When Donald Trump victoriously walked into the White House in 2016, it was no surprise that California was left in dismay, as the state had backed Hillary Clinton. Trump left no stone unturned in demonstrating his dissatisfaction with California’s political stance, notably delaying necessary wildfire aid. His attempts to undermine state laws concerning offshore oil drilling and smog control further strained this relationship, all of which were begrudgingly accepted by the citizens of the Golden State.
Fast forward to today, Kamala Harris, a Californian representative in the White House, threatens Trump’s sirène call for a second term, emulating the rare comeback of President Grover Cleveland in 1888. This creates a heightened tension, as Trump and his familial confidants hint at reigniting their war on California. Presented with two cards, one continues Trump’s reign, while the other introduces former San Francisco district attorney, Kamala Harris, into the Presidential fray.
Kamala Harris, who served as the state attorney general and the successor to California Democrat Barbara Boxer in the Senate, offers a contrast to Trump’s governance model. A feat for Harris would promise California much more than just a native resident’s occupancy of the White House, it would radically change the policy landscape, which Trump has tried to mold into his vision.
Of particular concern for Californians is the fact that their electric taxpayers are currently loaning more than $1 billion to Pacific Gas & Electric Co., a bailout meant to extend the lifespan of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Generating Station beyond its predicted closure in 2030. The repayment of this sizable sum by the federal government is anything but assured under a Trump administration. However, if Harris were to take the reins, repayment would likely be forthcoming.
Harris would signal more progressive environmental policies contrary to Trump’s efforts to limit California’s authority over automotive smog. Policy differences aside, a Harris win might even lead to a revamped state leadership, perhaps seeing Governor Gavin Newsom take on a crucial role on the national stage, while Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis would also receive a significant boost.
From Trump’s corner, there’s been rumblings of promoting a national ban on abortions, which would strike a blow to California’s legalized abortion rights, as it would go against the wishes of its residents. Contrastingly, a Harris administration might use California’s law as a blueprint for other states to follow, should they choose to do so.
Trump has suggested he would be in agreement with state governments using invasive means like tracking pregnant women to preemptively block abortions, a stance which Harris would unequivocally reject. In this regard, there’s a clear contest between encompassing personal rights and authoritarian controls.
Pledging commitment to the environment throughout her career, such as during her tenure as California’s attorney general, Harris is likely to champion stronger federal environmental policies. This would starkly contrast Trump’s views as she could potentially establish a strong environmental unit within the Justice Department, thus solidifying California’s stringent conservation policies on a national level.
Trump’s priorities have notably leaned towards cutting welfare and other benefits essential to low-income Americans, including the vulnerable Californians. A Harris-run government would likely work towards reversing these policies, reinstating much-needed care for the less fortunate.
Trump has repeatedly touted his plan to extend the wall between California and Mexico. Harris’ stance on this controversial subject remains shrouded in mystery, although Republicans have tried to pin the ‘border czar’ tag on her. It should be specified that Joe Biden, in fact, tasked her with improving conditions in Latin America to curb illegal immigration.
Despite such claims, Harris’ efforts in this regard haven’t been commensurate in driving noticeable results. However, Harris trumped Trump in spending time in California during her tenure as senator and vice president, something that wasn’t a priority for Trump.
With this track record, should Harris maintain her connections with her home state while serving as President, she’d be the first President since Ronald Reagan to have an intimate understanding of California’s unique challenges. Against wagering on Trump’s second run, Californians are unmistakably holding their stakes high in the upcoming elections.
This anticipated election crystallizes the contrasting ideologies of Harris and Trump, setting the stage for consequential decision-making that could determine the prevailing political climate in California. Strikingly different in their approaches, this election offers a stark choice in leadership, a decision that California will have a direct say in for the first time since the era of Ronald Reagan.
Whether California will be used as a battleground for radically different futures or a vehicle to drive national policies grounded in Californian experiences, only time will tell. The contrasting visions of Trump and Harris highlight upcoming battles and potential policy shifts that will affect not only California, but the entire nation.
With the elections looming, California occupies an unsettled political space. Darkened by the shadow of Trump’s previous leadership, yet drawn to the optimism that Harris could present. With profound implications for their home state, Californians are left to decide between two starkly different ideological paths.
As a dramatic and consequential decision awaits the people of California, one thing is clear: this election cycle is going to be anything but predictable. The verdict will resonate far beyond the borders of California, establishing a roadmap for national policy orientation, shaping the future for millions of Americans.