California has always helped write America’s future. And we know the decisions we make, would be important at any time. But what we do today is even more consequential, because of what’s happening in our country…The country is watching us. The world is waiting on us. The future depends on us. And we will seize this moment. (Newsom 2019)
California in 2019 on the Cusp—Of What?
Every inaugural address has at least two tasks. The first is to set out the proverbial policy stall of the new administration (while hopefully putting some distance between the incoming and outgoing leadership). Second, these speeches should paint a picture of the new governor’s “vision”, if not in specific terms, at least in tenor and tone. Governor Newsom’s 2019 inaugural address was true to form on both counts as he sought to “renew the California Dream for a new generation” in an address aptly titled, A California for all. For Newsom, the first goal was more challenging given that this was the first Democrat-to-Democrat transition in over 130 years (see Chart C.1). Newsom therefore needed to renew the people’s faith in the idea that a “coast of dreams” was still possible, but without the benefit of following a governor of a different political hue. The length of his predecessor’s term left relatively little room for any ritual naming and blaming despite the relentlessness of issues facing California such as income disparity, homelessness, underperforming educational institutions, and uneven healthcare.
Yet, this context did help the governor frame the second task, which was to portray himself as the man with the ideas to manage California’s vast governmental machine. In a speech leaning toward a policy “to-do” list, he clearly aligned himself with the notion of the “Party of California”. This idea, popularized by the influential historian Kevin Starr, was not directly referenced by Newsom, but the content of his speech certainly included Starr’s core assertion that [California’s] “history and heritage, its environment, its economy and, above all, the well-being of its people - is worth imagining, worth struggling for; California represents a collective ideal connected to individual and social fulfillment. Everyone belongs to the Party of California. Everyone is welcome” (Starr 2003).
Originally written on the eve of Governor Schwarzenegger’s second inauguration and set out in an opinion piece for The Los Angeles Times, Starr’s idea of the Party of California and argument in favor of a “fusion” leader who would not govern as a Republican in an “ideological and fiercely partisan” way, became Schwarzenegger’s self-professed organizing principle (Schwarzenegger 2012). Today it’s clear that whatever the provenance, Starr’s ideal of a governor who could follow the “greats” (identified as Hiram Johnson, Earl Warren, Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan) and be guided by practical skills and functional leadership, is being given new life with Newsom’s declaration that the “mission of our Administration…will be the ‘California for all’” (Newsom 2019).
While most of Newsom’s speech called down the California Dream by framing and reframing a time-honored narrative of California’s history and peoples, its regular allusions to the world outside the state were a departure. Despite being a first-term governor, Newsom broke with a pattern that has held through a number of modern-day transitions, albeit more commonly between Democrat and Republican. Historically, topics that reference other countries, international institutions, or any other recognizably global perspective, only made it to an inaugural address in a governor’s second term, whatever the party (http://governors.library.ca.gov).
Returning to Governor Schwarzenegger, he was initially elected in the unusual circumstance of a recall, but only seriously referred to the rest of the world in his second inaugural address where he set out his case for California as a nation-state. Similarly (and perhaps more indicatively given it was across four terms in office) Governor Brown only made the world beyond California a main part of his speech the second time around – both times. Political scientists and observers often suggest that leaders on the eve of a second term feel a combination of freedom from party political or domestic pressure and a desire for a political legacy. However, in Newsom’s case, there is an argument that the more likely reason is that he is a young man in a hurry with something to prove on the national stage.
Many public figures and scholars refer to California as “exceptional”. Yet Governor Newsom’s approach suggests that the real innovation of his administration is in his assertion that the exceptionality of the state is not only needed by the rest of the country, but by the rest of the world. As he put it in the conclusion: “The eyes of the world are upon us. Now more than ever, America needs California. It needs the guiding light of our values and the progress they make possible. This is where America’s future is made. This is our charge. That is our calling” (Newsom 2019).
Heady stuff, but the real test of hubris is external recognition and the governor’s rhetoric did not fall short. Far from demurring from his assertion, observers added their own, some even grander, assessments. For example, Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle suggested that the new administration in Sacramento will be not “just a hub of the resistance against the president; it will be its own nation-state” (Garofoli 2019). Taylor Kate Brown, also of the San Francisco Chronicle, argued that Newsom’s early decisions to create a State Surgeon General, on prescription drugs and on Medi-Cal, were the kind of “large-scale ideas” that form the basis of nation-state positioning (Brown 2019). Joe Mathews even compared California to Taiwan, calling them both a “halfway country” that share the challenge of being a “younger sibling” in a big brother world (Mathews 2019). Finally, and returning to the “Party of California” theme, Miriam Pawal in the New York Times (and author of The Browns of California: The Family Dynasty That Transformed a State and Shaped a Nation) argued, “The Party of California is part spiritual commitment to the idea that there is something special about this place, part pragmatic bow to the reality of governing the world’s fifth largest economy, a vast, diverse nation-state” (Pawal 2018).
