"You called on Americans to stand up to Trump right now. And you even suggest that to not stand up to Trump is to be complicit. And I wonder what situation that puts you in."

"It seems like a potentially tricky one, right? I mean, you want protestors to be peaceful. You want those who commit violence to be prosecuted. You're now simultaneously asking people to fight back against Trump, presumably in places like L.A. but perhaps not just L.A. perhaps in Chicago, San Antonio, New York, on and on. Are those messages in conflict?"

Michael Barbaro confronts Gavin Newsom, at 00:18:04, in today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast (audio and transcript, at Podscribe, here).

Newsom does not answer the question asked. He says a bunch of things, e.g., "People care about their kids and grandkids, or dare I say, people care about the constitution of the United States and the rule of law."

And good for Barbaro. He follows up: "It just occurs to me that the protests in L.A. were peaceful until they weren't, and in calling for more, potentially, protests, doesn't that necessarily invite more opportunities for violence?"

Newsom almost gets feisty. He begins with sarcastic snark: "Well, I guess we can all just go home and just watch this whole thing, whole extraordinary, you know" — and then he doesn't finish the sentence. 

Maybe he was going to say "watch this whole extraordinary thing on TV" and then he doubted himself. Do people still watch TV? Should I say on TikTok??!

His voice softens, and then he sounds as though he's heard the plea of Rand Paul, who wants things to "be more highbrow and more of a intellectual discussion."

He says:

... you know, I said it, this endearing idea that our Founding Fathers, the best of Roman Republic and Greek democracy, co-equal branches of government, popular sovereignty, the the rule of law, completely erode. I, that's an option. I mean, that's a choice. I'm not gonna make that choice. And I was calling for people that may think more like me to say, don't make that choice. And he wants you to make that choice. That the reason he threatened the arrest, the reason he so aggressive wants to defund California is we punch above our weight. We're the fourth largest economy in the world. We continue to thrive despite him. And his entire theory of his case is contradicted by our success and our resilience. He doesn't like the resistance coming from California. He doesn't like the fact that we've sued him 24 times. He doesn't like the fact that I push back. You can't work with him. You can only work for him. I've tried to work with him. My gosh, I, I did during COVID. I continue to try, but it's challenging. And so I want to challenge people to express themselves in a peaceful way. And I we're seeing it across the country. It's not a novel theory to stand up and step up. It's a foundational constitutional theory that's been practiced for hundreds of years. And I don't want it to disappear.

But what are you going to do, after you "challenge people to express themselves in a peaceful way," when they express themselves in violence, and they are doing it, vividly, in front of your eyes. Are you saying you'll stand back and watch, or will you use the power of government to impose peace?

I think this is another one of those 20/80 issues. Government is responsible for stopping the violence. Don't get caught on the 20 side, Governor. Is it even 20% of the people who support allowing violent protests to rage on until they burn themselves out? It's probably less than 20, even in the cities that voted for the government that hesitates to act.