April was a turbulent month for California politics. For Democrats in particular, it was nothing short of a political nightmare. The party, which has long presented itself as a force for reform, revealed that it may not be so different from the entrenched establishment it has often accused of corruption.
At the center of the turmoil was the sexual assault scandal involving former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell. Once known as a fierce critic of President Donald Trump and a leading figure in Trump’s impeachment proceedings, Swalwell saw his political standing collapse almost overnight.
He had been one of the leading Democratic candidates in the California governor’s race, topping the polls among Democrats and, in some surveys, ranking first overall. Many had viewed him as a likely successor to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
But a series of sexual assault allegations abruptly ended his political future. At least four women came forward with claims. Allegations also emerged that Swalwell had used his power to pressure others and attempt to cover up the accusations.
The scandal was especially disappointing because Swalwell had built his political brand around criticizing the establishment and the abuse of power. Yet he now appeared to have benefited from that very same structure. His actions also stood in clear contradiction to the moral standards Democrats have long claimed to uphold.
In the end, Swalwell withdrew not only from the governor’s race but also from his seat in Congress, exiting the political stage altogether. The first to turn against him were members of his own party. Two fellow members of Congress who had served as co-chairs of his campaign quickly called for his resignation, and other prominent Democrats soon followed. Democratic gubernatorial candidates also launched fierce attacks against their former rival. It was, in every sense, a complete rejection of Swalwell.
But the episode also exposed another contradiction. Democratic officials who were quick to condemn a fallen colleague have been far more cautious when it comes to criticizing the policy failures of those currently in power.
That tendency is clear in the remarks of Democratic candidates running for California governor. Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmental activist, and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who have been among the top Democratic contenders, have avoided directly criticizing the Newsom administration’s policies. Instead, their assessments have largely stayed within the boundaries of “not perfect, but he did his best.”
During a televised debate on April 22, Steyer gave Newsom’s homelessness policy a B-minus, while Becerra gave it an A. By contrast, Republican candidates Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco gave the governor failing grades.
This cautious approach appears to be driven by political calculation. Given Newsom’s influence on the national political stage, it is understandable to some extent that candidates within his own party would hesitate to criticize him publicly. But from the perspective of voters, it becomes difficult to ignore the impression that Democrats apply one standard to some figures and a far more forgiving standard to others.
This pattern also seems to reflect early maneuvering around the party’s future leadership. The next presidential election is still three years away. Other potential Democratic contenders, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, could still emerge as serious national figures.
Even so, Democrats already appear reluctant to criticize one particular political figure. That kind of selective restraint looks like an attempt to avoid an uncomfortable truth.
California is not just another state. If it were a country, it would have the world’s fourth-largest economy, behind only the United States, China and Germany. Yet the “California exodus” is accelerating. Businesses, capital and residents are leaving the state, and political leaders likely know better than anyone why this is happening.
Ultimately, public trust in politicians comes from consistent standards. If Democrats are strict when a colleague falls but cautious when current leaders fail, their standards lose credibility.
Anyone who hopes to become California’s next governor should be guided not by the direction of political power, but by principle and judgment. What California needs now is not a politician who watches the winds of power, but one who is willing to speak uncomfortable truths.
