Republicans, and some Democrats, say Gavin Newsom is just an ambitious twit. Yes, he is ambitious. I’ve known him since the early 1990s and his drive—for precisely what, I didn’t know back then, but it was evident he was in high-gear pursuit of something—was astounding. He clearly was a young man in a hurry. By 2000, I thought I’d figured out what he was in pursuit of: the presidency of the United States. And I was right.
What’s wrong with ambition? Abraham Lincoln was a nakedly ambitious man. So was Theodore Roosevelt, and, after him, his distant cousin Franklin. Bill Clinton also was a young man in a hurry. As for Donald Trump, well, all his life he’s wanted to run everything, and if that’s not ambition, what is? In fact, you could argue that it’s impossible for anyone to be elected POTUS unless he’s aggressively ambitious. The same is true of movie stars: Could Timothee Chalamet be where he is if he hadn’t possessed ambition? How about tech titans? Athletes? Even kids in school. I was pretty ambitious in grade school to get the highest marks in my class (and I did).
I think what bothers some people when it comes to ambition is if it seems like the person is too ambitious. A little ambition is fine. Too much can seem vainglorious, an ego trip that implies the person thinks he’s better than everyone else. I, myself, never felt that way with Newsom. He was better than me, in many respects. Taller, more handsome, fabulous hair, well-connected, popular. Even back then, Gavin had charisma, that “it” factor you couldn’t define, but it was there in abundance. At the same time, Gavin was relatable and friendly, even to me, who wasn’t rich or powerful but simply liked being around this young, energetic man.
If he’s going to run for president in 2028—and it’s pretty obvious he will—Democrats are going to have to prefer him in the primaries first. Pete Buttigieg is also running. If I didn’t know and admire Gavin so much, I’d vote for Mayor Pete. I love the guy, and not just because he’s gay. In his composure and articulateness, in his cool, intellectual sense of humor, he reminds me of John F. Kennedy. I was 13 and 14 years old when JFK was running for president and he quickly became a hero of mine. When he campaigned once in The Bronx, I beelined to his hotel and actually met him. He was smart and canny, rich and handsome, famous and charismatic, but he seemed normal, a guy you could sit down with and, as they say, have a beer. I feel that way about Mayor Pete.
But I do know and admire Gavin. If I were to vote for Mayor Pete in a California primary, I’d feel a tremendous sense of betrayal toward Newsom. I’d be embarrassed to tell him I’d voted for his rival. Loyalty means a great deal to me, as it does to Newsom; when I once asked him why he still corresponded with me, he instantly replied, “Loyalty.”
I think Newsom and Mayor Pete have no serious disagreements on policy. One of the issues that matters most to me is gay rights, and both score equally on that. Gavin, of course, famously earned himself a place in gay history when he began marrying people in City Hall back in February, 2004. On the other hand, Mayor Pete is himself gay. How is a gay man to choose between them? Loyalty, for me, is the trump card (you’ll pardon the expression).
How do I balance my loathing of wokeness with my admiration for Newsom and Mayor Pete? By telling myself you never get everything you want in a politician. It’s always a compromise. You welcome the good, adjure the bad, and proceed with caution. Fortunately, Gavin has never been woke (unless you believe that marrying gays makes him automatically so). Gavin’s tough on crime, strongly pro-cop (look at everything he’s done for Oakland), against cash reparations, and—as we saw with his reaction about trans men in sports—even mildly reactionary. I know less about Mayor Pete’s beliefs, but he seems far from a raging woke, like Barbara Lee. When you’re a gay male in America, you learned a lot about life and human nature while you’re still young, and one thing I think Mayor Pete learned early on was to be fair—and that means to everyone, with respect to everything. It’s the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I realize some of my readers are Republicans, or Independents, who believe Donald Trump is doing a great job. As I’ve explained many times before, I might be more kindly disposed to his policies if he weren’t such an unmitigatedly mean, nasty person. But he is. I recoil from his personal values, such as they are. And although he won’t run for office again (I hope and assume), many other Republicans hopefuls have thrown away whatever moral fiber they may once have possessed, in exchange for power and wealth. That, too, is ambitious, but of a far coarser, more loathsome and horrible kind that Gavin or Mayor Pete exhibit.
Steve Heimoff