These examples are not necessarily significant on their own, but they do suggest a sea change. Few people probably recall Governor Davis’s comments in 1999 when, at a luncheon for Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, he declared, “For Mexico and California, a great nation and a great nation-state, our deepening relationship is not merely the product of diplomatic niceties…it is an economic necessity” (Smurr 2010). Later, when Governor Schwarzenegger used the term “nation-state” it still seemed a little too “Hollywood” and perhaps slightly awkward. Contrast those perceptions with the present day, when the idea of California as a “nation-state” – by whatever definition one might use – has become standard commentariat fare and almost an assumption of the daily business of the new Governor’s role and power.
This new understanding is nowhere more evident than in two of the Governor’s early initiatives – both given even more significance as they took place in the symbolically important “first 100 days”. The first was a trip to El Salvador. The second was the creation, by Executive Order N-08-19, of the position of a State of California Representative for International Affairs and Trade Development (emphasis added) to lead an interagency committee. The role was to be filled, and the committee led, by the first woman elected to the post of Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis (a former Ambassador to Hungary).
The innovation was not so much the fact of an international trip, but that its purpose was not trade or economic development, but a “fact-finding” investigation into the conditions and causes of immigration to California. Similarly, the move to create an interagency committee is not particularly radical or even new, but becomes significant when seen as a signal of the state’s intention to reach beyond economic interests and to potentially take policy positions in the much broader (and ill-defined) area of “international affairs” now included in the title.
The deeper question, and one that can only be answered with time, is what do these moves say about the Governor’s strategic goals? There are at least three possibilities. First, these steps could be a political/domestic defensive move to mark out and protect the governor’s position in terms of the state’s leadership on international issues. This seems possible given the (over?)reach of mayors such as LA’s Eric Garcetti who also created the new role of Deputy Mayor for International Affairs and appointed Nina Hachigian (another former ambassador) to the post in September 2017. Second, it could be early positioning for a future run at higher office. This is not an uncommon move from the California statehouse although, to date, not an overwhelmingly successful strategy. Third, and most relevant here, such a move could reflect a much broader development in subnational diplomacy and the shifting role of different entities with varying degrees of sovereignty on the global stage. The governor may seek a leadership role for California on as many fronts as possible, but the fact remains that the state of California is far from alone in terms of taking action on a growing range of issues and at levels that have been long considered the exclusive domain of national government actors.
Of course, it is also possible that all three of these interpretations are simultaneously part of the governor’s thinking. The test as to which option is the most accurate or successful will be whether these very public and symbolic actions are supported by the building of the necessary structures and coordinating mechanisms – a challenge that may require some careful planning and sharp conversations with colleagues at every level, both within and beyond the state.
This party-political overview of California in 2019 is simply a quick snapshot of the state of California in this moment and as useful background for a later discussion of a strategic frame and next steps. That said, this book will leave the explicitly political realm largely to others and focus mainly on the third option by arguing that California’s increasing action on the global stage is more than party rhetoric or the positioning of individual politicians. The assertion here is that the recent, clear, and necessary change in the state’s approach is the reflection of something much deeper in the entire system of states and a seismic shift in our understanding of sovereignty.
Further, the argument is that the world is not “waiting” for California as much as the state is one part, albeit an important one, of a much larger trend that portends profound implications for global governance and its diplomatic structures. The relationship between states and their subnational units is fundamentally shifting in not all, but in a large and growing number of instances. The different layers and players, all with vastly different understanding of both the theory and the practice of concepts such as sovereignty and statecraft, are undergoing massive change and California has a great deal to contribute – and to learn – in that evolutionary process.
Politicians and journalists often use the term “nation-state” to assert power and size or to frame comparisons. However, from a scholarly perspective, the power of this terminology in international relations more broadly, and diplomacy specifically, cannot be overstated. Indeed, the emerging truth of this claim and the evolution of California as a previously diffident, now wannabe nation-state (or region state, or even state-nation, as will be discussed below) are at the core of this investigation. Intentionally placed at the nexus of space and place, theory and practice, this book seeks to examine California’s claims to “globality” along with what is termed here as the “vertical axis” of sovereignty and as expressed through sovereignty’s necessary sister institution, diplomacy, albeit in a very broad form.
The State’s “Vertical Axis”
The idea of a “vertical dimension of foreign policy” for US state activity was used by Samuel Lu...