounalakis to the governor’s seat.
Meanwhile Trump and some of his former officials have implicitly shown that they would push towards a national prohibition on abortions, negating the abortion rights clause that California’s residents have inserted in their state Constitution. Harris, on the other hand, could potentially turn California’s law into a blueprint for other states to follow, if they so choose.
In a rather invasive proposal, Trump has expressed he would permit tracking of pregnant women by state governments to prevent them from seeking abortions. A striking contrast to this could be expected from a potential Harris administration that would rally against such an intrusive proposed practice.
As the state attorney general, Harris demonstrated a strong commitment to environmental causes, nurturing a potent environmental division committed to proactively tackling air and water pollution. A national attorney general appointed by Harris might emulate this approach within the Justice Department, providing robust support to California’s leading conservation policies.
If Trump’s previous tenure is any indicator, welfare cuts for America’s less fortunate, including countless Californians, seems likely. Harris is ideologically lined up towards the opposite end of this proposition, as she’d presumably strive for greater welfare benefits.
Trump, who’s made much show-and-tell about his border wall, promises to extend its reach along California’s threshold with Mexico. The stance of Harris regarding a border wall expansion remains ambiguous as Republicans often misquote her role as ‘border czar’ while in reality she was tasked with improving conditions in Latin America to combat illegal immigration.
Given Harris’s track record of frequently visiting California during her tenure as both senator and vice president, and Trump’s absence from the state, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to predict a deeper connect between Harris and California’s crises and policies. Such a relationship has not been seen since Ronald Reagan’s era.
It’s noteworthy that the 2024 election presents Californians with a choice more relevant than any time since Ronald Reagan. The state’s policies, lifestyle and future course hinge remarkably on whether Trump’s antagonism is allowed to return or Harris’ Californian insight is allowed to preside. The choice couldn’t be more stark.
As we dwell on the larger implications of the upcoming elections, it’s clear that the battle lines drawn in this 2024 race are roughly the same ones from the days of the Golden State’s battle with Trump in 2016. While not reiterated enough, the result would immensely shape the future, not just of California, but of the entire nation.